Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Did Dean "misspeak" about Social Security in his response to Kucinich?

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 » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 05:47 AM
Original message
Did Dean "misspeak" about Social Security in his response to Kucinich?
I recall his remarks about "raising the age limit" to 67 or 68 from a few months ago. Does anyone else remember those remarks? If so, were they in the context that "maybe" we will have to raise the retirement age or that he would raise the retirement age if he were President? There is a distinction. If he said it in response to a question about the viability of Social Security, that is understandable. If he said it as a proposal that he would support to save Social Security, that is another matter. Did he "misspeak"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Cheswick2.0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 05:49 AM
Response to Original message
1. yes I remmeber him saying it
I would like clarification.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chimpymustgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 05:59 AM
Response to Original message
2. Howard "tap dancing" Dean. On MTP said he'd consider raising it.
Last night he seemed to suggest the thought had never crossed his mind. Geez.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 06:44 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. He tried to make a fool out of Dennis..
as if poor Dennis needed any help last night.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chimpymustgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 06:59 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. True, on both counts.
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
searchingforlight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 07:48 AM
Response to Reply #2
9. No, at the end of his answer he said he wouldn't take it back to 65.
He said he wouldn't raise it to 70.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tinoire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #2
35. The Republicans were already having a hay-day with this one
last night did not help Dr Dean. You cannot be everything to everyone! That is the worst mistake you can make in today's information age.

-----------------
Oh, the joy I got watching Howard Dean, former Governor of Vermont, run into the buzz saw known as Tim Russert Sunday morning on Meet the Press. Tim Russert has a track record of catching people in attempts at misinformation and pandering to voting blocks, and in this case, he did not disappoint. In one single interview, contender for the Democratic presidential nomination Howard Dean was exposed for the pretender he really is.
<snip>

Dean really got thrown for a loop when Russert started throwing his own words at him. In this case, it was over raising the retirement age.

Russert posed the question to Dean about raising the retirement age to seventy years old. Dean successfully dodged the question for a moment, claiming it already had been raised, and then moving the discussion to balanced budgets.

But fear not, Russert would not be duped, and he was armed with some good ammo. After the brief distraction of balanced budgets, Russert moved the discussion back to retirement ages, playing an old clip of Howard Dean supporting the idea of raising the retirement age. Let's go to the transcript:

RUSSERT: "I think we should raise the retirement age about the year 2015-raise it by that time to about age 70." And then Governor Dean said, "I absolutely agree we need to increase the retirement age. There will be cuts and losses of some benefits, but I believe that Senator Packwood is exactly on the right track, and we need to deal with the Social Security retirement age."
MR. DEAN: Well, we've-I mean, we have done that partly. We've raised it to 67. Now, can we raise it more? I am not going to rule it out. But I think before I signed up for that, I'd like to look at the...
MR. RUSSERT: Well, Packwood said 70. And you said you agreed with him.
MR. DEAN: OK, but, you know, how long ago was that?
MR. RUSSERT: Oh, a couple years, but that's all right.
MR. DEAN: Yeah, a couple years. How long has it been since Bob Packwood was in the Senate?
MR. RUSSERT: But that's...
MR. DEAN: Was I even governor then?
MR. RUSSERT: But if you changed your mind, why would you change your mind?
MR. DEAN: Because I am older and wiser and I know that you don't say things like that without looking at the numbers first.
MR. RUSSERT: And maybe running for president.
MR. DEAN: No.

Save us the torture Mr. Dean. Here's the response you were looking for:


My pollsters haven't looked at that one yet. I'm going to do what best gets me the support of those fine, elderly Americans whose blood, sweat, and persistency built this country into what it is today. (Cue waving of an American flag)

http://216.239.33.104/search?q=cache:ckZxDBQSclAJ:www.o...

----------

Here's another one:
Russert continued, pinning Dean to the wall on several proposals he'd made while unofficially campaigning for the nomination, including raising the retirement age to 70, cutting Social Security and the legality of Canadian marriages in the U.S. involving same-sex couples. Ouch. No matter how quickly Dean backpedaled, Russert had snappy graphics ready to remind candidate Dean of precisely what he'd said.

