Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bush Warns Social Security Opponents

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
Rose Siding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 07:20 AM
Original message
Bush Warns Social Security Opponents
snip>
Asserting "an obligation to lead" on the issue, Bush said an interview with The Wall Street Journal for Tuesday's editions, that he will try to provide political cover for those who support overhaul and make it politically risky to oppose.

"I think two of the things that are going to be important for the members to understand, once they've come to the realization there is a problem, is that no longer can they frighten seniors by saying, if we do this, seniors aren't going to get their checks," he said. "I think it's become pretty clear in people's minds that the issue ... does not revolve around those who have retired or those who are near retirement.

"The issue, really, is about younger workers and most younger workers believe that they're not going to see a dime unless something is done. And most younger workers, as far as I can tell, like the idea of being able to take some of their own money and managing for their own retirement, in order to more likely have the promise of Social Security fulfilled."

The president said he understands that Congress is prone to inaction until there is a crisis, but that "in the end what matters is reforming the system so that it ... doesn't 20 years from now pop back up on a president's screen saying, oh, goodness, we got to do this again."
As to whether the current situation constitutes a crisis, he said, "You can call it whatever you want to call it, whatever adjective you want to describe the problem. I think it's real, I think it's fundamental, I think we have an obligation. ... I would also say that I think people are taking a risk politically if they stand up and say it's not a problem, because I think most people realize it is, particularly younger people."
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/ap/2005...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
LynnTheDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 07:25 AM
Response to Original message
1. There he goes again, LYING LYING LYING.
Does bush ever NOT lie??? I mean EVER???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sellitman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 07:52 AM
Response to Reply #1
11. He wouldn't know the truth..
If it made him fall down and choke after eating a pretzel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SammyWinstonJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #11
62. He knows damn well that he is lying!
:grr: And if he manages to get this con game through Congress, I hope he has a pretzel attack.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtTheEndOfTheDay Donating Member (454 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #62
74. "I hope he has a pretzel attack"
I hope he has one regardless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SammyWinstonJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-12-05 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #74
77. Ah! So do I! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Just Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #1
50. Facet of fascism: benefit corporate interests at expense of "the people".
Is this ruler essentially threatening those who are opposing policies that HURT the American people?

He's definitely SPENDING, SPENDING, SPENDING all that "political capital" (e.g. public treasure) he believes he earned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
renaissanceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #50
57. Bring it on.
I hope he continues on this cocky path, and gets even moderate pugs mad...therefore getting impeached.


http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.15841622
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #1
60. Why does CNN and Reuters have space to show facts proving Bush lies-AP
does not?

:-(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wright Patman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 07:25 AM
Response to Original message
2. Funny how this only works
with public monies he wants to loot. With Enron and before that the savings and loan industry, people were pointing out the need for reform, but since those were well-connected (in many cases connected to the CIA) private profiteers, they let the games go on until every dime was looted from the unsuspecting investors and employees.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sniffa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 07:25 AM
Response to Original message
3. bring it on
fucker!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
punpirate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 07:27 AM
Response to Original message
4. Outright lies...
... and more to come.

This man said he wasn't going to leave problems for other presidents to fix. He's created almost insurmountable debt that someone will have to address when he's gone. "Fixing" an unbroken Social Security system will add considerably to that debt.

These people want to kill Social Security, not fix it. It's so obvious, it's painful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hilster Donating Member (135 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 07:29 AM
Response to Original message
5. Younger workers?
I'll be 20 this year, and I most certainly believe I won't be seeing a dime if something is done about Social Security by moving it into a more private arena that is unreliable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rfranklin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 07:34 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. They told us the same thing back in the Regan era....
Edited on Tue Jan-11-05 07:34 AM by rfranklin
Raised the SS tax to "save" the system and then spent every dime they collected leaving us with IOUs. Now they don't want to pay it back and they want to fleece us for more.

That's when I was in my twenties. Nothing has changed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rainscents Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #5
67. I was told the same thing...
when I was in my late 20's... Social Security will NOT be here when I reach 65... Guess what??? I am 50 now and it's still here and and going strong. I was told lied to by REPUBLICAN (REAGAN)! Back than, I was very young and din't know any better like you! I thought the same as you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hilster Donating Member (135 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 08:13 PM
Response to Reply #67
72. that's good to know
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Massachusetts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 07:34 AM
Response to Original message
7. Most of the U.S. Public is still asleep
as this administration continues to plunder OUR Rights OUR Money and OUR Country. :wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 10:50 AM
Response to Reply #7
37. No wonder. If a present-day Paul Revere were to raise the alarm ...
... he'd be arrested as a terrorist, die in a light airplane crash, be attacked by his own party, be slandered by the Mighty Wurlitzer, or all of the above.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the effects of the decimation of labor on the rate of increase in the Social Security Trust Fund during the two Bushoilini Regimes ....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
YvonneCa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #7
46. Not all of us are asleep...
...but we do collectively need to take action. Here's an email I sent to Meet the Press about their discussion last Sunday on the subject of Social Security:


