From an editorial published April 7, 2005

Shameless Photo-Op

Imagine this: On his next trip to Japan, President Bush visits the vault at the Bank of Japan, where that country's $712 billion in United States government bonds is stored. There, as the cameras roll, he announces that the bonds, backed by the full faith and credit of the United States, are, in fact, worthless i.o.u.'s. He does the same thing when he visits China and so on around the world, until he has personally repudiated the entire $2 trillion of United States debt held by foreigners.

Mr. Bush rehearsed just that act on Tuesday, when he visited the office of the federal Bureau of Public Debt in Parkersburg, W.Va. He posed next to a file cabinet that holds the $1.7 trillion in Treasury securities that make up the Social Security trust fund. He tossed off a comment to the effect that the bonds were not "real assets." Later, in a speech at a nearby university, he said: "There is no trust fund. Just i.o.u.'s that I saw firsthand."

Social Security takes in more money than it needs to pay current beneficiaries, and the excess is invested in the Treasury securities that Mr. Bush was discussing. They carry the same legal and political obligations as all other forms of Treasury debt, every penny of which has always been paid in full and on time.

In his speech, Mr. Bush went on to acknowledge that future generations would have to make good on the debt. But the intended meaning of the photo-op was clear. In the hope of persuading people to privatize Social Security - a move that would only add to the growing debt burden for future generations - Mr. Bush wants Americans to believe that the trust fund is a joke. But if the trust fund is a joke, so is the full faith and credit of the United States.

Fortunately, the governments, institutions and individuals who hold United States debt can tell a publicity stunt from a policy statement. Still, casting aspersions on a basic obligation of the United States government is insulting and irresponsible.

George W. Bush. BLECH!

"Social Security takes in more money than it needs to pay current beneficiaries, and the excess is invested in the Treasury securities that Mr. Bush was discussing."

Hahafuckin Ha!

-- Modified on 4/7/2005 4:40:54 PM

nope

nope

According to the 2005 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old Age and Survivors Insurance and Disabiliyt Insurance Trust Funds, Bush is an idiot.  

Here’s a summary from the report on the Trust Fund that Bush says doesn’t exist:

“Total benefits paid in 2004 were $493 billion. Income was $658 billion, and assets held in special issue U.S. Treasury securities grew to $1.7 trillion.

The OASI and DI Trust Funds, individually and combined, are adequately financed over the next 10 years under the intermediate assumptions. The combined assets of the OASI and DI Trust Funds are projected to increase from $1,687 billion at the beginning of 2005, or 320 percent of annual expenditures, to $3,697 billion at the beginning of 2014, or 417 percent of annual expenditures in that year. Combined assets were projected in last year's report to rise to 325 percent of annual expenditures at the beginning of 2005, and 446 percent at the beginning of 2014.”

I read a recent article stating that Social Security is also benefiting from the contributions from undocumented workers using counterfeit documents for employment.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR05/lr4B1-2.html

However, it was President Clinton — not President Bush — who pointed out that: "These trust fund balances are available to finance future benefit payments … but only in a bookkeeping sense."

Clinton's fiscal year 2000 budget explained that trust fund assets are not "real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits." Rather, these funds are "claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures."

Thus, in less than 15 years, the federal government will have to begin finding billions of dollars to continue paying benefits — by cutting benefits, raising taxes or borrowing even more money. Overall, Social Security's unfunded liabilities total nearly $12 trillion, and the longer we wait, the worse it gets. Estimates suggest that each year that we wait to reform Social Security costs between $150 billion and $600 billion more.

http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/articles/tanner-050201.html

bk



-- Modified on 4/7/2005 9:01:15 PM

Not the same article(link0, but verifies my comment.  My request for "real" numbers was because I thought you might have something to contribute beyond your "moronic editorializing" comment.    

-- Modified on 4/7/2005 11:14:46 PM

Why not just blame Clinton for everything?

What a pathetic bunch of bullshit-spewing bastards.

