Social Insecurity?

[gman]

For 40+ years the democrats controlled the House and Senate and they determined that Social Security would be figured into the general fund, (thus there could be no "Lock Box" Algore). Why did they do this? Simple. So they could have access to your SS money to pay for promised programs, entitlements, pork etc...In other words, they could spend YOUR Social Security to buy YOUR vote.
Now GW wants to let you put YOUR SS money in a private account and the democrats are livid!! Why? Because they won't be able to spend it!
THANK GOD FOR GEORGE W BUSH!!

[Wolfman]

Amen,gman....

[kbeem]

You know the SS system primarily benefited those with lower wages. The SS monthly payments are a higher portion of their income than those on high wages. And those hard working Americans on low wages, damn well deserve a decent pension. It is an excellent system and should be protected. Yes, changes no doubt will need to be made in future, but they needn’t be drastic. I would have thought that society as a whole would benefit by fixing the current system in that we are all guaranteed a monthly income in retirement.

*****

Per the White House web site:

“Personal accounts give younger workers the opportunity to receive higher benefits than the current system can afford to pay, and provide ownership, choice, and the opportunity for workers to build a nest egg for their retirement and to pass it on to their spouse or their children.”

*****

There is no guarantee that the younger workers will receive higher benefits than the current system, in fact they could receive lower benefits. And those on lower wages may not build up much of a “nest egg” at all. Moreover, if the “nest egg” is taken as a lump sum upon retirement a good portion of it could well be at risk if one requires costly medical care.

I’ll take my chances with the excellent SS system, at least it is a sure thing and can’t be reduced to pay for my medical expenses.

BTW, the UK pension system is rubbish.

[Kim Yonkee]

Sigh. I thought we were going to stick to things like history & accuracy. Apparently we're going to have yet another uninformed Party rally.

You might want to read the actual history of the Clinton proposal to "save" social security and the response of the Republican Congress. Or not. No, probably not. Silly idea. The truth is way too long to fit on a t-shirt. Sorry I even brought it up.

You can put YOUR money in a private investment account right now. It's called a 401(k).

You are not saving the money YOU put into Social Security for YOURSELF right now. You are paying for people who are already retired.

The actual change is: President Bush wants to shift some of the money that all of us, the whole group, pay for the elder members of our group ... into personal savings for our own retirement.

It's changing the system from WE to ME. Now, there's a bumper sticker, eh?

There will be a cost incurred by this change. Since Bush has said he will refuse to raise taxes, benefits will have to be cut. The trillions of dollars needed to pay for people who are already at or near retirement age will have to be paid by somebody. They just won't be paid by YOU. You'll probably be 300-years dead before the transition costs of today are paid off by your great-great-great grandchildren.

Not that this fits on a bumper sticker either but the Democratic complaint is actually: How are we going to pay for this? Does anybody have a plan? Hello?

This is probably an idea that's worth some discussion. The people who weren't old enough to vote for God-Save-President-Bush are really the ones who need to weigh in on this one. No matter what we do now ... privatize, keep SS intact ... no matter what ... THEY are the ones who are going to get stuck with the bill.

[Ronald Phelps]

We could outsorce our goverment to china. Pay them a buck our two. With all the goverment overhead gone we could put all that money in SS. Everyone could retire with millions in their account.

[gman]

You are right Kim, the money we are paying right now IS paying for the benefits of those who have already retired. That is because the government already spent the retirees SS money on pork to get re-elected.

[Ronald Phelps]

Started in 1935 stolen in 197?, years of benefits gone. The largest thief in the history of man.

[Kim Yonkee]

Originally posted by gman:
You are right Kim, the money we are paying right now IS paying for the benefits of those who have already retired. That is because the government already spent the retirees SS money on pork to get re-elected.

I'm not going to argue with you on that one, gman. But I will argue about jingoistic slogans like, "It was all the Democrats" and "Thank God for President Bush!"

There's opinion, which you are certainly welcome to have. And then there's history.

I think considering what we're going to do about the elders of today and our own retirement tomorrow is a very worthwhile discussion.

In fact, I think it's such a worthwhile discussion, I believe it ought to rise above the level of partisan bumper sticker.

Politicians on both sides of the aisle have run hog operations for decades. At this point, so what? Even if you were correct in your claim that the entire problem was due to the rampant irresponsibility of the Democrats ... at this point, so what?

We still have to deal with the elders who counted on us taking minimal care of them. We've still got to do something about our own elder-hood. We either have to keep things as they are, or change to a different system, and either choice involves costs.

If you don't want to pay those costs, fine. To whom would you like to assign that responsibility?

[gman]

Social Security is not supposed to be a tax. It is supposed to be an investment for my future. So when the government spends MY investment, then expects the generations behind me to pay me back. Something is wrong with that. It is obvious that the government can NOT be trusted with MY money. I pay my taxes, but let me keep my so called Social Security and save it myself.

[gman]

As for what to do today, I think that the government spent that money, let them figure out a way to pay it WITHOUT punishing us via higher taxes etc...
How about cutting spending for a start? How about NOT spending $750,000 on a 2 stall rest stop bathroom? etc...

[This message has been edited by gman (edited 02-05-2005).]

[Kim Yonkee]

Where did that rumor start, gman?

Even back in 1935, when Social Security was enacted, social security was specifically a welfare benefit. It was created as a way to give states a better ability to deal with their own aged, needy, blind, dependent children...all the people who didn't have a lot of options in the Depression. It was a method to deliver federal funds to the states so they wouldn't have to carry the burden of their own needy-folk alone. Remember? It was the Depression. Recipients of Social Security weren't exactly pondering the performance of their portfolios back then. The part about taking part of your payroll was merely a mechanism to spread the responsibility.

It's never been a personal investment. Not ever. Not from the very first day of its existence.

I don't mind if you want to say, "I don't care if Grandma eats cat food as long as I'm taken care of." That's fine. I have no complaint about any system of moral values you care to operate under. Far as I'm concerned, you can work it out with Bush's "Higher Father."

But I would like it if you would be straight-up about what you're saying here: You want to blow off the widows and orphans so you can make sure you're personally tended to. You don't have to do this either, of course, but it would be nice if you'd be honest about what you're asking for.

Perhaps I've not been clear about this, but I'm not saying, "Don't privatize." I'm saying, "There is a cost to do so. If you want to do it, who do you think should pick up the tab for your wishes?"

You're not going to foot the bill. You won't live long enough to foot the bill. If you want what you say you want, you're going to have to pick somebody to pay for the social security that permits your personal, instant gratification. So who do you pick?

[Hermit of Hogscald]

Having trouble dealing with that "faith-based logic" again Kim? It boils down to this, tack it up on the wall and never forget it, knowing the Law of Faith-Based Logic will save you a lot of writing in the future, and this law is a immutable as the law of gravity. Attempting to break this law will result in consequences as severe as breaking the law of gravity.

All good eminates from Republicans;
All bad eminates from Democrats:
If it appears a Republican did it, and it appears bad, it is really Bill Clintons fault.
If you encounter any anachronisms, wrap yourself in a flag and read your bible, enlightenment will be instantaneous.

This is definately a law, it can be demonstrated by numerous experiments, and so has risen above the level of theory.

Since no one else has recognized this physical principle before, you may now refer to it a "Hermit's 4 Laws of Faith-Based Logic" and Hermit will now take his place along side such other great theorists as Newton, Galileo, Darwin, and Einstien.

[This message has been edited by Hermit of Hogscald (edited 02-06-2005).]

[Becky Davis]

http://www.ssa.gov/history/reports/briefhistory.html

brief history of ss. i would have to take issue with the president that people are living longer.

[gman]

Hey Kim, nice try at re-writing history. Were you one of Hillarys "ghost writers"? Funny how you libs distort the truth then throw in a cute little catch phrase like "let grandma eat cat food just as long as I get my retirement". Problem is that you judge others intentions by your own moral standards (libs moral standards, now thats an oxymoron)thus you assume that everything has a selfish motive. If you read the Bush plan, people over 55 cannot and will not participate in the privatization. As well, they will be taken care of in the old system without any change. So your grandmas cat will be eating alone.
By the way, I know that for democrats, truth is usually secondary to what you can fool people into believing but here is a little truth for you anyway. Back when SS was started it was NOT a welfare program. Here is a direct quote right from your history lesson "..the new Act (Social Security) created a social insurance program designed to pay retired workers age 65 or older a continuing income after retirement."

[White Bread]

And that was when life expectancy was less than 65. Now it is about 80 (with actual human life span being about 120) It wasn't designed to pay so much, so long, and to so many. REWORK!

[Ronald Phelps]

I didn't notice when the government stopped collection from all the "extra" people. If it was for just the people paying at the time it was introduced. Why did they take it out of my check?

[Kim Yonkee]

Oh, for Pete's sake, gman. Read. All of it. Not just the parts you like.


Originally posted by gman:
If you read the Bush plan, people over 55 cannot and will not participate in the privatization. As well, they will be taken care of in the old system without any change.


I repeat. Who will be paying for this?

President Bush admits there will be a financing gap in shifting to the new plan. It's going to take an estimated couple of trillion dollars to make the change you want.

One more time ... now pay attention here, if possible ... who will be paying for this?

You can yell, "Nanny nanny boo boo! Liberal Liberal Liberal!" at me until your face turns purple. Fine with me. The question of, "Who is going to pay for this," will still be waiting when you get done.

[PMilam]

Problem is that you judge others intentions by your own moral standards (libs moral standards, now thats an oxymoron)thus you assume that everything has a selfish motive.

gman, you have just lost the only "right wing nice guy" title.

To assume that liberals have no moral standards shows me that you, too, believe the lies that come from the current administration. Therefore, you are in the same category with the hate mongers.

Too bad. There were a few good discussions. So much for civility.

[Kim Yonkee]

You're right, Hermit. It's a total waste of time.

The people who are bright enough to do so will simply have to CYA's. CTA's?

All that yelling will probably pop their little head-veins anyway, so it's not like we're going to have to worry about 'em in the long run. http://www.geekfest.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

[gman]

PMilam, I thought that most liberals didn't believe in "moral absolutes". Therefore a "liberal moral standard" would be an oxmoron.

[gman]

BTW Kim, I already answered your question in my earlier post as to who will pay for it. But I will spell it out again just so people can follow along.
Lets make this real simple(that means for the sake of the lowest common denominator, we will leave out specific detail)OK:In the beginning the government (ran by democrats I believe) determined that YOU were not competent or wise enough to save for your own retirement. So they said, give US a portion of YOUR money (not taxes) and WE will hold it for you until you reach age 65. Then we will systematicly distribute it back to you. However, the government did not set YOUR money aside, THEY SPENT IT!! Now they say it is YOUR problem to fix.
Solution: let the government live on a tighter budget until they can repay what they stole/borrowed.
Extra credit: When the government wants to raise your taxes, do they ever ask you if you can figure it into your budget first?

[Ronald Phelps]

The government can never repay stolen money. They are not income producing unless they sell off assets.
Stealing money by taxing to replace money stolen? That is like stealing gas then robbing the station and paying them back.
I think understand now. Can I be a polithief?

[sweetness&light]

Since none of you have mentioned it in either Social Security thread, I guess I'm the only one who saw the segment on CBS national news a few nights ago. They were interviewing one of the men from Great Britain checking into our version of Social Security and they like what they see and know of the current form. They went into great detail about how GB's version of letting people invest on their own has failed miserably. One reason given was the stock market was in much better shape when they started their program 20-30 years ago. Retirees now are basically poor, unless they were well to do before and managed to keep that way.

Retirees are now receiving one half (50%) of what they used to receive before this program of invest-it-yourself started. They are going to recommend to the British government that they adopt America's current version of Social Security.

Isn't it amazing how we are never satisfied with what we've got?..........until we don't have it anymore.

[Kim Yonkee]

Social Security Act of 1935. Title I. Very first line of the original legislation:

For the purpose of enabling each State to furnish financial assistance, as far as practicable under the conditions in such State, to aged needy individuals, there is hereby authorized to be appropriated ...

It's on ssa.gov. Go read it.

The very first President to perform a raid on the Social Security Trust Fund was Ronald Reagan. His budget director, David Stockman, wrote about it in a book called the "Triumph of Politics." (Hint: Republicans.)

The entire budget for 2005 is $2.4 trillion dollars. The cost of program transition is estimated to be $2 trillion dollars. We don't EARN all that money; we just spend it. Hence, the deficit.

Math class doesn't seem to be going any better than history class here.

Got a Plan B for the question, "Who is going to pay for it?"

[gman]

Agian Kim, nice try. You see in your original post you put a comma between aged and needy, then added blind and dependant children. There is a huge diffence between the "aged needy" and aged, needy, etc...
Doesn't surprise me though, good try.
Also I said that the govt stole/borrowed for OTHER projects, entitlements, pork etc... So now they can cut the spending on THOSE projects and others to pay back the Social Security system.
I take it that reading comprehension is a bit of a challenge for you?

[This message has been edited by gman (edited 02-06-2005).]

[Kim Yonkee]

Oh good. The Super Bowl is over, and it's time for the post-game entertainment.

gman, you poor thing. But it's ok. Being a liberal and all, I'm willing to help you do some of the things you're incapable of doing for yourself:

The Social Security Act (Act of August 14, 1935) [H. R. 7260]

An act to provide for the general welfare by establishing a system of Federal old-age benefits, and by enabling the several States to make more adequate provision for aged persons, blind persons, dependent and crippled children, maternal and child welfare, public health, and the administration of their unemployment compensation laws; to establish a Social Security Board; to raise revenue; and for other purposes.

Q: Who was the President in 1972, when SSI was created? A: Nixon.

Q: What party did Nixon belong to? A: Duh.

Q: Who proposed the SSI legislation in the first place? A: NOT the Democratic-controlled Congress. Nope. Nixon proposed the bill himself.

But that's it. If you're not going to take this minimal, public assistance in the spirit in which it is offered ... if you're not going to take this public dole and use it as a way of raising yourself from the tragic depths of ignorance, I'm just going to have to let you wallow on your own.

I've done all I can here.

Please, feel free to return to reading those "pass it on" emails. They're surely a better source of information than the historical record of the Library of Congress.

Just ... do me a favor, will you? Stay thin. By the time we reach the logical conclusion of the policies you're unwilling and/or unable to think about today, I'm not going to want to strain my elderly muscles when I have to roll you off the sidewalk. http://www.geekfest.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

[sweetness&light]

One small kick of an extremely pointy-toed stiletto in his hind quarters should do the trick. I would suggest bidding for a pair of Dolly Parton's old 4" ones...the ones with the wooden soles and heels. That way, it the pointy toes don't get him, a stomp to the ribs with the wooden stilettoes should give him one last movement, so to speak.

By that time, they will have skip loaders running the streets instead of street sweepers...much easier to load the dead, old, 'new Social Security' voting bods by scooping them up instead of hiring extra man power to pick them up by hand. Of course by that time, the skip loaders and their operators will have to be volunteers.

You didn't think there would be money in the budget for voter disposal, recycling, or clean environment, did you?

[Kim Yonkee]

Originally posted by sweetness&light:
By that time, they will have skip loaders running the streets instead of street sweepers...much easier to load the dead, old, 'new Social Security' voting bods by scooping them up instead of hiring extra man power to pick them up by hand.

Oh ... silly me! I couldn't figure out why we needed to have an open border so we could have all those "guest workers" to do "jobs that Americans won't do" until you said this.

Of course!

We need to have a deep bench of illegal aliens so we'll have enough sub-minimum wage labor to take care of the problem.

Suddenly, President Bush is looking like a master strategist after all. http://www.geekfest.com/ubb/wink.gif

[Becky Davis]

Bush to Social Security, Drop Dead.

http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/7/2005/1060

[gman]

Kim, you still just don't get it. We could debate the details about transfering benefits to survivors, welfare replacement, etc... until this becomes a 40 page thread. But once again (and I will type real slow for you so you can keep up) lets stick to the basic point.
Are ya with me? ok,
The received benefits directly coincide with the amount paid in. In other words, if I work for just 2 years before I turn 65 and you work for 45 years before you turn 65, you would have more benefits coming than I would. Thus, it is more or less a "forced savings account" not a welfare system. Now this is where it gets tricky so stay with me. The banker ie: the government, didn't hold on to my money, they spent it. Now they want ME to pay them more money (in the form of taxes) so that they can pay back the money that they stole from MY account.

By the way, don't spend too much time looking for me on the curb, I happen to be one of those "rich Rebublicans" who sold a buisness and retired at age 38. However you might find me sleeping in the sun on a tropical island beach.

[Becky Davis]

Read this GMan. How old are ya now Honey? I'm looking for a rich guy.

Published on Monday, February 7, 2005 by the San Francisco Chronicle


Do The Math On Dubya's Social Security Reform
by Harley Sorensen

As the lawyers like to say, "Falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus." The rest of us have to settle for "once a liar, always a liar."