Dear Mr. Russert,

As a long time viewer of Meet the Press, I have always found your program to be enjoyable, but more importantly, educational. I always learn about issues important to the American people by watching your show. (Since I am also a teacher, the educational part has always been important.) As a John Kerry Democrat in 2004, I have been very concerned about the direction of our country. After the 2000 election, I decided to take action on my concern by working to elect a Democratic administration. After 2004, Ive decided to take action by writing to media organizations, in the hope that someone there is listening and will endeavor to educate the public on issues of concern.


After watching Meet the Press today, I have two issues of concern: 1) Media Responsibility, and 2) Social Security.


1. Media Responsibility- While I was glad to see your round table discussion on Armstrong Williams and NCLB, and the way in which the media manipulates the public, you only touched the tip of the iceberg. I think it is true that the public, in general, may have difficulty knowing who is truly a journalist, who is a pundit, who is entertainment, etc. However, you missed the fundamental point that paying for this media coverage to Armstrong Jones is probably illegal. If, as Al Hunt states, there are more instances of this, why doesnt the media have some responsibility to talk about that angle of the story? Its not just about you (the media). Taxpayer dollars are being used to manipulate public opinion. You have GREAT responsibility to cover that story, if you are the journalists you profess to be. You also have a critical responsibility to choose important stories to cover within your allotted time on air. C-Span covered the Electoral College Vote on January 6th, and to NBC News credit, you did mention it on Nightly News. These are the kind of stories I, and the American public need to be educated about if we are to make intelligent, educated choices when we go to the polls to vote, whether its for president, governor, mayor or dog catcher.

2. Social Security - Since it appears that the Bush Administration intends to privatize Social Security, I hope the media will fulfill its responsibility to educate the American people on this issue IN DEPTH. There are several points which I almost never hear made: First, that during the Clinton Administration, because of the surplus gained through his economic policies, this problem had been temporarily solved for our generation. It is only due to the incompetence ( or purposefulness ) of this administration that this issue is on the table at this time. Second, Social Security was developed to be an INSURANCE program, or safety net, not a retirement program. All discussion on your program, and most others, has been about how private accounts will provide a better retirement for seniors. My dad, had a massive heart attack at age 43, Social Security was there to help him and my mother keep their house and afford food when he could not work. I have a high school friend whose husband died in 1987, leaving her with three small children to support and no insurance, job, or income to buy food or pay the house payment, Social Security helped to tide her over, so she could go back to school, get a job, keep her house and care for her children. It was unbelievably difficult, but without Social Security, it would have been impossible. Her oldest son is now in the Air Force, the middle one is in college and her youngest graduates from high school this June. It is true, that Social Security is partly a retirement program, as a safety net, for the elderly. It was developed to that the elderly would not starve. I have two grown daughters. If they need this safety net, I want Social Security to be there for them.
I know that mine is only one opinion. My hope is that enough of your viewing audience is concerned, as I am, with the direction of our country and will speak up to help make our collective voice heard. It is clear to me, that we are not being heard now. If you have, in fact, read this email, I thank you for your time from the bottom of my heart! (smile)

Sincerely,

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Avalon Sparks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #46
75. That was an awesome letter Yvonne~
Thanks for sharing it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Just Me Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #7
54. More like brainwashed by illegal covert propaganda (psy-ops)! n/t
Edited on Tue Jan-11-05 02:15 PM by Just Me
Some of are simply less vulnerable to such psychological methods.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
surfermaw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #7
76. Mass. The Word Plunder was used to describe Harding Administration
Harding administration, plundered and stole from the United States , while Harding played around with the women.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 07:35 AM
Response to Original message
8. junior speaks as if he has 2000 years of knowledge and like we
were born just yesterday.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apwashington_sto...

"As to whether the current situation constitutes a crisis, he said, "You can call it whatever you want to call it, whatever adjective you want to describe the problem. I think it's real, I think it's fundamental, I think we have an obligation. ... I would also say that I think people are taking a risk politically if they stand up and say it's not a problem, because I think most people realize it is, particularly younger
people."
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and what I believe I believe what I believe is right.
George W. Bush: 43rd President of the United States

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChrisPhx Donating Member (122 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 07:50 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. Lies thru his teeth doing it, too
"...I would also say that I think people are taking a risk politically if they stand up and say it's not a problem..." :grr:

Except the Economists, Congress's budget agency, and the system's trustees. All of whom say it won't be a crisis for some time.

