Bush framing the SS debate: "Doing something vs doing nothing"

[hector459]

Don't let him get away with it! He will try to paint the picture that the Dems want to do NOTHING. This is not true. They want to do several things but privatizing is not one of them. Please get the message out to your Congressional Senators and Representatives. Don't let them frame the issue for us!!

[ClassWarrior]

1. Sorta like sticking your tongue in an electrical socket...

...instead of just sitting there.

Thanx George**!

NGU.

[tridim]

5. We should suggest that Bush do just that

He probably would if we double dog dared him.

[Gold Metal Flake]

2. False choice, a repuke staple.

If we could outlaw the false choice and the straw man, the freepulsives would have nothing to say.

[Dr Fate]

10. I love your pics of tough DEMS- who is the white lady w/ black hair?

???

[Gold Metal Flake]

14. Sibel Edmonds

http://antiwar.com/news/interview.html

www.justacitizen.com

[StClone]

3. Making war is doing something, Destroying SS is doing something

How much pro-active destruction can one monkey take credit for.

[musette_sf]

4. let's talk about the briefing papers

he received in August 2001, that Condi also read. There's a perfect example of Doing Something vs. Doing Nothing.

[cidliz2004]

6. Do something TO SAVE SOCIAL SECURITY, or

Do nothing AND LET BUSH DESTROY SOCIAL SECURITY

Lets work on using their own words AGAINST THEM

[chomskysright]

7. SS needs 'tweaking' not jack-hammering....

EVERYONE SEEMS TO BE SURPRISED: WAS THIS 'TWEAKING' OF SOCIAL SECURITY MEANT TO TAKE PLACE PERIODICALLY? : YES "What people forget is that the baby boom is not like a pig in the python," said Kent Smetters, an associate professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and a former senior official in Mr. Bush's Treasury Department. "If you just balance it over the next 75 years, it just means we have to come back and do the same thing all over again about 15 years from now," Professor Smetters said. (Edmund L. Andrews; The New York Times ; Monday 10 January 2005)

[chomskysright]

9. don't forget the reasons behind Bush's agenda....

WHY WOULD KARL ROVE WANT TO PRIVATIZE SOCIAL SECURITY? Rove sees it as : “one of the most important conservative undertakings of modern times,....“We need to establish in the public mind a key fiscal fact: right now we are on an unsustainable course,” the e-mail said. “That reality needs to be seared into the public consciousness; it is the precondition to authentic reform.....government and toward giving greater power and responsibility to individuals,” said Wehner, the director of White House Strategic Initiatives. " Who is this Wehner? : Peter Wehner, the deputy to White House political director Karl Rove. Thus, Rove is attempting to continue the line of 'getting government out of your lives' which is a recipe to allow corporations unbridled power and individuals no retirement through Social Security. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/679195

[chomskysright]

11. Bush's plan would worsen things in fact....phase in or not...

WHAT WOULD ACTUALLY TAKE PLACE RE: THIS PRIVATIZATION EFFORTS PER BUSH/ ROVE / THE REPUBLICANS? : "Revamping the system to allow investment accounts would not shore up the future finances and would make the financial picture worse. The administration is considering borrowing $1 trillion to $2 trillion to continue paying benefits to current retirees while tax revenue is diverted into personal accounts, called transition costs, Wehner's e mail said (per this article, this e mail was verified by the White House). Separately, to address the future financial shortfall, the administration is looking at plans to cut future promised benefits, by 46 percent in some cases, with investments expected to make up the difference." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/679195

[Zebulon]

15. In other words...

We need to establish in the public mind a key fiscal fact: right now we are on an unsustainable course,” the e-mail said. “That reality needs to be seared into the public consciousness

In other words, they need to scare people with the old Chicken Little play, on order to stampede them into accepting a "fix".

[Avalux]

8. SS does not need to be fixed - it's not broken

it needs to be tweaked over the next decade or so. The goal of Bushco is to convince the American people SS is in immediate trouble and must be taken care of NOW. Kinda like invading Iraq.......

[chomskysright]

12. Senator Barcus says Bush's plan stinks...2.1.05.

http://finance.senate.gov/press/Bpress/2005press/prb020105.pdf: released 2.1.05

From the desk of Senator Max Baucus: Ranking Member in the Committee on Finance:

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) Today, U.S. Senator Max Baucus said that a Social Security proposal being seriously considered by the Bush Administration would have pushed seven million seniors into poverty this year, had the plan been in effect since the Social Security program began in 1940. Baucus is ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over the Social Security program. This information was contained in a new report Baucus requested from the non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS).

[chomskysright]

13. there is no short-fall @all until 2052.....

You will hear talk about how it will be cheaper in the long-run to privatize at least part of Social Security. Specifically, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan claims, "The cost is $10 trillion if we do nothing. So what you're talking about would be a significant savings over those costs."

There are two problems with this argument. First, the $10 trillion figure grossly distorts the modest long-range deficit of the Social Security program by projecting that shortfall over eternity. (There is no shortfall at all until 2052. Projections beyond 2052, obviously, are extremely unreliable.) Second, and more fundamentally, "borrowing $2 trillion to fund individual accounts does nothing to reduce Social Security's long-term deficit." Under the Bush plan the long-term deficit is reduced through deep benefit cuts.: [e-mail]

[rjbny62]

16. It begs the question - What is behind this urgency?

I can only imagine that the urgency is driven by the fact that * is beholden to certain people for whom this is very important, and who were behind his reelection. The amount of money at stake here is huge.

[Emboldened Chimp]

17. You know, we can do nothing till 2042...

because SS is solvent till then. Phony crisis, phony president.

[Inland]

18. That's exactly how he framed the debate over the Iraq war.

"Nothing" was what he called UN sanctions and the inspection regime, which we now know actually destroyed all of Saddam's WMD. "Something" was invading, which we now know didn't destroy a single scrap of WMD, facilities, program, etc.

Bush loves the false dichotomy. "Your choices are doing it my way or sticking forks in your own eyes. No other options are or will be explored. Well?"

The problem with a foreign affairs/defense issue is that Bush can make it an either or issue by not exploring any worthwhile alternatives. In domestic issues, nobody has to listen to that crap.

[hector459]

19. But knowing how they operate and not meeting them head on is really

doing less than nothing. We need the rapid response and enlightening exposure to thwart these thugs.