Bill Clinton said the same thing Bush is now saying about Social Security

[CaptainHook]

(EXCERPT) PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON'S ADDRESS BEFORE A JOINT SESSION OF THE CONGRESS ON THE STATE OF THE UNION (EXCERPT)

January 19, 1999

http://www.c-span.org/executive/tran...dmin&year=1999

........With the number of elderly Americans set to double by 2030, the baby boom will become a senior boom. So first, and above all, we must save Social Security for the 21st century.
Early in this century, being old meant being poor. When President Roosevelt created Social Security, thousands wrote to thank him for eliminating what one woman called "the stark terror of penniless, helpless old age." Even today, without Social Security, half our Nation's elderly would be forced into poverty.
Today, Social Security is strong. But by 2013, payroll taxes will no longer be sufficient to cover monthly payments. By 2032, the Trust Fund will be exhausted and Social Security will be unable to pay the full benefits older Americans have been promised.
The best way to keep Social Security a rock-solid guarantee is not to make drastic cuts in benefits, not to raise payroll tax rates, not to drain resources from Social Security in the name of saving it. Instead, I propose that we make the historic decision to invest the surplus to save Social Security.
Specifically, I propose that we commit 60 percent of the budget surplus for the next 15 years to Social Security, investing a small portion in the private sector, just as any private or State Government pension would do. This will earn a higher return and keep Social Security sound for 55 years.
But we must aim higher. We should put Social Security on a sound footing for the next 75 years. We should reduce poverty among elderly women, who are nearly twice as likely to be poor as our other seniors. And we should eliminate the limits on what seniors on Social Security can earn.
Now, these changes will require difficult but fully achievable choices over and above the dedication of the surplus. They must be made on a bipartisan basis. They should be made this year. So let me say to you tonight, I reach out my hand to all of you in both Houses, in both parties, and ask that we join together in saying to the American people: We will save Social Security now.
Now, last year we wisely reserved all of the surplus until we knew what it would take to save Social Security. Again, I say, we shouldn't spend any of it, not any of it, until after Social Security is truly saved.......

[Nbadan]

I propose that we make the historic decision to invest the surplus to save Social Security.

If there was still a surplus, even I would agree with this 'alleged' Clinton statement, but there is no surplus. The Republicans have spend it all with tax cuts, a costly health plan, and military spending.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

Bill is one smart man who puts Dubya to shame.

If Duyba had half of what Bill has the social security reform would already have been done.

[scott]

If Duyba had half of what Bill has the social security reform would already have been done.

Then why couldn't Bill get anything done?

[Bandit2981]

republican congress?

[Nbadan]

republican congress?

I think that had a lot to do with it. Whenever the Clinton Administration proposed anything, the Republican controlled legislature, and good ole Newt, would play the 'Contract with America' card? Anyone remember that? Congress mandated yearly balanced budget? Try to tell that to W and the NeoCons.

The current Republican-controlled congress has let its cons uents down by not reigning in big government spending. It was much easier for conservative political candidates when the Republicans weren't running Washington. They could then run as the political outsider who was there to reform Washington and cut down big government spending. However, now that the Conservatives control Washington, their objective has changed to 'bring home the bacon'. If they don't get those pet projects passed, or find a way to pay for costly cons uent needs, they're out. So most Conservatives add their projects as riders to national security and Iraq funding bills.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

, Dubya has a republican congress and still can't get done.
Just goes to prove that not all republicans buy Dubya's BS..only when it helps them get re-elected.

[scott]

Just goes to prove that not all republicans buy Dubya's BS..only when it helps them get re-elected.

Now that is something I can buy. However, one of the few things I'm willing to give Bush credit for is wanting to reform SS and furthermore pushing it away from inefficient government control to the private sector (which by way of compe ion will always outperform the government). Maybe Bush's plan isn't the best - but it is better than the Democrat's plan to continue feeding a dying giant. Republican congressmen aren't doing any better though, as they don't support the plan enough to get it passed either.

[exstatic]

If I thought that Bush actually wanted to save SS, and it wouldn't require borrowing a trillion plus to set up the accounts, and I weren't so cynical that he just wants the injection of capital into the market to hide his horrible fiscal policy, I might be for privatized SS.

[scott]

If I thought that Bush actually wanted to save SS, and it wouldn't require borrowing a trillion plus to set up the accounts,

You've been drinking too much from the Democrat kool-aid. Bush hasn't outlined any specific plan, let alone one we can estimate the price of at $1 trillion.

and I weren't so cynical that he just wants the injection of capital into the market to hide his horrible fiscal policy, I might be for privatized SS.

Injecting money into the markets can hide his fiscal policy about as well as it could hide the war in Iraq... that is, not at all. So don't worry about that little nuggest of conspiritorial nonsense.

Aside from an exaggerated number not based on any form of reality and a skepticism borne by irrationality, you basically just said you aren't for privitized SS just because Bush is the one pushing it.

If that is a true statement, then your at ude is part of the destructive political environment we live in today.

[exstatic]

Well, As you know, the money for the SS benefits that you or I may draw will be input by current and future workers. It doesn't exist yet, at least in part. To set up privatized accounts money will need to be borrowed, and I did hear a figure of a trillion or more. Also, partially privatized accounts don't equal a private system. There will still be a SS administration and it will still be a government en y. So, essentially, you'd have borrowed money going into semi-private accounts still controlled by a government en y that will artificially inflate the stock market to make the GOP look like they have a little less egg on their faces. No thanks. If that makes me

part of the problem

, then I am.

[scott]

and I did hear a figure of a trillion or more

Where did you hear such a figure? Can you provide a link?

set up privatized accounts money will need to be borrowed

Maybe, maybe not. The President has laid out a plan for the privitization, so to make this assumption is premature. And what do you call "borrowing"? If the President established a plan that was to begin once either a balanced budget or surplus returned (which could very well be never) then you may not borrowing. Or, a bidding process could occur in which firms compete for the right manage such accounts, and thereby generate revenue for themselves. (Yes, there would have to be profit to be made in this endevor from the private side. Under a compe ive environment, the benefits you would get in the private system after the company takes their cut will still beat anything an inefficient government can generate).

Also, partially privatized accounts don't equal a private system. There will still be a SS administration and it will still be a government en y.

That is correct, and that is one of the flaws I personally see in the proposal. I would like to see full privitization. But then people would just about Bush is gutting the SS administration and cutting Gov't jobs.

that will artificially inflate the stock market to make the GOP look like they have a little less egg on their faces.

There is nothing "artificial" about increased supply of funding (increased demand for investments) pushing up the stock market. In fact, that is the completely natural way the stock market goes up! Do you think stock prices just move by themselves. It is a supply/demand dynamic.

By taking money that the government currently takes from you to spend on other things and create massive future liabilities and shifting it to a real investment - that isn't artificially inflating anything... it is using resources more efficiently.