Rodeo, lets just do this.

[lendaddy]

Goodie goodie a player

You're implying that this is a lie because SS will never be completely broke as people are always paying into it. This is a pathetic attempt to twist the logic, but even if I gift you that the fact remains he never said broke. The fact is the SS trust fund WILL be exhausted in 2042, completely gone (this means NO money in the bank! That means the only money in the system is the daily ingestion of payroll receipts and they only cover 2/3 to 3/4 of the bills. Or in financial speak......bankrupt. Next.

[stevepaa]

Fint,
Well, I have been busy. Thanks for the link.

"Simply put, the president's deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false, notwithstanding tortured definitions and interpretations of the term sexual relations,' " Wright wrote.


Although Clinton refused before the grand jury to elaborate on the Lewinsky relationship, Wright said she found enough evidence to conclude that he had engaged in sexual relations with her.


I'll give her 0 for 2. Yeah, he was alone with her, but at the deposition, he said he couldn't recall. He weaseled out from a direct statement that would have been a lie. Although I find it hard to believe a man would not remember being alone with someone in that state.
No , there were no sexual relations by the definition agreed to by the attorneys.

So, it seems that her personal definition of sexual relations leads her to the ruling.


Sorry for the diversion, back to the current topic.

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by oldsam
As Shields mentioned on the PBS wrap-up, and as Brooks concurred, if adjustments are not made, by 2042, as they have been made before, 3/4 of the funds promised would still be available.

LOL, I just realized you proved that Bush didn't lie in your own post.

Lemme ask you this. What would you call it if you could only pay 3/4 of your bills?

Lemme help you....BANKRUPT.

[oldsam]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
LOL, I just realized you proved that Bush didn't lie in your own post.

Lemme ask you this. What would you call it if you could only pay 3/4 of your bills?

Lemme help you....BANKRUPT.

If I could pay 3/4 of my bills, I would probably be far ahead of the average American consumer, but to answer your question, If I could pay 3/4 of my bills I would technically be late on 1/4 of my payments. Far from bankrupt.

The Bush quote was "exhausted". When my 911 gas tank is exhausted, it means it is empty. 3/4 of a tank is not empty.

Just for the record, don't make assumptions about a stranger. I'm a life-long Republican, retired military and rapid anti-union. Just because I made the mistake of voting for W once, doesn't mean I can't learn from my mistake.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by oldsam
If I could pay 3/4 of my bills, I would probably be far ahead of the average American consumer, but to answer your question, If I could pay 3/4 of my bills I would technically be late on 1/4 of my payments. Far from bankrupt.

The Bush quote was "exhausted". When my 911 gas tank is exhausted, it means it is empty. 3/4 of a tank is not empty.

Just for the record, don't make assumptions about a stranger. I'm a life-long Republican, retired military and rapid anti-union. Just because I made the mistake of voting for W once, doesn't mean I can't learn from my mistake.

So you would say no one can go bankrupt if they have a job? And as far as the tank being partially full analagy you are also incorrect. There is NO tank, it's gone. The engine needs more fuel than the pump/nozzel can supply.

[oldsam]

Originally posted by lendaddy
So you would say no one can go bankrupt if they have a job?

No, just re-read what I typed. I think it is pretty clear.

And as far as the tank being partially full analagy you are also incorrect. There is NO tank, it's gone. The engine needs more fuel than the pump/nozzel can supply. The tank is still there and is 3/4 full. Elected leaders will have to deal with the other 1/4 short fall.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by oldsam
No, just re-read what I typed. I think it is pretty clear.

And as far as the tank being partially full analagy you are also incorrect. There is NO tank, it's gone. The engine needs more fuel than the pump/nozzel can supply. The tank is still there and is 3/4 full. Elected leaders will have to deal with the other 1/4 short fall.

[picture Len looking around room frantically for someone to confirm OldSam is kidding]

Seriously I stand in awe.

[oldsam]

From the official SS site: http://www.ssa.gov/qa.htm

Q. I'm 35 years old. If nothing is done to improve Social Security, what can I expect to receive in retirement benefits from the program?


A. Unless changes are made, at age 71 in 2041 your scheduled benefits could be reduced by 26 percent and could continue to be reduced every year thereafter from presently scheduled levels. See the 2005 Trustees Report.

While I'm sure younger members of this BBS are not happy that their benefits will be cut, reduced by 26% is a lot different from Mr. Bush's quote of "the entire [social security] system would be exhausted and bankrupt".

He probably needs to alert the SS to change their webpage to reflect his information.

[lendaddy]

One more try.

Using your logic the system could have benefits reduced by 99.999% and still not be bankrupt.

[lendaddy]

Think of it this way:

The system currently turns a profit. It has more money coming in than going out. It also has a nest egg, the sum of those profits over the last several decades. Think of that nestegg as its net worth.

By 2042 this nestegg will be gone or "exhausted" and the program will have a negative net worth combined with less income than outlays. This is precisely what bankrupt means. If you think the ability to pay ANY percent of your bills means you can't go bankrupt.......well I can't help you understand this.

