Reframing SS

[Patchuli]

In an email sent to me by a fellow member of a local chapter of MoveOn:

"Howard Dean sure knows how to reframe an issue
so the truth is simple to understand. Every time
he > speaks, he needs to mention "Bush", "privatization"
and "Enron" in the same sentence. We all need
to take his cue and make it a standard part of our vernacular, among us and to everyone outside of our circles.

You can't hide greed from its victims for very
long. When we say" the Bush administration wants to
take our social-security and invest it in companies
like Enron," we remind those victims of their
dilemma.

As for calling a spade a spade, this "Enron SS" frame is the absolute, refined and unadulterated truth. It is not just a simple framing. This
new SS privatization plan sounds like a set-up to me, don't
ever forget these Bushes were instrumental in Pioneer Savings, BCCI, Enron and other Bushmoney subterfuges, all of which victimized rank and file investors who did not have the family connections
that told them to get out while the money was good.

We all need to start calling it the "Enron option" or "the Enron Plan" for social security, especially when we are engaged with a numbed-out bushie who would be a likely victim. Just ask them if they want to invest their Social Security money in Enron.


Even better, always say "Bush's Enron plan for social security." If we all frame it as "Bush's Enron-style social security plan" every time we talk about it, we start bending the mutual psyche towards
the evident truth this simple frame conveys.

We should follow Howard's cue and take the conversation to the streets with our own words, not theirs.

If you get a chance, email and blog this around.

Bush's Enron plan for social security..."

[BrklynLiberal]

1. When we speak of SS, we need to use words like "dismantling", and

"insurance", and point out that it is used for disability and survivors' insurance as much as for retirement benefits.
That seems to be the big forgotten aspect when ever the big "privatization" scam is mentioned.
The original name for Social Security was the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance program, OASDI.

PRESERVING SOCIAL SECURITY, PROTECTING DISABILITY INSURANCE (AS PREPARED FOR DELIVERY)

“Mr. President, Social Security is the most enduring, popular, and successful government program in our nation’s history. When Social Security was created in 1935, nearly 50 percent of seniors lived below the poverty line. Americans did not look forward to retirement, they feared it. But today, thanks largely to Social Security, the number of seniors living in poverty has been reduced to 10 percent -- and most Americans are able to look forward to retirement as their “golden years.” This is an extraordinary achievement.

“To understand this success, let’s be clear what Social Security is not. It is not welfare; only those who work and pay Social Security taxes are eligible for benefits. Likewise, Social Security is not an investment program; for that, we have IRAs, 401(k)’s, Individual Development Accounts, and a vast range of private saving-and-investment accounts.

“So what is Social Security? Simply put, it is an insurance program. It was established in 1935 to provide benefits to workers and their family members upon retirement, disability, or death. In fact, the original name for Social Security was the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance program, OASDI.

“Social Security is an insurance program that embraces almost the entire American family. It is the highest expression of our connection and commitment to each other. It reflects our core values, our compassion, and our decency . . . . our bedrock belief that no senior, no orphan, no survivor, and no person with disability – no member of our American family -- will be left behind.

“We see this in our own families. In good times, in normal times, the individuals in the family are independent, self-sustaining, going their separate ways, building a good future. But in times of misfortune, financial crisis, old age, or death, that’s when the individuals in the family pull together. They come together – sacrificing if necessary – to give aid and comfort to the family member in need.

“As Americans, we all respect the virtues and benefits of the free marketplace. We believe in individual responsibility. However, we also know that sometimes markets fail, and sometimes people fall on hard times through no fault of their own. That is exactly why we have the Social Security insurance program: To provide a basic safety net for the elderly, for survivors, and for Americans with disabilities.
<snip>

more...
http://harkin.senate.gov/press/print-release.cfm?id=231664

[applegrove]

2. You are not reframing - you are telling the truth. Only a liar like Bush

needs to play hide the plan to cause anxiety & hopefully apathy.

Yes use dismantle because that is the end game.

Yes use insurance because that is what SS is.

You do not have to couch your action in the words used by sociopaths in the Bush White house. You are Liberal - all you need to do is speak the truth. You need to be clear & on message. But you are not "reframing" something when you talk about using its historical and well know description.

"reframing" his when a 'seller' manipulate someone's perceptions of something to suit the needs of the 'seller' not to inform the consumer. These ***holes in the White House are so steeped in corporate tradition that they cannot tell they are sociopaths - or they don't care if they are sociopathic.

I love all the quotes. But they are not "reframing". That is the context we have always known SS to be in.

? why if I didn't know better I would be worried you were a sneaky freeper playing games!!

[Sparkly]

3. Maybe it's "counter-framing"

Here's the frame we need to fight:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=542&ncid=703&e=2&u=/ap/20050226/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/newt_gingrich

"The urgency ought to be simpler," Gingrich said. "Every day young people are denied the opportunity to have a personal Social Security savings account, they are cheated out of that day's compound interest."

