So, if we get off this "what the definition of is, is" kick and get back to the original question of Bush's potential lie in the State of the Union speech giving in 2005, we will find the direct quote from Bush:
"One of America's most important institutions -- a symbol of the trust between generations -- is also in need of wise and effective reform. Social Security was a great moral success of the 20th century, and we must honor its great purposes in this new century. (Applause.) The system, however, on its current path, is headed toward bankruptcy. And so we must join together to strengthen and save Social Security. (Applause.)
Today, more than 45 million Americans receive Social Security benefits, and millions more are nearing retirement -- and for them the system is sound and fiscally strong. I have a message for every American who is 55 or older: Do not let anyone mislead you; for you, the Social Security system will not change in any way. (Applause.) For younger workers, the Social Security system has serious problems that will grow worse with time. Social Security was created decades ago, for a very different era. In those days, people did not live as long. Benefits were much lower than they are today. And a half-century ago, about sixteen workers paid into the system for each person drawing benefits.
Our society has changed in ways the founders of Social Security could not have foreseen. In today's world, people are living longer and, therefore, drawing benefits longer. And those benefits are scheduled to rise dramatically over the next few decades. And instead of sixteen workers paying in for every beneficiary, right now it's only about three workers. And over the next few decades that number will fall to just two workers per beneficiary. With each passing year, fewer workers are paying ever-higher benefits to an ever-larger number of retirees.
So here is the result: Thirteen years from now, in 2018, Social Security will be paying out more than it takes in. And every year afterward will bring a new shortfall, bigger than the year before. For example, in the year 2027, the government will somehow have to come up with an extra $200 billion to keep the system afloat -- and by 2033, the annual shortfall would be more than $300 billion. By the year 2042, the entire system would be exhausted and bankrupt. If steps are not taken to avert that outcome, the only solutions would be dramatically higher taxes, massive new borrowing, or sudden and severe cuts in Social Security benefits or other government programs.
I recognize that 2018 and 2042 may seem a long way off. But those dates are not so distant, as any parent will tell you. If you have a five-year-old, you're already concerned about how you'll pay for college tuition 13 years down the road. If you've got children in their 20s, as some of us do, the idea of Social Security collapsing before they retire does not seem like a small matter. And it should not be a small matter to the United States Congress. (Applause.) You and I share a responsibility. We must pass reforms that solve the financial problems of Social Security once and for all.
Fixing Social Security permanently will require an open, candid review of the options. Some have suggested limiting benefits for wealthy retirees. Former Congressman Tim Penny has raised the possibility of indexing benefits to prices rather than wages. During the 1990s, my predecessor, President Clinton, spoke of increasing the retirement age. Former Senator John Breaux suggested discouraging early collection of Social Security benefits. The late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan recommended changing the way benefits are calculated. All these ideas are on the table."
and the origninal question was:
Quote:
Originally posted by oldsam
I posted several examples. Nobody addressed them. This is the easiest one to verify.
In State Of The Union Speech Bush said: "By the year 2042, the entire [social security] system would be exhausted and bankrupt."...Is this Bush quote true or untrue?
|
The answer to Sam's question is irrelevent to the purpose of the thread. The purspose of the thread is to determine a
LIE, not determine whether a statement is true or not. Here, taken in context, Bush was attempting to get the point across of the importance of Social Security reform. This point is not a lie, but rather, an important point to make given the rate of mortality and the rate of income coming into the Social Security fund.
I think this particular proposed lie is dead and we should move on to the next proposed lie, if there is one.
Now, my personal opinion, which only "fact" is that "I believe it", is the following:
The sad part of this thread, and the point I think was trying to be made by starting this thread is that there has been so many accusations that Bush has lied, but no supporting facts. I think this thread has shown that of all the accusations, there has been only one that can even be argued as a lie, which I believe at most is only an opinion that is well supported by data available to him at that time. The fact of the matter is, in my view, after reviewing this thread, is that Bush is not this pathological lier that he has been made out to be. At most, some of the information he has provided in his 5+ years as being president, may have not been entirely accurate. It is very easy to look back on a situation, after all the facts are known, and disprove a statement, but that still does not make it a lie.