[oldsam]

Originally posted by lendaddy
One more try.

Using your logic the system could have benefits reduced by 99.999% and still not be bankrupt.

No, my logic has nothing to do with it.

Mr. Bush made a statement that was not factual. He said "exhausted and bankrupt". The system does needs to be fixed. Just use facts instead of the big lie.

[oldsam]

Originally posted by lendaddy
Think of it this way:

The system currently turns a profit. It has more money coming in than going out. It also has a nest egg, the sum of those profits over the last several decades. Think of that nestegg as its net worth.

By 2042 this nestegg will be gone or "exhausted" and the program will have a negative net worth combined with less income than outlays. This is precisely what bankrupt means. If you think the ability to pay ANY percent of your bills means you can't go bankrupt.......well I can't help you understand this.

So the official government SS site is lying too?

[lendaddy]

Sam,

Lets say it's 2042 and that months SSI checks just went in the mail (short 25% of course)........

How much money is left in the SSI account?

[oldsam]

Originally posted by lendaddy
Sam,

Lets say it's 2042 and that months SSI checks just went in the mail (short 25% of course)........

How much money is left in the SSI account?

Since I'm pretty sure we are talking about your age group's check, there are 37 years of political smoke and mirrors before that date arrives. I don't think your age group would accept non-payment of SS any differently than my age group would accept it.

I'm not sure you can get a truthful answer of how much is in the SS account today, so how could you expect to get an answer for 37 years later?

This all assumes that the USA doesn't go the way of most of South America, defaulting on our rapidly growing debt, resulting in hyper-inflation to mirror 1930's Germany. That is if all you smart, young intellectuals don't figure out how your government is going to continue to spend more than it takes in.

[lendaddy]

Sam,

It's OK to say "I was wrong". I've done it before and it wasn't that painfull really.

The bottom line here is you either don't know or refuse to accept what "bankrupt" means. It doesn't mean zero income.

And the answer to my question (how much was left in the account) is ZERO, one could also say the account had been exhausted. Basically I can see this is a dead end.

[oldsam]

Originally posted by lendaddy
Sam,

It's OK to say "I was wrong". I've done it before and it wasn't that painfull really.

The bottom line here is you either don't know or refuse to accept what "bankrupt" means. It doesn't mean zero income.

And the answer to my question (how much was left in the account) is ZERO, one could also say the account had been exhausted. Basically I can see this is a dead end.

I see you conveniently tip-toed around my question about the US Gov SS site. I refuse to accept half-baked explanations why you think Mr. Bush told the truth (since you think he did not lie).

The only dead end I see is someone who believes a single party line and stops thinking for themselves.

Again---is the US SS site lying? If so, you might want to email the White House since they are a part of Mr. Bush's government and he is sitting in the seat where "The Buck Stops Here".

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by oldsam
I see you conveniently tip-toed around my question about the US Gov SS site. I refuse to accept half-baked explanations why you think Mr. Bush told the truth (since you think he did not lie).

The only dead end I see is someone who believes a single party line and stops thinking for themselves.

Again---is the US SS site lying? If so, you might want to email the White House since they are a part of Mr. Bush's government and he is sitting in the seat where "The Buck Stops Here".

Holy balls are you dense. The gov site simply states that benefits will be reduced, how does that do anything but solidify my position? THEY WON"T BE ABLE TO PAY THEIR BILLS!!!!!

[Scooter]

I think we need to be reminded what a lie actually is:

lie ( P ) Pronunciation Key (l)
n.
A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

Being incorrect or having a different opinion is not a lie.

[Rodeo]

fool's errand

A fool's errand is an activity or task that serves no practical purpose. While the term is often used to refer to the practice of a practical joke requesting a person to perform tasks that would expose them to humiliation, frustration or as part of an initiation rite or sorts, a fool's errand can also refer to having to do something that turned out to be totally unnecessary without any sinister purpose.

Examples of initiation rites which would be considered fool's errands are:

• Being sent for a "left-handed screwdriver" or left-handed monkeywrench
• Being sent for a can of striped, polka-dot, or in Scotland, tartan paint
• Being sent for a long stand or "long weight" ('long wait' - get it?)
• Being sent for a tube of elbow grease.
• Being sent for a "left-handed smoke-shifter" (Used in the Boy Scouts of America)
• Being sent for some "shoreline" (Also used in the Boy Scouts of America)
• Being sent for a bucket of gas to help start a fire- the bucket has to be held upside down to prevent that "gas" (actually just plain air) from escaping.
• Being sent for headlamp fluid, or a plinth ladder.
• Being sent for the folder with missing documents.



We add to the list, "finding Bush lies for the daddy"

[Nathans_Dad]

Bottom line is that there are certainly many people out there that would consider you bankrupt if you defaulted on 25% of your bills every month. So, I think it has been shown that this certainly was not a "lie" as defined by the initial post in the thread.

NEXT?