Math Doesn't Add Up for a Democrat-Run Senate

[Warham]

Here's a graph for you Lounge. I know you rock-types like flashy shows:

[LoungeMachine]

Here's a thought.

Raise the cap from 90K a year, to 120K a year.

Makes SS solvent an additional 40 years or so.

Besides, the REAL "crisis" is Medicare anyway.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
Here's a graph for you Lounge. I know you rock-types like flashy shows:

wow.

that looks so real.

I'm sold

[Warham]

Well, you cut and paste so much, you don't look up the facts...

[Warham]

Here's what Bush really said in Tampa...

We have a duty to make sure there's a retirement system for our children, too. And that's what I want to talk about. (Applause.) First of all, it's pretty interesting we're talking about Social Security, isn't it? It used to be called the third rail of American politics -- if you touched it, you would be shocked. (Laughter.) Sometimes shocked out of politics. (Laughter.) I campaigned on the issue because I thought it was important to do so. I also believe the role of a President is to confront problems -- not to pass them on to a future President, future Congress, or a future generation. (Applause.)

So the question you ask is, do we have a problem. Well, here it is. When Social Security was designed, the life expectancy was about 60 years old. In other words, you were expected to live that long. Today, life expectancy is 77 years old. In other words, people are living longer.

Secondly, there is a group of folks fixing to retire -- a big bulge of us. We're called the baby boomers. So not only are people living longer, but there's a whole bunch of people who are going to be living longer that are eligible for Social Security.

Thirdly, benefits are going up dramatically. So you've got a lot of people living longer, getting greater -- with greater benefits promised. And what this chart will show you here is that you got fewer people paying in. In 1950, 16 workers were paying to the system to support on beneficiary. That obviously makes a system more affordable than one in which only 3.3 people are paying per beneficiary. Fewer workers putting in money to pay for more workers who are living longer and getting more benefits -- that is a problem. And it's a problem defined by that chart which shows that in 2018, the Social Security system goes negative, more money going out to beneficiaries than coming in through payroll taxes. That's a fact. And every year thereafter, the gap grows wider.

So, to give you an example, in 2027, the system will be $200 billion short. In other words, they collect X amount of payroll taxes, but because baby boomers like me are living longer and have been promised greater benefits, we're $200 billion short that year -- that year. And the next year is bigger than $200 billion. In 3037 [sic}, it's like $300 billion. And finally in -- 2037, it's $300 billion. In 2042, it's bust. Those are the facts.

So, I see a problem. And I think it's time to address it square on. That's why I spent a great deal of time in the State of the Union. Now, this is not a problem for people who have retired or near retired. This is not a problem for people who are now on Social Security who were born before 1950. It is not a problem. I don't care what they tell you; I don't care what the brochures say. The Social Security trust is sound and solvent for people who are counting on the checks today and people are going to be counting on the checks who are near retired. It's just the way it is.

The problem exists for younger folks. The problem is younger folks are going to be coming up in a world where either you got to raise taxes dramatically, borrow significant amounts of money, slash government programs, slash benefits in order to make that red in that chart go away. And that's the dilemma we have right now. That's the problem those of us who are in Washington, D.C. must confront, because every year you wait, the problem becomes worse for our kids.

I think now is the time to take on the issue. And that's exactly what I intend to do. That's why I have been to five states since the State of the Union, and that's why I'm going to continue traveling our country, saying to the American people, here's the problem. We'll have somebody else describe it, as well. And the reason I believe that's important to do is because I think the American people actually have a lot to do with how Congress responds. You may not think that, but having been up there long enough to tell you how it works, you can make a difference in how people respond.

Once people recognize there's a little bit of denial in Washington -- they'll say there's not a problem. There's a fair number of people who say, it isn't a problem. If that's the prevailing view, nothing is going to happen, I fully recognize that. So step one is to say, we have a problem. And step two is to start coming up with a solution. And I have a responsibility to be involved with that, as well. It's one thing for a fellow to say, you've got a problem, you all go figure it out. That's not my style. My style is to say, we've got a problem, and we're going to figure it out. (Applause.)

All ideas are on the table except running up the payroll tax. And I don't care whether it's a Democrat idea, Republican idea, independent idea, I'm interested in ideas. And so I'm going to say, like I have been saying before to the United States Congress, bring them up. Let's see what you think we ought to do to solve the problem, and I'll work with you. This is not one of these moments where we're trying to gain political advantage. I think this has got to be a moment where people from both parties come together and say, here is a problem. For generations -- it's not a problem for just Republican youngsters, it's not a problem just for Democrat youngsters. It's a problem for every youngster coming up in America. And therefore, I want to work with members of the Congress. And so I said in my speech the other day, other people have had some good ideas; they're on the table. And if you want to lay one out, I promise you there won't be political retribution for having done so.

Now, I've got some of my own ideas. And I want to share one idea with you, and we've got some panelists here that think it's pretty good idea, too, and they're going to give you a different perspective, perhaps, than the one I give you.

The way the system works is that you write a check -- you don't write a check -- they take it out of your check, a payroll tax, and it immediately goes to pay somebody's benefit. That's the way it works. It's a pay-as-you-go system, and we'll discuss that in a minute. What I think you ought to do is be able to take some of the money you're paying in and set up what's called a personal retirement account. First of all, there's the -- there's a simple principle, and it's -- actually, it's your money that's going into the Social Security trust. You're working and you're paying the payroll taxes, and I think some of that money ought to go into a retirement account.

And why that is important is because with a conservative mix of stocks and bonds, you will be able to get -- your money will be able to get a better rate of return than the money inside the Social Security trust. And by getting a better rate of return inside the Social Security trust, your nest egg will grow big enough to help you when it comes time to retire. Not fully take care of all your retirement obligations, because you'll still have money in the Social Security trust, which you'll be able to receive at the appropriate time, but it will help complement the money. And that's important. And that's an important aspect of making sure that the promises made to the younger workers are more likely, or more closely to be delivered.