Chris
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunkerbuster1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 07:52 AM
Response to Original message
10. Chimpy: "You can call it whatever you want to call it"
Why, thank you, Commandant Chimpy; most gracious of you to permit us to speak freely.

Since you inquired, Commandant, I choose to call your crisis "bullshit."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sellitman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 07:57 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. Close...
I call it bushit!

(nice logo! )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bunkerbuster1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 08:35 AM
Response to Reply #14
22. 'Theft' works as well.
nice logo back atch...
hey, move over sistah, I'm workin' this sidea da street!

er, I mean--finally got us some real pop in the outfield, huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
proudbluestater Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 07:53 AM
Response to Original message
12. Asserting "an obligation to lead" on the issue
When I think of a president's obligation, the one thing that springs to my mind is DO NOT FUCK THINGS UP. Once you have, and done so utterly badly, dude, step back and let someone else lead. You've lead the country into the ditch. We don't need any more of your stellar "leadership."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
no_hypocrisy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 08:08 AM
Response to Reply #12
17. And citizens have an obligation to dissent and do everything legally and
politically necessary to prevent "reform", a/k/a destruction of Social Security.

It's a democracy George. Get over it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 07:53 AM
Response to Original message
13. Lying AND threatening. I hope hope hope he fights for this.
It could be what puts him beyond the pale with regular people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rose Siding Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 08:01 AM
Response to Original message
15. Has anyone seen the WSJ piece?
Are there tasty snips that this article didn't cover?

Funny that his go-to rag is the WSJ- it's like he's threatening Congress rather than making a case to the people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catchawave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 08:07 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. Also, in the NYT :
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/11/business/11social.htm...

Wall Street Hears Pitch for Social Security Plan
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS

Published: January 11, 2005


ASHINGTON, Jan. 10 - Treasury Secretary John W. Snow began a three-day sales effort on Monday to drum up Wall Street support for President Bush's plans to overhaul Social Security.

more....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Synnical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #16
59. Also, Rueters - Bush Paints Dire Picture of Social Security Future
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&s...

<snip>

The president used the word "bankrupt" five times to raise alarms about the finances of Social Security decades into the future.

<snip>

To try to make his case that Social Security is in peril, Bush focuses on two dates, 2018, when the amount of money paid out in Social Security begins to exceed contributions, and 2042, when the Social Security trust fund is expected to run out of accumulated cash.

But some critics say the use of the word "bankrupt" exaggerates the problem because even under more pessimistic scenarios, workers and employers still would being paying taxes into the system and benefits, although reduced, would still be paid.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gademocrat7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 08:11 AM
Response to Reply #15
18. Shrub's Folly
Social Security is not broken. Shrub wants to reward his big contributors on Wall Street. Brokers will make millions on this horrible scheme. WE can not let this happen. I hope this folly will be his undoing!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 08:17 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. Social Security is a very popular program. Upon this rock. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wicket Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 08:21 AM
Response to Reply #15
21. He's got nothing to use but fear
He is such an asshole :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wicket Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 08:19 AM
Response to Original message
20. Liar, liar, pants on fire!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
King Coal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 08:39 AM
Response to Original message
23. The members?
Is Prescott talking to him from the grave?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Merlin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 08:44 AM
Response to Original message
24. If only Democrats could explain the problem It's simple.
SS has HUGE, GIANT Surpluses in its "account" that it has accrued over the years so it could pay the boomers during their retirement.

SS is NOT BROKE or even close.

This is the problem: SS has LOANED THOSE SURPLUSES TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, and the fed will have to pay it back. But when it's running deficits and cutting taxes for the rich, the fed doesn't have the money.

It's that simple. Wouldn't it be nice to hear people say it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #24
41. Yep!!!!
I remember someone mentioning when they first started financing this nasty immoral war on Iraq that the money was being BORROWED from the SS trust fund!!!!!!!

