The State of the Union address

Ghoulish Delight · 02-03-2005, 01:50 PM

And, actually, if it were managed as designed from the start, it should have worked with next to zero change. Unfortunately, a LONG time ago, the money started being diverted to pay for other government programs, so it stopped being self sustaining. In the long run, it shouldn't matter what the current ratio of workers to retires is. During the boomers' working years, there should have been a huge surplus that would have gotten us through the bommers' retirement years. However, it was mismanaged. What needs to be done is some ship-righting. Do a little work to get things back on even keel, STOP using the money for anything other than sustaining the system, and the system should then be able to sustain itself into the future.

It's been 70 years. With no change, at full benefits, the system will last for another 40 years. Hardly cause for mass panic and major change. Some small tweaks to shore things up, life goes on. But, of course, Bush can do nothing without resorting to base scare tactics, can he?

And may I just laugh hardily at this line from the transcript?

Quote:

America's prosperity requires restraining the spending appetite of the federal government.

Bwahahahah, oh man, that's a good one.

Motorboat Cruiser · 02-03-2005, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

But, of course, Bush can do nothing without resorting to base scare tactics, can he?

Nor can Cheney.

Quote:

President Bush and Vice President Cheney have told audiences that Social Security faces an $11 trillion shortfall if nothing is done to fix the current system. But they fail to mention that this is over the course of the “infinite future." Over the next 75 years -- still practically a lifetime -- the shortfall is projected to be $3.7 trillion.

The "infinite" projection is one that the American Academy of Actuaries says is likely to mislead the public into thinking the system "is in far worse financial condition than is actually indicated," and therefore should not be used to explain the long-term outlook.

Source: factcheck.org