(what's this?)
Home
Discussion Forum
Blog
Galleries
Pamphlets
Headline Archive
Video Archive
Audio Archive
Document Archive
Charts
Timelines
POAC counter- spin
Buzzwords
Daily Email Newsletter
Postal newsletter
Links
POAC Store
Recommended Books
Donate
Contact
POAC Myspace 
You can have POAC headlines emailed to you every day free of charge. Subscribe here
 

Paper or plastic? NO! Earth-friendly reinforced canvas grocery totes now available in the POAC store
 
If you are presently serving in the military or in the Delayed Enlistment Program and beginning to rethink your participation, here are resources to help you.
 
Your ad here: $50/week or $150/month Click for details
 

 Contributing Columnists

Tj Templeton
Jack Dalton
Anwaar Hussain
Doris Colmes
Crisis Papers
Vincent L Guarisco
W. David Jenkins III
Dr. Steven Jonas
Lucinda Marshall
Jason Miller
Andrew Wahl
Rowan Wolf
Reader Submissions
 

POAC merchandise:

T-shirts, fleece, tank-tops, prints, magnets and more...

 

Must-see Selections

 
14 points of fascism
 
Sept. 11: They Let it happen 
 
A brief history of the PNAC: a refresher 
 
Bush Cronyism
 
Catapulting the propaganda: The Rendon group
The office of special plans
The Whitehouse Iraq Group
 
 

POAC ENDORSED: The 15% Solution: A Political History of American Fascism, 2001 to 2022 
 

F r o m   t h e Archives

National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive makes Bush dictator in event of a terrorist attack or disaster
 
Former Reagan official says "something's in the works" to trigger a police state (Held over)
 
Whitehouse denies member of the Homeland Security Committee right to examine plan for operating the government after a terrorist attack.
 
Iran-contra all over again. (Video) "Explosive" new Hersh scoop: Bush funneling money to Al Qaeda-related groups
 
Must see: What happens at Facebook.com does not stay at Facebook.com
 
Dateline 2002: "This is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq..."
 
 
 
 

Sometimes the president misspeaks.  Often its funny, but sometimes
its unintelligible and needs translation.  Take what he said yesterday
about Social Security...


here's the original statement (translation follows):

"Because the—all which is on the table begins to address the big cost
drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the
table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price
increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being
considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers,
affecting those—changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get
what has been promised more likely to be—or closer delivered to what has
been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled. Look,
there's a series of things that cause the—like, for example, benefits are
calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of
prices. Some have suggested that we calculate—the benefits will rise based
upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would
help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast
benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those—if that growth
is affected, it will help on the red."—Explaining his plan to save Social
Security, Tampa, Fla., Feb. 4, 2005

I took a stab at the translation.  I think you'll like it...

"Because the—all which is on the table begins to address the big cost
drivers"

TRANSLATION:
I think what he is trying to say is something like "Since I am such a
great guy to have allowed everything to be on the table, as I
announced in my State of the Union address, we will be able to address
the heart of the issue, which I consider to be all these losers who
depend on SS who are making the rest of us millionaires pay for they
sorry retirement"   ....but I could be wrong on that. :-)  In other
words "Big cost drivers" means SS benefit payments.

"how benefits are calculated, for example, is on the table; whether or
not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases."

TRANSLATION:
If we can convince people that "price indexing" and 'wage indexing"
aren't that different, then we can rip them off and cut the hell out
of their benefits without anyone really noticing**

"There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered."

TRANSLATION:
I don't have a freakin clue about this SS stuff, much less any
formulas or hard stuff like that.  This is "hard work".

"And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting
those—changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what
has been promised more likely to be—or closer delivered to what has
been promised."

TRANSLATION:
If we are able to dupe the public into accepting privatization, then
we can cut the crap out of SS benefit payments and reduce the overall
cost of SS.  We haven't figured out a way to do this without borrowing
more money than would be payable under SS if we did nothing ($4.5
trillion), but we can deal with that later. The idea is to kill the SS
programs because us regressive right-wingers view it as an entitlement
program that makes people lazy.  Also, polling data shows that people
don't like the word "private", which is why we now call it "personal
accounts".

"Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled"

TRANSLATION:
don't look too closely, or you will see that we have no idea what we
are doing, don't really have any reasoned arguments to support our
position, and that we really just have an ideological objection to
anything that doesn't funnel money into our corporate puppet masters.
If you look to closely, you realize that privatization alone actually
does NOTHING to solve Social Security's long-term solvency, so please
just leave this complicated stuff to us.

"Look, there's a series of things that cause the—like, for example,
benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed
to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate—the
benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases.
There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into
effect."

TRANSLATION:
Well, I know I already tried to explain this concept, but I have no
idea what I am doing and they just told me to keep repeating "price
indexing" and "wage indexing" and "inflation", so that's' what I am
doing.  I think that if we implement price indexing, then it will keep
us from having to pay people the benefits that they were promised,
which would lower the cost of the program.  If we can lower payments
enough, maybe people just won't even notice when we stop paying
benefits altogether.

"In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised
benefits grow, if those—if that growth is affected, it will help on
the red."

TRANSLATION:
Again, I'd like to reiterate, if we callously cut benefits for all
those old farts who weren't lucky enough to be born into wealth, then
it will help us cut spending on stupid programs like SS.

** Serious Translation:
we are willing to reduce people's SS benefits by changing the the way
SS payments are calculated.  Currently, SS payments are indexed to
keep pace with wages which rise faster than prices.  Price indexing
keeps pace with inflation, but not with the standard of living.   For
example, if SS benefits were price indexed instead of wage indexed
since 1937, then the modern SS benefit would be calculated to cover
the modern price for goods that were available in 1937, but not for
the increases in the standard of living that have been introduced
since then, which would include things like air conditioning, phones,
television, modern medicines, microwaves, computers, dishwashers,
washing machines, etc.  Basically, price indexing would keep people
living in an antiquated living standard and would not allow SS
recipients to keep pace with societal improvements.
 

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information please review Title 17, Sec. 107 of the U.S. Code. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

privacy policy

© 2002- 2006  OLDAmericanCentury.org and OLDAmericanCentury.com