Tuesday, February 15, 2005

Mr. Bush, Meet Mssrs. Merriam and Webster.

"One of the things that I find in Washington is that sometimes you've got to go back to Webster's to look what the definition is. The definition of bankruptcy is 'utter failure or impoverishment.' The definition of insolvency is 'unable to pay debts as they come, as they fall due.' I would respectfully suggest, for 2042, the [Social Security] program would be insolvent under that definition, but not bankrupt."

-- GAO Comptroller General David Walker, in Feb. 9 testimony to the House Budget Committee.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

you just cant move past this.....amazes me. there are many definitions of bankruptcy, not the least of which is the legal definition (of which there also are many versions). Basically, insolvency, bankruptcy whatever....you just have a problem when you need to give out more than you have coming in (including what you already have). Will that happen to SS. Most definitely yes. When, who the hell knows but sometime around 2048 (Splitting the middle a bit). If when that time comes, less than 100% of benefits are available, you owe more than you have. that is a serious problem and you can call it what you want. But when you owe a dollar and can pay 75 cents, you effectively are out of business.

That said, I have actually been reading up on SS rather than listening to the rhetoric.....and i dont see a viable solution offered as of yet by either side. Private accounts are interesting but the cost seems prohibitive.

One last thing---took a look at the webster site, and i see things differently. bankuptcy is the act of being bankrupt. look up bankrupt and it talks about insolvency. As i said, it doesnt matter but since people are hanging onto the semantics rather than looking at the issue....

5:57 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

5:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

since this site has been changed, it does not work as well. you should notify the blog site administrator.

5:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

what do you mean?

10:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I know this for a fact. If I can only pay 70% of my mortgage, and the lender decides to foreclose, then bankruptcy it is for this person. Apparently, reasonable standards and are not allowed to be used in political discourse any longer.

6:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

there hasnt been any reasonable discourse on any issue since the democratic platform became I HATE BUSH.

You always could look to the far right wing to act like nutjobs religious folks. but the democrats used to speak reasonably, even when i disagreed with them. at least they had a point. if karl rove deserves credit for anything, it is that he and his team have somehow reduced the current dems to a bunch of rambling children spouting nonsense half the time.

7:19 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Apparently, the non-partisan GAO is too liberal for the conservatives among us.

How sad.

If privatization is such a great idea, then why can't Bush be straight with Americans? Why does he have to resort to scare tactics -- using rhetoric that has misled a majority of Americans into thinking that Social Security will not be in 50 years, when the non-partisan GAO says that simply is not true?

9:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

huh...what does this mean in english. the point above seems to be that everyone is ignoring the problem and focusing on the spin, the very thing you are complaining about. the GAO isnt even in play in this discussion point other than an incorrect definition of bankruptcy. the blogger above discussing the various forms of "bankruptcy" seems to be on point.

I am not for private accounts mostly because i cannot justify the costs when we have so much borrowing underway due to the war. But the idea being dismissed out of hand is absurd and pure politics at play. Interesting that Greenspan came out in favor of the accounts.....this at least is a guy who has some knowledge of the effects of these things on the economy. Maybe it is worth listening to---maybe there is some form of middle ground. But no, that would be admitting that Bush has something to offer in this discussion. And Ted Kennedy and co. cant live with that.

12:09 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares