Cynthia Tucker: CAMPAIGN AGAINST SOCIAL SECURITY IS FULL OF FALSEHOODS

[Kolesar]

Cynthia shoots bush's credibility down with an analogy to Iraq/WMDs. This is a good, concise critique and definitely worth forwarding to your friends. Enjoy

AJC's Cynthia Tucker at Yahoo

The plan to topple Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) dates back to the mid-1990s, when a group of neoconservatives formed a virtual government-in-exile at a think tank called the Project for a New American Century. They devised strategies, sat back and bided their time, waiting for what they called a "Pearl Harbor-type event" to provide convenient cover to invade Iraq (news - web sites).

The plan to topple Social Security (news - web sites), however, is much older -- dating back to the 1930s, to the very formation of the program. Conservatives have always hated it and wanted to get rid of it. So, taking the long view, they devised strategies, sat back, bided their time, and waited for political circumstances to provide cover to demolish Social Security.

They have found their circumstances: the re-election of George Bush (news - web sites), which conservatives have claimed as a mandate to revamp the tax structure to benefit the rich, to destroy government regulation of water, air and consumer affairs, to move the Supreme Court to the right of Archie Bunker, and to dismantle the social safety net -- including Social Security.

As he did with the invasion of Iraq, Bush has mounted a campaign against Social Security using half-truths, misperceptions and falsehoods. In the State of the Union speech, he declared, "By the year 2042, the entire system would be exhausted and bankrupt."

..........snip for copyright reasons.........

[sandnsea]

1. I just wrote this

lol, FDR Was A Communist. Just wrote about their hatred of social security last night.

http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=331

[Warpy]

3. They have a point. Social security is absolute proof that

socialism WORKS, even when the super rich opt out of it and do not support it themselves.

THAT is the real reason they want it destroyed.

[Kolesar]

4. Good

I think the conservatives feel compelled to destroy anything that shows that the government can help people.

[War Pigs]

11. Except for killing mud people, preferably those with fossil fuel reserves.

They worship that part of goverment

[Kolesar]

12. Militarism, indeed ... eom

[msgadget]

6. Great entry,

SandnSea, thanks for sharing it. I hadn't read of the communism connection before today.

A serious question:

Are pols deeply influenced by ideology and history or are they just expeditiously favoring industry over us...still? Anything industry needs to 'compete' is granted while we are expected to fend for ourselves. The 'free market' is all, will solve every problem...for THEM, not us. The consumers and workers have no influence over anything except 'moral' issues they make sure we keep arguing about.

I don't credit anyone in this administration with enough conscience to be motivated by ideology as they starve the beast. Greed and self-interest suffice, imo.

[AuntiBush]

8. Good Critical Thinking

Social Security's demise is exactly what the neocons have been planning since FDR, a Wall Street lawyer prior to becoming President for 4 terms in a row, would love to take down.

They despire FDR, a Democrat whom gave our countries citizens dignity, and freedom from fear during Pearl Harbor and WWII days; we were faced with the Great Depression, and soup/food lines like no other, still he created this remembering he was a Wall Street Attorney. In other words, he knew what he was doing.

Don't fall for the crap coming down the DC Pike. Listen and believe in your Democratic leaders. I posted links from the Brookings Institute, to FDR'S grandson himself here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=103921&mesg_id=104348

I hope everyone :think: before falling for the lies hitting us left and right.

[msgadget]

9. Thanks for that link, I'd missed it

I read them all, cutting and pasting relevant paragraphs onto a page. Don't worry, I'm not going to paste them all here but I'm wondering about something:

It will still require about $2 trillion to clean up this accounting scandal whether or not privatization occurs. This amount will continue to climb until Congress repeals the unified budget act.
(What is attractive about privatization is that it will force Congress' hand since the cash from Social Security is no longer available for its members to loot. Also a plus is that it will start the evolution from an unsound defined benefit plan to a sound defined contribution plan.)

http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/opinion/10828917.htm

I knew the fund was full of IOUs, just didn't know they added up to the same number the president's 'plan' will require.:

The worst idea that Mr. Bush is pushing is for the government to borrow some $2 trillion to replace Social Security funds that would be siphoned off into the private accounts. That would be a massive transfer of taxpayer dollars into the stock market, but that's not all.
The money and the new Social Security -- essentially a gift to Mr. Bush's friends on Wall Street -- wouldn't help the system's long-range stability but would add alarmingly to the soaring national debt.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05027/448526.stm

Is it just a coincidence that the amount his plan will require and the amount needed to repay the fund are the same? Is it possible $4 trillion is the real number needed to start the privatization party? And, half of that will be...what? Stealth funding? Or, are they saying the $2 trillion is for one thing when it'll actually be paying the IOUs, which wouldn't look cool for him?

[louis-t]

2. Cynthia Tucker usually sides with Repubs

Maybe discovering what the PNAC really is has changed her mind.

[KC21304]

5. Not the Cynthia Tucker I have been reading and seeing on

TV. I think she is usually very fair.

[Dudley_DUright]

7. I agree

Although Tucker is centrist on some issues, she is solidly in the "reality based community".

[Kolesar]

10. I think she is a great writer, that is why I seek her articles

She has a few slow ones, but I learn a lot in most of them.

[bunkerbuster1]

13. Nonsense. She's actually fair and balanced.

I've been reading her for 3½ years. She's honestly identified her personal politics as "center-left" but isn't afraid of calling out stupidity on the right or the left.

But she sure as shittin' ain't no reThug. There isn't a week that goes by that some wingnut isn't whining in the AJC's LTE section about that uppity colored lady.