I was pissed off when I heard that!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oneold1-4u Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #24
42. Worst scenario
The SS is only as good as the bonds used to remove the actual funds and today and tomorrow the bonds will keep dropping in value as the dollar takes a beating around the world. It figures out that if you bought something (bond) for a dollar last year its return value next week is 77cents. Better off having spent it on TP at WM and flushed it all!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ozone_man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #24
65. Yes, do you know such a Democrat?
Most have lost their spines long ago. Well, there are still a few with spines. Maybe if Dean makes DNC chairman, he can restore the Dems to something honorable again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leesa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 08:44 AM
Response to Original message
25. Isee. It'S WE who are frightening people. Right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
durablend Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #25
36. "We're just trying to steal the money quietly..."
"But you damn lefties keep making a big fuss over it"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kcora Donating Member (10 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 08:50 AM
Response to Original message
26. Future possibilities
What I can see happening - similar to what happened when all the baby boomers lost their retirement funds with the last stock market drop. Social security is "reformed", young people (whatever age group he's talking about) get control of their social security contributions. They influx the stock market with their new funds - lots of new mutual funds show up, lots of new start-up companies with the influx of all this cash, lots of investment firms making lots of money.

Then, like with the retirement funds, big company executives (whatever happened to those Exxon guys) start pilfering money; big investors and corporations start fooling around with things. All that money that these young people put in starts disappearing. Like before, the stock market starts to drop, many pull out with whatever they have left, many lose most of their savings.

Now we have no more social security money, and these young people have no social security savings - it's all disappeared in the stock market. There is now a whole generation with nothing to support them in their old age (welfare comes back?).

Not to mention that social security is what's holding up our great national debt right now (most of it being invested in Treasury bonds). That all dwindles away as people start withdrawing and no new money comes in. Now who pays for the great national debt that's building? With no captive audience (social security) it will be harder to sell bonds (too much supply, not enough demand). Interest rates go up. The cost of our national debt goes up.

Now who pays for that? Since the rich are most of their income tax free - dividends aren't taxed to the corporation or the individual thanks to Mr. Bush - we need to get the money to pay this national debt somewhere. The rich are sitting comfortable. Guess who's going to be hurting.

I see signs of "let them eat cake". I am frightened.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 08:51 AM
Response to Original message
27. If there's anything left in your stomach to hurl, read the last 2 grafs
of that story:

In the interview, Bush also discussed his commitment to bringing democracy to the Middle East.

"I understand there are many who say, 'Bush is wrong,'" he said. "I assume I'm right. It's exciting to be part of stimulating a debate of such significance," he went on. "It really is the philosophical argument of the age."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KayLaw Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #27
29. Philosophical argument, huh?
I thought he said it was a looming crisis?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yinkaafrica Donating Member (535 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #27
45. You are right, now I want to hurl
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laurab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #27
48. He "assumes he's right" always
yet he hasn't been right yet. Here is a man who definitely should not ever assume. So, we're in an illegal, immoral war, killing thousands upon thousands of innocents to "stimulate a debate"? Is that the new reason? I've been trying to find the new reason we're there. "The philosophical argument of the age"? He's mis-overestimating himself (to speak his language). The man doesn't have arguments - he's always right, and he has quite the grandiose opinion of himself.

He really does make me physically ill.

Bring Democracy to the U.S.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fliesincircles Donating Member (174 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #27
52. Boy, I like that quote
"Bush is wrong."
Could you say that again george?
"Bush is wrong."
One more time, real loud.
"Bush is wrong."

Good boy, here's your pretzel.
I sure hope that interview was video taped. That would be one sweet sound bite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Redstone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 08:53 AM
Response to Original message
28. "we got to do this again."--???
Nice grammar there, Nucular Boy.

Our Fearless Leader speaks, and damn, isn't he inspiring and impressive?

Redstone
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
adigal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 09:13 AM
Response to Original message
30. A few points...
1. How does a president, who has not yet even been re-inaugurated, yet whose approval rating has fallen to the high 40s, expect to offer "political cover" to congressmen who have to go back to their districts and explain cuts in Social Security to their constitutents? His hubris, or lack of reality-based thinking, is becoming more and more apparent every day.

2. A number of Republicans have already said they will not sign on to Bush's plan.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64196-20...

3. This administration is really becoming more and more absurd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #30
31. "I think it's real"
To answer your first question you run out in the streets declaring victory and if anyone brings up what you did you call them "Obstructionist".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #30
32. Third Rail! Third Rail!
Gonna have some good old boy, GOP barbecue!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 09:26 AM
Response to Original message
33. How much political cover do you need if you own the machines? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RuleofLaw Donating Member (345 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 09:46 AM
Response to Original message
34. Lock Box!
Does anyone remember the debates 4 years ago? At that time the big question was what to do with the huge SS surplus. Al Gore wanted to put it in a lock box, only to be used when the SS system would run out of money.

Now, everybody is pretending that it never happened. No one is talking about how much money was in the SS 4 years ago. Like everyone has amnesia.

Crazy!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #34
35. So true! The elephant in this room is the fact that they spent the money
they borrowed from the trust fund and they are trying to find a way not to have to pay it back. That's all this is about.

WE have to kick up enough of a fuss so that the mealy-mouthed press will be forced to acknowledge that fact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sjgman9 Donating Member (142 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 10:52 AM
Response to Original message
38. Hey Bush, we see through your BS
Stop manufacturing repeated crisises. You're like the little boy that cried wolf. We don't wanna pay wall street a commission so they can play the slots and bankrupt social security. why don't you find Osama instead. ass
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wabeewoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 11:10 AM
Response to Original message
39. Write your LTE
Paul Krugman and the Josh Marshall both have some great information. I wrote one yesterday. Does anyone know if all the social security trustees are bush appointees?

"The Social security trustees estimate that the program faces a shortfall of 3.7 trillion dollars in 75 years using a very pessimestic estimate of the economic future. The medicare drug plan costs 8.1 trillion over the next 75 years. The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, if made permanent cost 11.6 trillion. The tax cuts and the prescription drug bill were the presidents two principal domestic priorities during his first term. Together, these policies will cost at least five times as much over the next 75 years as the Social Security shortfall.* Between those 2 programs, that is 19.7 TRILLION dollars. This is about priorities, not crisis. "

* direct quote from Center on Budget and Policy Priorities website http://www.cbpp.org/1-4-05socsec.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 11:11 AM
Response to Original message
40. Hey bush
try READING for a change. You can start with Krugman's column in today's New York Times. Try it. You just might learn something you fucking idiot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
insane_cratic_gal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 11:44 AM
Response to Original message
43. Isnt this issue more about
Those youngin's investing their money into the Stock Market?

Hence trying to stimulate Bush's disaster of an economy?

Why doesn't he fucking admit it. SS isn't broke, but your economy is, isn't Mr. Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The_Casual_Observer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 11:53 AM
Response to Original message
44. Duplicity
When was the last time bush was upfront and honest with the folks back home? I can't think of a single time. There is something fundamentally wrong with the guy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VegasWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 12:27 PM
Response to Original message
47. I guess God told him to go for it. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Karenina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 12:39 PM
Response to Original message
49. Y'all dare utter
a word against mah decree and mah people gonna smoke yo asses. We take you out jes' like we done Saddam! :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chomskysright Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 01:01 PM
Response to Original message
51. 21 Researched Talking points to do battle with....
21 REASONS WHY PRESIDENT BUSH'S PLAN FOR SOCIAL SECURITY IS A BAD IDEA AND IN FACT IS MISLEADING :
(WAYS TO INNOCULATE YOURSELF AGAINST THE ONCOMING MEDIA BLITZ):
A story of how Social Security is not like a 'pig in a python' (but that's what Bush and company are telling you)
We are being scammed to pay for the war on Iraq & associated deficits


You will notice that points have references; see those references at the end of these points. This is not intended to be an 'academic presentation'; thus, the URL's which you can check for yourself.



1. WHO WANTS THE CHANGE AND HOW WILL THEY 'FRAME' THE ISSUE? Wall Street wants privatization in order reap a windfall profit. Everyone else should be very suspicious. If the stock market goes down, your benefits go down.

This is what you will hear from Bush and company: "right now we are on an unsustainable course." They say, 'its unfixable as it is.' They will say: 'the problem will just grow and grow as more and more boomers come on board to obtain their Social Security benefits.' They will say: "the trust fund is empty.

Quite the contrary: Social Security funds are actually increasing and....and will actually expand for 10 more years because of the interest it receives from Treasury bonds. Could it be that Bush and company are worried because, "the government has already used the annual surpluses to finance its operating deficits." (Edmund L. Andrews; The New York Times ; Monday 10 January 2005)

That's right: Bush and company have used the surplus which usually accumulates along with the principal money in order to do something about the deficit that they have created over the past 4 years.



2. 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)



3. WHY ARE WE BEING TOLD WE NEED TO 'DO SOMETHING ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY'? The nation's baby boomers start to retire at the end of this decade and relatedly the cost of retirement benefits is expected to rise much faster than payroll taxes from active workers. Obviously, payments become higher with each generation of retirees, even after accounting for inflation. By 2042, the trust fund will have used up its reserves and payroll taxes will cover only about 70 percent of the promised benefits.


4. WON'T WE HAVE TO PAY FOR CHANGING TO PRIVATE ACCOUNTS?? HOW MUCH WOULD IT COST US? : the Bush administration deems the current system, with its average monthly benefit of $955, as too generous (that's less than $12,000/ year). The Bush Administration wants to cut benefits by more than 40% to help pay the trillions of dollars that would be needed for the creation and maintenance of private accounts. http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=41481

This doesn't make sense given that now Social Security is the most efficient government system ever instigated, utilizing only 1% of the overall funds to manage the monthly Social Security payments for millions of people. More than 99 percent of Social Security's revenues go toward benefits, and less than 1 percent for overhead. The Social Security System is legally separate from the rest of the budget. Bush wants to discontinue that. This will make it difficult it not impossible to track in terms of is the Social Security money really being used for other purposes like making war on Iraq.

Where's all that money right now? "The Social Security trust fund has accumulated more than $1.5 trillion in reserves, held in Treasury bonds." (Edmund L. Andrews; The New York Times ; Monday 10 January 2005)



5. WHO IN BUSH'S ADMINISTRATION IS DRIVING THE MATTER? Karl Rove, Bush's right hand man: He is attempting to convince the public that Social Security is 'heading for an iceberg." )http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6791950 )


4. 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


5. WHAT STRATEGIES ARE BEING UTILIZED IN ORDER TO CONVINCE THE PUBLIC OF THE NEED FOR PRIVATIZATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY?: "The administration has suggested that it would be justified in borrowing some $2 trillion to establish private accounts because doing so would head off $10 trillion in future
Social Security liabilities. It's bad enough that the $10 trillion is a highly inflated figure, intended to overstate a problem that is reasonably estimated at $3.7 trillion or
even considerably less. Worse are the true dimensions of the administration's proposed ploy, which were made painfully clear in a memo that was leaked to the press last week. Written in early January by Peter Wehner.".....(Rove's right hand person): http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/10/opinion/10mon1.html?e...


6. 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


7. WHO ELSE UNDERLINES THAT THIS IS WHAT WOULD ACTUALLY OCCUR? : " The real impact of President Bush's Social Security privatization scheme: massive cuts in promised benefits. The White House is expected to propose a new system of calculating Social Security benefits called "price indexing." The technical change would mean "cutting promised benefits by nearly a third in the coming decades" with even deeper cuts in the future. For example, if the "price indexing" change is made, "a retiree in 2075 would receive 54 percent of the benefits now promised." David C. John, a Social Security expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation called the proposal "very much like sticking your hand in a wasp nest.": American Progress Action Fund" <progress@americanprogressaction.org


8. WHAT ARE SOME POINTS THAT YOU MIGHT EXPECT TO HEAR FROM BUSH AND THE REPUBLICANS? Talk about: PRICE INDEXING: The current method of calculating Social Security benefits is adjusted to reflect the standard of living when a person retires. That means when your benefits are calculated based on your average earnings, the salary you made 25 years ago is adjusted upwards to reflect the overall rise in wages (wage growth) since that time. The "price indexing" plan, expected to be proposed by Bush, would make that adjustment based on the rise of consumer prices essentially the inflation rate. Since wages rise much faster than inflation, that means your newly adjusted salary will be lower. The end result is far lower benefits for every new generation of retirees. If this system had been in place since Social Security's inception, people today would be retiring with a benefit tied to the living standard of the 1930s, when 40 percent of households lacked indoor plumbing.: progress@americanprogressaction.or


9. WHAT ELSE CAN WE EXPECT TO COME OUT WAY RE: THIS PUSH FOR PRIVATIZATION? : 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.: progress@americanprogressaction.or


10. WHAT ARE SOME OTHER MATTERS ASSOCIATED WITH RETIREMENT SAVINGS THAT WILL BE BOUGHT UP? The Thrift Savings Plan: what is it land what might be the downsides of such a model, which could be part of the Rovian onslaught?
the Thrift Savings Plan could serve as a possible model for personal investment accounts in Social Security.
Numerous readers said the two programs are unrelated and that the TSP, which relies on federal payroll systems for its basic operation, cannot be replicated on a scale as large as Social Security. Others said a column about the plan failed to stress that the TSP is a voluntary savings program that supplements Social Security, a tax-based program. Cavanaugh's paper (The paper, "Feasibility of Social Security Individual Accounts," was published by the AARP Public Policy Institute. AARP is opposing Bush's plan), for example, says that personal accounts in Social Security will cost more to manage than those in the TSP, in part because the TSP can rely on hundreds of federal agencies to administer payroll deductions and provide retirement planning and other services.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61607-20...