We tend not to believe people who have previously lied to us, even if one of those people is the president of the United States.

President George W. Bush clearly lied to us about the need to start a war against the people of Iraq, so why should we believe him now as he barnstorms the country in an attempt to sell us on his Social Security "reform" plan?

("Reform"? That's funny. It's more like deform. Always be leery of a politician who says he's going to "reform" something.)

The centerpiece of Bush's plan, which is still evolving, is the "privatized" or "personalized" account. The way Bush explains it, that sounds like a great idea, but it hasn't worked out well in Chile, where it's been in effect for 25 years, and so we have to wonder whether it'll work here.

The "private" Social Security investment accounts are being pushed by the Heritage Foundation, whose ideas almost always seem designed to make the very rich very richer.

Bush talks about developing an "ownership society," in which we all are masters of our own fate. Give the worker a chance to invest his own money as he sees fit, so goes the theory, and he'll do much better than the hated United States government has ever done.

(As an aside, have you ever wondered why conservatives hate the United States so much? In their view, their government always fails -- except in fighting wars -- and private enterprise always succeeds. Yeah, sure, like how many airlines have faded away in the past 20 years, and how many are operating in bankruptcy now? Just for example.)

But, wait! The "private" or "personal" account is neither. The investor in such an account does not have control over his own money. He can't invest where he thinks best. He has to invest only in a government-approved fund. So buying something like Apple or Microsoft stock is out. But don't despair, the government will still give you a choice between A, B or C.

Some freedom! Some "ownership."

And what happens to your "personal" account when you reach retirement age? The government takes it. I kid you not.

That part of the plan, as explained to The New York Times last week by an unnamed White House official: "When people reach retirement age, they would have to put enough of the money in an annuity so that the total of their traditional benefits and their annuity payments would meet the poverty level, $12,490 for a couple in 2004."

So the government will tell you exactly how to spend part of your retirement account. If there's anything left over after the government takes out what it wants, you get to keep the rest and spend it as you see fit.

How are you going to build your little nest egg? Again, according to The Times, you'll be allowed to invest up to 4 percent of your wages, to a maximum of $1,000 at first. "That amount would increase by $100 each year, plus an amount corresponding to the average national growth in wages."

Do the math. After the government takes out its chunk to create your annuity, how much are you going to have left over to buy that penthouse with a Golden Gate view?

Just offhand, the benefits of the Bush scheme seem paltry, if they exist at all. The possible risks seem to greatly outweigh the possible benefits.

The benefits are paltry in Chile. In a Jan. 27 New York Times article, the writer used the case of Dagoberto Saez as an example.

Saez, 66, plans to retire in March. He now earns under $950 per month. His pension fund, after nearly 24 years of contributions, will finance a 20-year annuity paying $315 a month. That compares with coworkers who stayed in the old system who get almost $700 per month, good for life.

Said Saez: "I made the mistake of believing the promises they made to us back in 1981."

The thing that worries me about Bush's Social Security scheme is its cost. The money we and our employers now pay as Social Security tax is used to pay for today's Social Security benefits. If we take money out of the system for individual investment accounts, there won't be enough left over to continue to pay full benefits.

Bush has indicated that today's benefits will not be reduced, although his wording on this subject in his State of the Union Address was a bit cagey. He assured recipients that the "system" would not change in any way. All it takes for a reduction of benefits is an act of Congress, which can be performed without changing the system. So your benefits could be reduced substantially and, technically, Bush would have told the truth.

Clever fellow, that Bush.

I don't trust Bush. He got us into two wars in his first term, and now he's rattling sabers over Iran, a nation that poses no threat to us. Although Social Security needs to be updated, and it's wise to do it now rather than later, Bush's plan seems like a plan to destroy it, not fix it.

Bush is a good salesman. At his State of the Union Address, he looked tan and fit, competent and trustworthy. If I had to judge him by his appearance and his words, I'd be all for him. But he has a history of saying one thing and doing the opposite ("I'm not into nation-building," "I'm a uniter not a divider"), so I'm going to be very cautious about buying anything he's selling.

His Social Security scheme is a case in point. The American people should soundly reject it

Harley Sorensen is a longtime journalist. His column appears Mondays in the San Francisco Chronicle. E-mail him at harleysorensen@yahoo.com.

© 2005 San Francisco Chronicle

#

[gman]

Sorry Becky, I only had to read the first few lines before I knew it was written on a false pretense. Bush lied about Iraq? Give me a break. No need to read any further.

[Kim Yonkee]

Originally posted by gman:
By the way, don't spend too much time looking for me on the curb, I happen to be one of those "rich Republicans" who sold a business and retired at age 38. However you might find me sleeping in the sun on a tropical island beach.

Ah ... hah ... hah.... hahaha.... I'm sorry! I know I said I would stop. But I can't stop. It's like a disease ... somebody! Help! Ask my doctor before it's too late!!!

So you're a rich, retired Republican, eh? That means you wouldn't have any reason, whatsoever, to be concerned about Social Security OR payroll deductions.

If you're rich, what do you care what the peasants are up to? Let 'em eat cake! Or 5 pound blocks of Velveeta with Ramen noodles on the side, as the case may be.

If you're retired, you don't have to worry about payroll deductions ... because retired people don't get paychecks, silly!

This is like a hobby, right? You got rich, got retired, got tired of building birdhouses in your 18-car garage, so you thought, "I know what would be fun! I'll just go on out there in the world and start raising Cain over matters that have absolutely nothing to do with my rich, retired, Republican self."

Auuugghh... sorry, you're killin' me here. You're really starting to remind me of a guy that used to post around here, except he used a different name.

[outsider2002]

One thing I just heard tonight on Faux News radio: According to them, Cheney gave some speeches this weekend and admitted that the 'fix' of Soc. Sec GW has in mind WILL COST MORE OVER THE NEXT 20 YEARS THAN IF THEY WOULD JUST KEEP ON SUPPORTING IT AS IT IS NOW FOR THE NEXT 75 YEARS!!!

[Kim Yonkee]

Here's a question that is definitely not intended to feed the fires of conspiracy theory, but I wonder...

Which financial service companies will get the contract to provide "management" for our government enforced "private funds?" I don't believe anybody has mentioned private control of those private funds. It sounds like the government is planning to take care of the matter for us. So, do you think it's safe to review the PAC contribution filings of the financial service sector so we can get a clue in advance?

Now, don't think I'm going all Leftie on you here. If you're a good, red-blooded Republican, wouldn't you like to know which companies were going to get the bite so you could make sure to buy their stock before Social Security gets saved and all?

http://www.geekfest.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

[RWhite]

Originally posted by gman:
Sorry Becky, I only had to read the first few lines before I knew it was written on a false pretense. Bush lied about Iraq? Give me a break. No need to read any further.

That's right, gman. As soon as the war was over, The Bushster paraded out all those weapons of mass destruction which were found aimed at the United States and ready for imminent use. Didn't lie? If he were Pinnochio, he could play stick ball without a broomstick!

[gman]

Kim, once again you make the mistake of judging others according to YOUR (oxymoron alert) liberal moral standard. True, I don't need any SS benefits because I have done well enough for myself. However, and I know this is difficult for you to even fathom, I do care about what goes on in this country. I do care that we have a fair tax system. I do care that we hold the government accountable for the money that they take from us.

As for the debate on the Gulf War, Bush Lied, WMD's etc.... I would welcome that debate on another thread.

[Becky Davis]

If you wouldn't have stopped at the word Iraq, you would see that the article was actually written on social security.
I believe you care about the way things are run in this country. I hope you understand that I am not slamming you GMan.

[outsider2002]

From salon.com

George Bush's Social Security Snow job

When George W. Bush was asked over the weekend how his plan for private investment accounts would strengthen the long-term fiscal health of Social Security, he gave an answer that started with "Because the -- all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers," and ended with Bush promising to "keep working on it."

Bush's treasury secretary has now said what the president's stumbling made obvious. When pressed to provide details about the president's plan to shore up Social Security's fiscal health, John Snow said Tuesday: "The president at this point doesn't have a plan."

It wasn't the only time that Snow seemed to veer from White House talking points Tuesday. While the White House isn't calling the Social Security situation a "crisis" anymore, the president can't seem to open his mouth without warning that Social Security is going to be "bankrupt" in 2042. Snow seems to disagree with that characterization, too. "There is a major difference between not being fully funded and being bankrupt," Snow told the House Ways and Means Committee Tuesday. Perhaps he should tell the president.