Secondly, I like the idea of promoting an ownership society. I think it makes sense to have people feel a stake in the future by owning something. I like the concept of people getting a quarterly statement about how their stocks and bonds are doing in their own personal account.

Thirdly, I like the idea of somebody being able to say, my money has grown to X; I'm not going to necessarily need it to retire, and I want to leave it to whomever I choose to leave it to. In other words, you're asset, your decision as to who ends up with the money that you have saved.

See, I think all these concepts are an important part of helping to strengthen Social Security for generations to come, the most important aspect of which, is that the money will earn a greater rate of return than that which is now being earned in the Social Security trust. So a dollar will be a lot bigger when it comes time to retire than a dollar that had been kept in the trust. That's called the compounding rate of interest.

Now, some of you are beginning to glaze over -- I understand. (Laughter.) Think about private property in an account that you can pass on to who you want, that earns a better return than the current system, and you'll end up with more money.

Now, there's some rules, and it's important for you to know the rules. One, you can't take your money that you set aside in the personal account and go to the race track. (Applause.) Or take it to the lottery. You can't do that. There will be a prescribed mix of conservative stocks and bonds into which you can invest, similar to the employee thrift plan at the federal government level. See, this already exists, by the way. I haven't invented this. Federal employees now get to do that. They get to take a portion of their money and put it in a conservative mix of stocks and bonds, five different programs they get to choose from, so they get a better rate and more money.

Secondly, you can't pull it all out when it comes time to your -- you can't take it all and then go to the track. (Laughter.) You're not allowed to do that. You can take it out -- withdraw it in an orderly fashion so as it complements your Social Security check. And those are important things for people to understand.

Thirdly, there are ways to make sure that you can invest in very safe certificates as you head into retirement. People are going to say, well, what happens if the stock market goes down the year I'm going to retire? Well, first of all, you've had your money in the market over an extended period of time. But if you're worried about that, there are ways to invest the money prior to retirement to help kind of shield from a cyclical market. What I'm telling you is these investment vehicles will be safe. There's all kinds of rhetoric about, well, you're not going to let people gamble their money. Well, if things are done in a conservative fashion, you will be able to achieve the objective of getting a better rate of return on your money and have more money available for you on retirement than if it had sat in the Social Security trust. In other words, that money will grow better.

It's very important for people to understand that there's going to be some tough decisions we have to make. And the purpose of personal accounts is not only more freedom, but it's to try to get your retirement nest egg close to that which has been promised. That's what we're talking about.

Now, that's one idea. And I'm willing to debate it, and campaign on it, and talk to people about it. And I expect the Congress to take it seriously, just like I'll take every idea that they put out seriously. This is going to require a joint effort to get the job done. And I'm looking forward to working with these members. I've got -- there's some sympathetic ears here, which I appreciate. Other members are watching very carefully. They're listening carefully. If you've got a concern about Social Security, you tell your people about it. Just let me remind you, if you're a senior, nothing changes. And if you're a youngster, I'd be knocking on the members of the Congress and the Senate's door to say, what are you going to do about that chart to make sure I can grow up in a -- (applause.)

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by academic punk


How much revenue is vanishing b/c of the abolishment of the inheritance tax? BILLIONS.

How many other tax breaks have the upper class received in a time when every member of this country should be called upon to sacrifice if not years of service to the military then at least a few more bucks to taxes?

Well said...for a Socialist.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by FORD
Yeah, keep blaming Clinton for Poppy's defense cut program.

Didn't the BCE just cut the military AGAIN, despite their insistence that we are at "war"??

Clinton took a moderate defense cut and made it a MASSIVE one. That's a damned fact....a fact you continually overlook.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
Please tell me that's not an actual quote.

This is the leader of the free world?

It is.

I've heard the audio

[hollywood5150]

Vote republican.........

does a little history check...........

you'll find alot of contradictions with the clintons..........

at least Bush sticks to his guns.......

GO GOP

after all isn't DAVE REPUBLICAN?????

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
Here's what Bush really said in Tampa...

No, that's what he READ from the screen WRITTEN by his handlers.

The quote I posted was his "response" to a real question from a real taxpayer.

Ever notice how DUMB he sounds when NOT getting his answers FED to him?

Of course you've never noticed.

[FORD]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Clinton took a moderate defense cut and made it a MASSIVE one. That's a damned fact....a fact you continually overlook.

The cuts Clinton made were mandated by the plan that Poppy Bush's administration laid out. And with the Soviet Union not existing, and no need for a huge military presence, with no threats against this country, the cuts were logical.

Of course Clinton didn't know that the BCE was creating America's next "enemy" behind his back.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Speaking in Tampa, FL President Bush tried to explain how he will save Social Security:




President Bush: “Because the—all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There’s a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those—changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be—or closer delivered to what has been promised.”



“Does that make any sense to you? It’s kind of muddled. Look, there’s a series of things that cause the—like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate—the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those—if that growth is affected, it will help on the red.”



“Okay, better? I’ll keep working on it.”

Whassamatta Warham? Don't like your president's answer to the question?

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by FORD
The cuts Clinton made were mandated by the plan that Poppy Bush's administration laid out. And with the Soviet Union not existing, and no need for a huge military presence, with no threats against this country, the cuts were logical.

Of course Clinton didn't know that the BCE was creating America's next "enemy" behind his back.

Logic. What a concept.

[Warham]

I'm still waiting for you to recant your abortion claims.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Logic. What a concept.

Except that it makes no damned sense. Mandate my ass.