11. SO THE THRIFT SAVINGS PLAN APPEARS TO WORK FOR LARGER PERSONAL INVESTMENT ACCOUNTS, YES? The paper also points out that TSP operates on a progressive fee system (usually 60 cents per $1,000 account balance) so that holders of the higher account balances absorb part of the cost of maintaining smaller accounts. Such a fee system would not work in Social Security because too many accounts would be small, the paper contends. Social Security relies on the government to absorb inflation and market risks, while the TSP shifts those risks to individual investors, Cavanaugh writes. "Attempts to combine these two fundamentally different programs are like mating a bear with a bee -- somebody is going to get hurt," he concludes.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61607-20...


12. WHY DOES WALL STREET WANT THE CHANGE? In the background, beyond private accounts, are various proposals to cut guaranteed Social Security
benefits in the future.


13. BUT WE WILL NEVER HAVE ANOTHER DEPRESSION AS IN 1929: wrong: In 1973-74, the stock
market lost 48 percent of its value. The stock market is a very dangerous place to put money



14. WHO DOES NOT WANT THE CHANGE? (1) AARP, the nation's largest seniors organization, is coming out
strongly against President Bush's plan to allow private individual accounts
within Social Security. (2) On January 10, 2005, a NY Times Opinion piece stated this: "In this and other ways, the administration is manipulating
information - a tacit, yet devastating, acknowledgement, we believe, that an informed public would reject privatizing Social Security." http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/10/opinion/10mon1.html?e...


15. HOW MUCH WOULD IT COST TO PRIVATIZE SOCIAL SECURITY? transitioning to private accounts could cost $2 trillion. See above information also.


16. TO REVIEW, WHERE WOULD THAT MONEY COME FROM? our taxes will have to be increased to make Bush's proposed plan work.


17. THEY TELL US THAT SOCIAL SECURITY IS BROKE OR GOING BROKE?: With all the clamoring about Social Security, a simple fact has been obscured: the Social Security budget is currently running a surplus; progress@americanprogressaction.or


18. OTHER COUNTRIES MUST HAVE SOCIAL SECURITY AND MAYBE THOSE ARE BETTER? wrong: Chile's system, management fees are around 20 times as high. A privatized system will take money from your Social Security check.


19. SHOULD YOU BE WORRIED THAT YOU WILL NOT HAVE SOCIAL SECURITY? Nothing is going to change, in terms of benefits, for people near your retirement age.


20. WHO TAXED SOCIAL SECURITY TO BEGIN WITH? Ronald Reagan, a Republican, began the taxation on Social Security in 1983.


21. IF WE ARE GOING TO 'FIX IT' HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT TO DO AS RELATED TO WHAT HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PAST TO 'FIX' IT? "If you compare its position now with its position at the time of the last reforms in 1977 and 1983, it's clearly better," Professor Diamond said. "Even then, it was readily fixed without radical reforms, and it's obvious that can be done again." (a professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a co-author of the book "Saving Social Security.")





There is no Social Security crisis, just as there were no weapons of mass destruction. Social Security has provided a lifeline to millions of Americans with
millions of checks, and in more than 60 years has never missed a paymentand this track record can continue. Social Security is basically a sound system
that can meet 100 percent of its obligations for the next 39 years, and with responsible changes it can continue to do so indefinitely.

"Social Security is not a crisis for which enormous borrowing, huge benefit
cuts and risky private accounts are a solution. Rather,
it's a financial problem of manageable proportions,
solvable without new borrowing by a combination of modest
benefit cuts and tax increases that could be distributed
fairly and phased in over several decades, while
guaranteeing a basic level of inflation-proof income for
life." http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/10/opinion/10mon1.html?e...


REFERENCES:




Edmund L. Andrews; The New York Times ; Monday 10 January 2005:

HTtp://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=41481

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6791950 )

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/10/opinion/10mon1.html?e...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61607-20...


progress@americanprogressaction.or













Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CBHagman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 02:11 PM
Response to Original message
53. BUMP this thread.
N/T
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coastie for Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 02:25 PM
Response to Original message
55. As Big A Target for Us as Hillarys Health Plan was for Them
1. We have to convince the public that there is no crisis (as in Paul Krugman and the AARP).

    Bush lies - people die. The Saddam-Osama "Alliance" - a lie. Saddam's WMD on the launch pad - a lie.


2. We have to convince the Bush True Believers "On The Fence" - even if there is a Bush defined crisis - it can be solved by pushing up the wage ceiling from its present $88K, and bumping up the age at which full benefits kick in.