Spew on that.

BK

u r a doosh bag if you think iou's are assets.

doosh

Then I guess all accountants are douche bags (or doosh in Bushspeak) because any accountant will tell you that accounts receivable (ie, IOUs) are always accounted for as an asset, not a liability.  But given W's history as managing money (ran three companies into the ground, turned a Texas state surplus into a deficit and turned America's largest surplus into history's largest deficits) it's not surprising that he doesn't understand basic accounting.

So why are you continuing to spew hate toward Clinton when it is Bush who basically said US IOUs are worthless?

Oh I almost forgot. Blind loyalty to Bush prevents his thralls from looking at his faults.

Come back when you grow up my little friend.  You should've stopped posting with your "nope" reply.

i merely point out that clinton called these same instruments the same thing bush calles them today and now bush is a ratfink liar and you call that "SPEWING HATE"??????????????

WTF???? is wrong with you and your fetish with clifton that anytime his name is mentioned you break out the kneepads and come to his defense and everyone is "SPEWING HATE"??????????

being a doctor, maybe gonzo can help you with your meds...

BTW, how is the Rove-esque smear campaign on Bill Cosby coming along?????

don't want anyone getting outta poverty without paying JJ and AS his fee now do we?


-- Modified on 4/9/2005 4:36:18 PM

First of all, my prescription for Ms Demeanor would be a 1/2 tab of Cialis followed 4 hours later by a (minimum) two hour session with Demeanors politically liberal-minded provider of choice.

Secondly, BK... I've tried to find some data to corroborate the $12 trillion claim in the CATO article you provided, but I can't. Do you know of any other sources that can provide charts and projection data to confirm this? Not going to dismiss it without proper research. But I am reticent to accept it at face value, considering the source.

Thirdly, guess what!?! Yes its true Clinton did, and still does argue in favor of modifying the current structure of Social Security. Matter of fact, Dubya himself has been sounding out Clintons thoughts on that, as well as Foreign Policy. Let the Clinton haters chew on that one for a bit (link to news article provided below)

I think where the biggest differences are between the Clintonian approach versus the Bush approach is in the mechanics each sees as the best way to do it, with each
falling back on standard party mechanics (Dems tax and spend, GOP borrows and spends). I'm not enough of an economics Maven to really break it down but "The Answer" has shown himself to be quite knowledgeable in that arena, and maybe he can toss out a tidbit or two to explain the PRACTICAL difference between the two.

Now, as a progressive minded rational-yet-liberal thinker, (yes Geezer, there really ARE a few of us left!) *I* believe that Social Security should be less of a primal issue at this time. The system is definitely dysfunctional, and must be addressed, but I see Medicare as being far more critically in need of attention.

The problem with social Security can be explained very simply: In the late 40's, there were over 50 people contributing to
Social Security for every senior citizen receiving benefits.
Today, with advances in medicine that have served to increase our projected lifespans, as well as the Baby Boomers hitting  Retirement age, that number has shrunk lopsidedly to a mere 3 contributors per recipient and continues to shrink as our population dynamics are altered. My feeling is that a simple tweak of Social Security such as extending the retirement age, and lifting the revenue ceiling would suffice to prolong SSI long enough for it to be properly addressed. I don't understand how some can see that as a tax increase, but to my understanding, that is one of the primary objections.

The problems with Medicare on the other hand, are far more complex and could easily undermine elements of our society if not addressed promptly and properly. But thats a topic worthy of its own thread and dialog, and I just noticed the time. Tee time in twenty minutes, and I'm not drunk enough to stroke my putter yet. FORE!!!!!

BTW - Hey BK, I liked what you said about me before you modified your original post! lol

You can attack the NYT, the person who posted the info and the man on the moon, but you cannot disput a single assertion in what he wrote. Your remark is another politically and mentally immature smoke screen that is suppose to deflect from answering the issue.

Karl Rover, is that you?

down the shithole and all people like you can see is red and blue.

IOW, you're one of em'