[Ian David]

4. Socializing the Stockmarket to feed Enron

The age of Socialized Investment in the Enronomy.

Taking the money of hard-working Americans and using it to feed a handful of wealthy day-traders and investment bankers.

[Sparkly]

5. Exactly right. They'd like to end the mortgage deduction

and abolish capital gains taxes.

Seriously.

[Ian David]

6. End the mortgage deduction !?!?!!?!?!

Damn it, I NEED that deduction!

[applegrove]

9. I think they want to get rid of all deductions so that they can get rid

of income tax. Then it will just be a tax on Sales. A VAT tax that taxes work (or value added). That is what those scary people want.

And how nice would no income tax be on the rich ... how would anyone know they were rich if their income wasn't available - anywhere? This also explains why we have not seen the SS plan. Because you cannot fix the plan by upping caps if you do not collect income tax.

I would personally like to see SOMETHING DOWN ON PAPER before I REACT to any of that WHITE HOUSE SMOKE & MIRRORS.

They say Boots to the Ground - I say Pen on Paper because you are the GOVERNMENT!!

[Patchuli]

12. Yeah, * goes on about his "ownership society"

to make folks think he's all for people owning homes and business but he's actually talking about the rich owning US!!!!

I think this * 'dream' (and nightmare to us and the rest of the world) is going to come crashing down.
His own party is getting pretty irked with him. I don't think any president (or resident in *'s case) has enough "political capital" or
"mandate" strong enough to dismantle SS.

I don't think he has enough of either to take the mortgage deduction.
I do wish the blind ones would hurry up and see before he rips US off any more.

I do think we need to reframe our message. It's nice that WE don't have to lie to do it like they do.

[BansheeDem]

11. And for those of us that lived it ...

don't forget taking away interest on personal loans, cars, etc. They promised a lower tax-rate (which did happen) ... but guess what, that tax rate crept back up to where it was originally, but the personal interest exemption never came back.

As to framing this debate ala Enron; not a good idea in terms of actual financial reality. More folks were hurt when the tech market fell in the late 90s, than were ever hurt by the Enron collapse. But to be perfectly honest here, the collapse of Enron did not hurt any of us that were invested in indexed and mixed funds. I have harped on this on more than a few threads here, so I will continue to send the message that we are running from a problem that doesn't exist. Instead of framing the debate the way we are, we need to embrace the challenge and take back the issue that was ours to begin with. Why run from something that can be a good thing if proposed and implemented correctly?

Unlike the type of privatization that occurred in England (UK), the system that is being proposed here would not allow such private investments to be made, or "investment counselors" to hawk their favorite stocks to the unsuspecting. Funds would be put in an indexed account that could not be touched until retirement, and would grow even if a large number of major companies collapsed. My personal retirement 401k has grown at a yearly rate of about 9 percent over the last twenty years because I have it indexed over a wide range of funds (in a mixture of stocks and bonds). When I first opened that account, I was given a choice to either save it as T-bills, all stock (indexed to about 500 companies), or a mixture of stocks and bonds. I chose the mixture of stocks and bonds. I've already told you what kind of growth they have seen.

It may sound like a good idea to try and shoot holes in this idea by resurrecting Enron; but a sharp conservative (and yes they exist) will kill your Enron argument in a second by using the same facts that I have just presented. We may not like them, but the facts do tend to speak for themselves.

[Patchuli]

13. Enron ripped me and the

rest of the folks in the Golden State off
considerably! And heads are rolling in Enron's management elite.
I think the public gets a dirty taste in their mouths when they
hear Enron mentioned and they SHOULD!

[BansheeDem]

14. Of course they should ...

and I completely agree with your point. Enron is a great example of why an employee should not be forced to have only company stock in their retirement 401k; or be left to their own devices to pick a single or few stocks to invest with for retirement. Plans like THRIFT, which diversify (index) the funds will always out perform company plans modeled like that like that of Enron or the UK.

With that said; I think it is not a good comparison when talking about Social Security privatization. One plan is apples and the other oranges. Any astute person would rip the argument to shreds in a New York minute.

[Salviati]

10. It's the republican way:

socialized risk and privitized profit

[applegrove]

7. Oh - I'm tired of their double-speak. But yes - we are trying

to get the 'good information' out. The only reason why we have to start a war of words and focus on the clarity of the Liberal message is because they are "reframing" and "using the tools of sociopaths". I call it punching through to the truth. Comedians do it - they try and punch through to some unacknowledged truth if they are good (WATCH CHRIS ROCK SUNDAY). Unfortunately it seems the comedians are the only ones getting through all the smoke & mirrors these days.

Telling. I would call it "punching through to the truth" and "trying to get the context back" to how it is when you do not have sociopaths manipulating emotions/assumptions to change peoples realities/perceptions so they will be good patsies and let the elite dismantle their Democracy. Deprogramming is a good word. Also you can point out to people that 'their thinking' has been changed by all the fears and appeals to patriotism and other adolescent emotions.

IMHO

[Fridays Child]

8. kick