3. We have to convince the Bush True Believers that the Bush Borrowing is just transferring the cost from our kids to our grand kids, and that the required borrowing for "transition costs" will push us into Third World government levels of public debt.

4. We have to convince the Bush True Believers that the Bush Program kills both "Survivors Benefits" and "Disability Benefits"

5. We have to convince the Bush True Believers that putting our "Secure" retirements savings into the private equity market will require a Federal Pension Benefit Guaranty - Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation - (Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation as per Neil Bush :) ?) insurance - on a massive scale - with the cost borne by us.

This is, potentially, as big (and defeatable) a target as Hillary's Health Plan was for Karen Ignagni's famed "Harry and Louise" infomercials.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mcscajun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 02:47 PM
Response to Original message
56. Bush -- the Thinking Man's President.
"I think two of the things that are going to be important...I think it's become pretty clear in people's minds...And most younger workers, as far as I can tell...I think it's real, I think it's fundamental, I think we have an obligation...I think people are taking a risk politically if they stand up and say it's not a problem, because I think most people realize it is, particularly younger people."

Is THIS all the 'thinking' he was doing while he spent his brush-clearing vacation in Crawford while the tsunami disaster occupied the rest of the world?

"I think, therefore I am -- right." ????? "As far as I can tell..."?????

Now THAT's leadership for...um...nevermind.

Reading is fundamental, Georgie...catch the clue train.

I gotta go lie down now.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selteri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 03:22 PM
Response to Original message
58. I thought he made a threat
The way he said that they would lose at the voting booth... not with the voter for opposing him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MsUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 05:07 PM
Response to Original message
61. I found this article about the talking points for saving SS:
http://aflcio.org/issuespolitics/socialsecurity / This "crisis" really does sound just like the drums beating for the war in Iraq. Scary, very scary. Got to get the word out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Megahurtz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 05:12 PM
Response to Original message
63. Lying, selfish, dishonest, fascist,
dictator slime!!!

What is this, a threat? No one can disagree with him or else?

He's ruining all of us! (except the wealthy and fortunate)

Why doesn't he just tell the truth that he "borrowed" from the SS till and doesn't want to pay it back???

So what this means to me is that he STOLE from the SS till, STOLE from ordinary working class citizens, STOLE what the working class ALREADY PAID FOR!!!

THIEF!!! :argh:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hilster Donating Member (135 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 06:21 PM
Response to Original message
64. ugh!
such a "turd sandwich."

"a price at the ballot box" - probably with a little help from his cronies at their hacking stations/offices/polling place/however they manage to control the votes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kadie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 07:12 PM
Response to Original message
66. Bush to Congress: pass Social Security reform or risk your jobs
Bush to Congress: pass Social Security reform or risk your jobs
NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer

Tuesday, January 11, 2005


(01-11) 15:02 PST WASHINGTON (AP) --

President Bush tried to increase pressure on members of Congress who are leery of his ideas to change Social Security by telling them Tuesday they could be risking their jobs.

"I happen to believe people who have been elected to office who ignore problems will face a price at the ballot box," Bush said during a forum with voters who support his goal of creating private investment accounts to partly replace guaranteed benefits.

Democrats say that they, too, will make an issue of Social Security in the midterm elections. "Republicans should be worried," said Democratic National Committee spokesman Jano Cabrera. "Whether Republicans are cutting benefits, raising taxes, or further exploding the budget deficit, Democrats intend to make Social Security a key issue in 2006."

Social Security is projected to start paying out more in benefits than it collects in taxes in 2018, according to Social Security trustees but will be able to pay full promised benefits until 2042. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has projected the program will be solvent until 2052.

more...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archi...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Straight Shooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 07:30 PM
Response to Original message
68. Time to call it what it is, piratization
Piratization, not privatization. Props to the one who thought that up.

"Looting" is also an apt description.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 07:41 PM
Response to Original message
69. He can lead himself in circles. And he'd still manage to screw THAT up.
He's no leader. He's anthropomorphic lice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blueheeler Donating Member (163 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 07:45 PM
Response to Original message
70. The leader of Fear.
I cannot believe he is now using his fear tactics against his own. I hope they do not fall into the "sheeple" line with the rest. The neocon press at American Spectator have stooped to criticizing the AARP for not supporting it and posting lying ads in newspapers. It is amazing that every day something new comes out about this administration or their supporters that just blows my mind.

:mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hollowdweller Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 08:12 PM
Response to Original message
71. The facts are on our side. Dems need to tear him a new asshole!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-11-05 08:18 PM
Response to Reply #71
73. As John Wayne would say, "That'll be the day"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Dec 22nd 2014, 03:57 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC