SOTU Address "lie exposed" === grounds for impeachment

[cthrumatrix]

2/2/2005

STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS

EMBARGOED UNTIL DELIVERY February 2, 2005

As Prepared for Delivery

Mr. Speaker, Vice President Cheney, Members of Congress, fellow citizens:

snip

Here is why personal accounts are a better deal. Your money will grow, over time, at a greater rate than anything the current system can deliver - and your account will provide money for retirement over and above the check you will receive from Social Security. In addition, you’ll be able to pass along the money that accumulates in your personal account, if you wish, to your children or grandchildren. And best of all, the money in the account is yours, and the government can never take it away.

snip
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/index.php?p=27

now here is the reality of "your privatized soc sec account when you die:

snip

Any funds that remained available under these annuities after death would go to the Social Security program; the money could not be inherited. While that would assure retirees a monthly check while they live, it also could undercut what polling shows is one of the most persuasive arguments on behalf of personal accounts - that they can be inherited.

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBEOOZ9Q4E.html

Your lifetime payments STOP when you die. Your heirs get $0.

[Mistress Quickly]

1. Do you have a link for that?

Where did you get it?

[cthrumatrix]

2. here is the link

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBEOOZ9Q4E.html

corrected in above as well

[Mistress Quickly]

7. Thanks

emailing it out now

But I agree with the poster below that its not grounds for impeachment.

[cthrumatrix]

19. if somebody continues to LIE .... what can we do?

he is messing with the US supplemtal retirement which people have funded over their lifetimes.

A contract was made with america

[cthrumatrix]

3. read the above...the pres is selling BS

[annabanana]

4. Yet another question of "Is he Stupid? or Is he Lying"

Only his handlers know for sure.

[City Lights]

17. Both.

Stupid and lying.

[bryant69]

5. This is certainly BS

But not grounds for impeachement. Presidents are allowed to spew BS in the state of the union.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[LynnTheDem]

12. The SOTUA is under oath.

When a president takes oath of office; "I do solemly swear to faithfully execute the duties..."

The SOTUA is one of the very few required Presidential duties.

Lying in the SOTUA is lying under oath.

[bryant69]

13. That's a pretty shakey argument.

Anyway couldn't he just get out of it by claiming to believe what he said?

[LynnTheDem]

14. Why is it shakey? The Oath of Office is very explicit about presidential

duties.

The SOTUA is in fact a US Constitutionally required presidential duty.

Ignorance is not a defense under US law.

Lying this country to war is also an impeachable offense (high crime) but rethugs don't impeach their own, regardless of the offense.

[bryant69]

15. I'm just saying, I've seen stronger grounds for impeaching him

But if you can get this going--good luck to you.

And as for the old platitude "Ignorance is not a defense" it probably doesn't apply in this case. Ignorance is not a defense would apply if I were arguing that President Bush were ignorent about the law. Say he told a lot of lies in the State of the Union, and afterwords claimed he didn't know he wasn't allowed to lie in the State of the Union. In that case you'd have him, because he admitted to lying.

This is akin to a witness under oath on the stand making an honest mistake, or remembering something different than other witnesses. If done maliciously (say he actually tells a lie to screw the defendent), well, he'd be in trouble. But if he just messes up, odds are he wouldn't be in trouble (because witnesses memories are, almost by definition, imperfect.

In the same vein, President Bush could claim that he had no intent to decieve the AMerican people, and he was expressing truths as he saw them.

[LynnTheDem]

16. There are several grounds for impeachment, agreed.

And if rightwingers weren't Party Uber Alles, or if bush did EXACTLY what he's done, but had a (D) after his name, he'd have been impeached (and good chance of sitting in jail) a long time ago.

But rightwingers don't have honesty & integrity and would never impeach a (R) no matter what he did, so it's a moot point.

[PEmboli]

18. i don't think so!

[LynnTheDem]

20. Such a short stay

bye. :)

[rogerashton]

6. Having it both ways again.

It could be paid as a lump sum. In that case, anything left is inheritable -- provided you die soon enough! -- but you can also run out of money while you are still alive. Consider having no income when you are 79. (My late mother-in-law managed that, except that she did still have social security and some military-wife pension money.)

Or it can be provided as a life annuity. In that case, there is nothing to inherit.

One of the advantages of "not spelling out the details" is that you can claim the best-case advantages of both sides of the dilemma.

(I wonder if he is hiding these things from his own dim mind!)

[cthrumatrix]

9. it cannot be paid in a lump sum & what you invest over your life

you don't see....

Only IF your account performs greater than 3%. The original investment and 3% go back to the govt.

The remeinder is annuitized.....in life payments

[robcon]

8. How do we know whether the accounts will be inheritable or not?

There's no bill before Congress, much less on *'s desk. It's all negotiable from what I've heard.

I've believed SS should be a pension plan, not a pay-as-you-go plan for 30 years, since grad school in economics.

[cthrumatrix]

11. no inheritance ...it;'s a lie..read below

nip

Here is why personal accounts are a better deal. Your money will grow, over time, at a greater rate than anything the current system can deliver - and your account will provide money for retirement over and above the check you will receive from Social Security. In addition, you’ll be able to pass along the money that accumulates in your personal account, if you wish, to your children or grandchildren. And best of all, the money in the account is yours, and the government can never take it away.

snip
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/index.php?p=27

now here is the reality of "your privatized soc sec account when you die:

snip

Any funds that remained available under these annuities after death would go to the Social Security program; the money could not be inherited. While that would assure retirees a monthly check while they live, it also could undercut what polling shows is one of the most persuasive arguments on behalf of personal accounts - that they can be inherited.

http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBEOOZ9Q4E.html

Your lifetime payments STOP when you die. Your heirs get $0.

[Mistress Quickly]

10. from that link

I thought the President "didn't have a plan" yet, he was open to ideas.

from the link:

>>>Under the Bush plan, according to one independent expert who was briefed by the White House<<<

I wonder who the expert was?