Dean stumbled, backtracked, spun, bobbed, dodged and weaved, but Russert was relentless in his pursuit of an honest position.

Was this a case of Dean not working out a message before he started talking? Or did he start believing his own press? Dean's gotten a lot of ink for his hard-line attacks on President Bush, but he seemed ill prepared Sunday to take a stand and support assertions he'd made.

That's not an attractive trait in a candidate for any office, let alone for president.

<snip>

http://www.timesleaderonline.com/columns/story/06302020...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewYorkerfromMass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #35
58. Youch!
good post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w13rd0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 07:15 AM
Response to Original message
5. Early in the 90s...
...there was much talk about how to handle the impeding crises when Baby Boomers began to retire.

From the Russert MTP Interview:
"Dr. Dean: Social Security, Ithe best way to balance Social Security budget right now is to expand the amount of money that Social Security payroll taxes apply to. It's limited now to something like $80,000. You let that rise. I also would entertain taking the retirement age to 68. It's at 67 now. I would entertain that."

"Mr. Russert: When the baby boomers retire, we have a real impending crisis.

Dr. Dean: That's right. First of all, you've got to fix Social Security and you've got to fix the budget. Fixing Social Security is an independent problem from the budget.

You've got to look at expanding the amount of money that gets taxed for Social Security. You know, if you make $100,000 a year, the last $15,000 doesn't have to pay Social Security tax for it."

As you can see, he talks about investigating options. I don't know about you, but I'd rather hear from someone who is willing to look at the reality of a situation and propose solutions than someone who is going to lie to me about what I can expect in the future. He does not say, "I'll raise the retirement age and slash benefits". He discusses possible options in the event that we don't see an economic recovery that will sufficiently cover future expenditures for baby boomer retirement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 07:23 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Thanks w13rd0 !
For clearing that up. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
revcarol Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 07:31 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. No "clarification" of his "misspeaking" there.
He definitely said that he would raise the age to 68 from 67, IN ADDITION TO THE OTHER MEASURES HE WANTS TO TAKE.

Exact quote is available in about FIVE places on this board.
He's weaseling and waffling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w13rd0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 08:09 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. The quote you are referring to...
...is from the early 90s, when the federal government was dealing with the first Bush red ink. Perhaps his position "evolved" due to circumstances and evaluation of the evidence, ya know. You wouldn't happen to know any politicians that claim their position on a given topic has "evolved", would you? No, because to you, that would be "waffling", right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tjdee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 08:18 AM
Response to Reply #11
14. The quote is from the 90s? Or last month?
"I also would entertain taking the retirement age to 68. It's at 67 now. I would entertain that."

That's what he said. Last month.

Fine, if he wants to think about it. BUT--to treat Kucinich as if DK was flat out making things up...that's wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killbotfactory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 09:16 AM
Response to Reply #14
27. Dennis said Dean WANTS to raise the age limit and cut benefits.
Dean said he doesn't want to do that. Saying he would entertain raising the retirement age is an option is not the same as saying he wants to do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tjdee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #27
29. That's not what Dean said.
Edited on Wed Aug-06-03 09:28 AM by tjdee
He said he wasn't for it. He didn't say it was an option. In 1995 he DID say it should be moved to 70, and last month he said he would entertain moving it to 68. Last NIGHT, he flat out acted like he had no idea what DK was talking about. He even brought up 'the rules' as if he just *had* to reply to this *lie* about him.

That is not honest. If you truly feel that is an honest reaction, we're obviously not going to agree on this, LOL.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killbotfactory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #29
33. That is what he said.
Dean said he doesn't favor it. It's true.
On MTP Dean said cutting benefits and raising the age limit wasn't neccessary, said you just raise the amount of income the tax applies to, and would think about raising the age limit basically as a last resort.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tjdee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #33
52. Can you show me in the transcript where he says "last resort"?
Because he doesn't. Once he says it's an idea he's 'entertaining', then 'maybe you look at the retirement age going to 68'. He believes raising the age is an option.

LOL--we're going to reach an impasse on this, and that's cool. I don't think Dean wants to bankrupt SS or anything like that. I just think it was dishonest of him to draw a blank as if he had *no idea* what DK was talking about, and dishonest to say that he was definitely against it. "Maybe" doesn't sound definite to me.

Here's the transcript, btw. http://www.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w13rd0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 08:13 AM
Response to Reply #8
13. The quote you are referrencing...
Edited on Wed Aug-06-03 08:34 AM by w13rd0
bah...shees...board bein funky again...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w13rd0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 08:19 AM
Response to Reply #8
15. more dupin
Edited on Wed Aug-06-03 08:35 AM by w13rd0
pfft...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w13rd0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 08:26 AM
Response to Reply #8
16. dupe
Edited on Wed Aug-06-03 08:36 AM by w13rd0
can't we just delete dupes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UnapologeticLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 10:18 PM
Response to Reply #8
69. He did not deny that he supported raising it to 68
He said that he never supported 70 and does not now favor 68. So the only part he may have gotten wrong was the part about raising it to 70.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 07:19 AM
Response to Original message
6. Raising retirement age is ONLY solution, - should be at 70 by 2043
It was raised under Reagan from 65 to 67 for "full normal retirement level benefits" - which means that age 62 benefits were reduced as the age 62 benefits are "normal retirement age" benefits reduced for being paid early - and now those benefits are 5 years early rather than 3 years early the way theu were pre-Reagan change from 65.

Between now and the year 2043, Social Security must schedule a series of "age of normal retirement" increases that moves the current 67 to 70.

Dean is correct - and the first truth teller on this topic.

I hope it does not result in a 1984 (I will raise your taxes and so will Reagan but he will not say it) moment that the media allows Bush to "mis-speak" /get away with - so as to elect Bush in 04.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tjdee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 08:09 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. So why did he DENY it last night?
When DK said that, Dean made a point of saying specifically that he would NOT raise the retirement age.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WhoCountsTheVotes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 08:36 AM
Response to Reply #6
18. That's what the DLC says
Edited on Wed Aug-06-03 09:08 AM by WhoCountsTheVotes
But raising the age is not the only solution. The simplest and best solution would be to stop sheltering rich people's income from Social Security, and remove the cap.

The "New Democrats" in the DLC and PPI have been promoting the idea that Social Security is or will be bankrupt, but Left Business Observer disagrees. In response, ndol.org published an article denouncing the "liberal predictions" of LBO.

edited for spelling
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UnapologeticLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #18
72. I think both may be necessary
But I have mixed feelings about raising the amount of income that is taxable, because there is a cap on benefits on the other end. To be fair, if you were to raise the cap on taxable income, you would have to raise the cap on benefits, and that would not help make it more solvent.

I guess this is a generational thing...I am 19 and am fairly certain that I will not only not see a penny from SS but will have my taxes raised to pay for the baby boomers. I am not unwilling to do this, but I resent when people tell me that social security is not a tax, that it is simply paying for my own life insurance. But when even the most optimistic, anti-privatization forces say it is solvent only until 2041, when I will be 57, I do not exactly feel insured.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mairead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #6
24. But there are no JOBS, dammit!
I've worked at a professional level in 5 count'm 5 different uni-degree-required fields. I'm only 62, and I'm on social security because I can't find work in any of the five. And it's not just the crap economy, I spent most of the 'boom '90s' on the shelf as well because of being over 50.

So don't clasp your hands to your bosom in ecstacy because Dean talks about raising the damned retirement age. Unless he can produce real jobs--not PhDs bagging groceries or flipping burgers--for everyone who wants one no matter their age, he's nothing but another betrayer of American workers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #24
36. It's not really so much a question of "jobs" ...
Edited on Wed Aug-06-03 09:36 AM by TahitiNut
... as it is the profligacy of a capitalistic monetary system that wastes its most abundant resource: experienced labor.

As a nation, we are awash in people willing and able to perform work that has value ... value to you, value to me, and value to our nation. Sadly, however, monetary wealth is so disproportionately distributed that those with the greatest monetary wealth currently have the least needs for the services of others.

In a system where labor is compensated for less than 50% (about 35% in the S&P 500) of its value and accumulated wealth retains the lion's share of the value of that labor, it's not surprising that labor can ultimately find no market. A market is fundamentally based on the principle of "win-win" -- where the product or service has a value to the buyer that's greater than price paid and vice versa. We have been creating a labor 'market' with fewer and fewer buyers, with more and more sellers. Labor deflation has been accelerated for over 20 years. It's the Republican (and DLC) "way".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #36
41. Boy you would think that if a business owner could
make 65 % of the earnings off a person's labor and the laborer only made 35 % himself,

you'd think there would be people running all over themselves to open up businesses and put this nice piece of arithmetic to work in their favor.

I bet the businessowners who are losing their shirts are wondering how this can be?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #41
48. "Would" or "could"?
This is where the great divide in monetary wealth ("capital") shows itself most clearly, IMHO. The difference between S&P500 (and more) corporations and "business owners" is a bit like the difference between racehorses and greyhounds on the same track ... both carrying jockeys and carrying varying handicap weights. What is a "business owner" today? Someone who's invested their life savings and borrowed money in a franchise? The "vigorish" such a person usually pays to the global corporation, on top of overheads, is enormous compared to their labor "costs". At the same time, various "regulatory" overheads just aren't proportiional to the size of the business. Many "business owners" are merely individuals seeking to benefit from the differing treatment of a "corporation" and labor in today's economy. But the infrastructure's economic hurdles aren't scaled according to the size of these "businesses." The lobbying clout of multinational corporations dwarfs the lobbying power of those smaller businesses actually dealing in goods or services. Among the most major of these multinational corporations are those, like Enron, who deal primarily in derivatives rather than products or services to end consumers. When the system attracts such parasites on the system itself, it's an indication the system is sick, IMHO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #41
49. Let's see.
BECAUSE THE DECK IS STACKED AGAINST SMALL AND MID-SIZED BUSINESSES, PERHAPS?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 08:55 AM
Response to Reply #6
25. I (almost fully) agree.
Edited on Wed Aug-06-03 09:07 AM by TahitiNut
There's no question that Social Security must balance the amounts paid in (payroll taxes) with the amounts paid out (benefits). The amounts paid in are a function of the number of people paying and the rates at which they pay. The amounts paid out are a function of the number of people receiving benefits and the amount of those benefits. We've reached a point where the benefits are as low as we can tolerate without impoverishing those who receive them -- any lower would amount to a failure of the system.

Likewise, the rates being paid are higher than tolerable. Currently, payroll taxes are about 34% higher than is necessary to cover current benefits. This is the result of the changes wrought during the Reagan/Bush administration, changes which included a 'compromise' with those whose agenda was (and is) the destruction of the Social Security system itself. (It was a "deal with the devil.") The specious notion that government could accumulate trillions of dollars in a "trust fund" as a reserve against future liabilities is a fiscal timebomb.

What it did was shift an overall federal tax burden from corporations and the wealthy to those with the least income. Even worse, besides shifting the rederal tax burden in that fashion, it effectively forced the "average federal taxpayer" to borrow money from the wealthiest in lieu of taxing them and increase the taxes on the least wealthy to pay interest on what's borrowed. This, in effect, created the most regressive taxation in our country's history -- all under the cover of 'rescuing' the Social Security system. The most accurate analogy I can compose is that's it'd be like "rescuing" a drowning child by throwing it some lead weights.

The thing I'd like to see is a revenues tax on corporations for Social Security against which the only deduction would be domestic employee compensation and pension benefit expenses. It's clear to me that corporations benefit from the labors of employees far beyond the time during which that labor is compensated. I think of this as unbooked "labor equity" -- the value of that labor above and beyond the compensation that's retaind by the corporation, traditionally thought of as assurance that the company will survive and continue to employ people. To the degree corporations survive and prosper, it is due solely to the labors of thier employees. Thus, as corporations become immortal, their immortality is, like a vampire, at the cost of the 'blood' of those whose labors upon which they feed. Paying for this blood is the least they can do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terwilliger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #25
45. we could simply mandate that free-market corporations
give 35% of all profits to a fund or account for their workers...then we could get rid of social security

OH YEAH! They wouldnt do that with a 2nd Amendment to their heads. I say bring social security down to 60 and cut off the government spending that isn't necessary, and eliminate corporate personhood, and mandate that corporations do MUCH MUCH MUCH more to assist their own workers.

I know, I know..."commie!" "socialist rat-bastard!"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Junkdrawer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #25
53. A "fiscal timebomb" whose fuse is shortened with every taxcut...
What would you guess now? 8yrs...5yrs...3yrs... :scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #53
59. I see it beginning to implode in 2014.
The projections that outlays will begin to exceed receipts in 2018 are, I believe, too optimistic considering unemployment and underemployment ... and considering the increased deficit spending and increased interest payments on the national debt.

Since federal budget projections, as well as long-term financial planning in various areas of the private sector, use a ten-year (or greater) planning horizon, we'll be seeing the anticipatory effects of this implosion almost immediately ... and getting bigger all the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shimmergal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #6
38. We must get an anti-age discrimination law with some teeth,
especially if we keep raising the retirement age. Present age-discrimination in employment law is widely ignored, even defied.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UnapologeticLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #6
70. I agree
I guess it depends on the job...maybe more physically demanding jobs should have a lower retirement age than white-collar jobs. But the bottom line is, people are living a lot longer now than they did when Social Security was created, and they are retiring later too, and if SS is not adjusted to reflect that, it will not have enough to pay for all the baby boomers, let alone us (their children).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tjdee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 08:12 AM
Response to Original message
12. It's not "misspeaking" if he meant to say it.
Edited on Wed Aug-06-03 08:21 AM by tjdee
Look.

Kucinich said something like, the solution isn't to raise the retirement age Mr. Dean.

Then, on a later question, Dean said he wanted to 'get back' to DK's answer. He said he was NOT thinking of raising the retirement age. Not that it was an option, or that he'd had some time to think about it and ruled it out. He made it seem as if Kucinich decided to smear him just for the hell of it.

From MTP: "I also would entertain taking the retirement age to 68. It's at 67 now. I would entertain that."

It's not misspeaking, It's called lying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chimpymustgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 08:34 AM
Response to Reply #12
17. Please, people - wake up to the REAL Dean!
This is just one clear cut example of how he plays fast and loose with the facts, depending on who he's talking to or about. He's a phony.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WhoCountsTheVotes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #17
23. just another politician
not any worse than Kerry or Lieberman as far as I can tell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #12
60. When you lecture us about honesty
try not being so selective in your quotes. Dennis said the solution isn't to raise the age to 70 or 68 like Governor Dean says he will. Dean is on the record as saying he would entertain such an increase that isn't favoring the increase. Dean gave an accurate answer to a false attack (and one delivered when he knew Dean would have to use his own time way later to respond). Again if you are going to lecture us about honesty then be fully honest in your quotes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tjdee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #60
67. In 1995, he said he wanted to raise the age to 70.
Edited on Wed Aug-06-03 10:06 PM by tjdee
It's not just the MTP thing (although that's all I put in my post, wrongly).

Anyways, Dean just issued a statement that he did indeed 'misspeak' with regard to this issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indigo32 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 08:38 AM
Response to Original message
19. Dean is playing it smart
he isn't making alot of specific promises or ruling alot of things out. He has never said it was his plan to raise SS further, only that it could be looked at. Dennis painted it like he for sure would.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tjdee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 08:46 AM
Response to Reply #19
21. Dean painted it like he absolutely wouldn't.
He made it seem like DK was some raving lunatic who was just making things up.

He didn't say it was an option. He said something about "the rules" allowing him to take a minute and then said he was NOT for it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tinoire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #21
28. I heard Dean say this again on Russert - LAST MONTH
And if I did, millions did.

I already wrote this somewhere and some people took offence but Dean needs to find one position and stick to it. You cannot be everything to everyone- not in the information age when people have ready access to facts we never had before.

I think Clinton was the last one who had that luxury and Clinton was not only very, very fast with his words but he had the extraordinary talent of being able to extricate himself out of any situation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #28
50. He said he would leave open the option of raising the age one year.
That's honesty.

What DK pulled on him was dishonesty.

Note the difference.

How would DK like it if Dean pulled the same crap on him concerning abortion?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pastiche423 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #50
57. How would DK like it if Dean pulled the same crap on him
Edited on Wed Aug-06-03 12:50 PM by Pastiche423
concerning abortion?

Excellent point!

Until last night, Kucinich was my number 2. I've had to battle w/his history of anti-choice voting to consider him for that spot.

After last night, I am backing off my support for him.

On Edit: typos
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dansolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #57
68. Don't forget about his support for a Flag Burning amendment
I'm starting to dislike Kucinich more and more as I learn more about him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 08:39 AM
Response to Original message
20. It depends on what the definition of "entertain" is...
To "entertain" an idea may mean to listen seriously with possibility of accepting the idea as valid or it may mean that the idea will be seriously considered but might not be accepted in the end or it might mean that one accepts the idea outright...I think Dean needs to clarify what he meant by "entertain"...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tjdee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 08:49 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. It doesn't really matter, for me.
Edited on Wed Aug-06-03 08:50 AM by tjdee
The main thing, IMO, is that he painted DK as some liar who was just making things up. As if he were just *so* bothered about this "lie" he had to bring up 'the rules' to take time and refute it specifically.

And it turns out, DK is not as delusional as Dean would have those union members think, and he is in fact "entertaining" a solution of raising the retirement age.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #22
62. facts are stubborn this
and the fact is Kucinich said Dean would raise the age and that is a lie. So yes Dean had every right to point that out. I am hardly suprised that facts don't matter to you when it comes to Dean as they often haven't in the past but suprise suprise they do matter to most people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dsc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #20
61. entertain has a pretty standard meaning
It means to consider.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tinoire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 09:05 AM
Response to Original message
26. Per DK- Enough money in SS for solvency until 2041
Kucinich has been telling people that there is enough money in social securty to keep it solvent iuntil 2041 despite all the noise we're been hearing about the fund going bust just so they can privatize it.

He brought this up last night and in the past:


I see an America of retirement security for all. I see a new horizon for Social Security in America, through restoring the age of retirement to 65 years, instead of the current 67 years. The normal age for retirement was raised in phases beginning in 1983 from 65 to 67 years. The reason? People live longer. The economy was transitioning to white collar jobs. But, while people were living longer, they were not working longer, because their bodies wore out. Medical technology has enhanced longevity. Still, increased longevity sometimes means people are sicker, longer.

We need to reclaim the benefits of quality life extension for our seniors by reclaiming Social Security benefits at age 65. America can afford it. Social Security's finances are more secure than ever. The fund is solid through the year 2041, without any changes whatsoever. And America is wealthier than at any previous point in Social Security's history.

Yet, Wall Street advocates of privatization look at Social Security's accumulated surplus as a source of revenue to fuel an erratic market. The present Administration has created a commission which stands for privatization, even in the face of collapsing markets. The proposed privatization of Social Security challenges us once again to consciously choose between the claims of the community and the claims of commerce, between the requirement for economic justice and the imperative for profit, between the public interest and private interest.

Saturday, May 25, 2002
http://www.house.gov/kucinich/press/sp-020525-democrati...
---------------------------
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Yupster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #26
44. Social security is solvent to 2041 because
we've been collecting much more money than we need to pay current benefits. This extra money is being built up by the tens of billions each year so that in 10 years or so when the fund begins paying out more than it takes in the difference can be made up from this trust fund. Great. That keeps us okay until 2041.

So what's the problem?

The problem is that the extra money that is being put aside and saved ^%#%^$ ain't there. It's already been spent.

All that's left in the trust fund is a bunch of government bonds which will have to be redeemed by the government at the proper time.

Of course since the government is running an infinite dfecit, it haqs no money to redeem any bonds. It's issuing billions in new bonds every month.

So, yes social security is fine until 2041 as long as the government has a few trillion dollars it can kick into the system over the next 30 years or so to redeem those bonds. -- Which it don't.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
samurai_jack Donating Member (119 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 09:25 AM
Response to Original message
30. ummm
here's a thought:

substitute 'Dean' for 'Kucinich' and another candidate(for instance Kerry) for 'Dean' in this scenario. What would the Dean crowd be saying about Kerry right now? Very likely, they would be saying he lied about his previous beliefs on social security. It's great that Dean has changed his mind about Social Security and all, but that doesn't give him a free pass for explicitly denying the truth about his previous position on the issue. He should apologize to Kucinich and the AFLCIO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tjdee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #30
32. Exactly.
Doesn't ONE Dean supporter think that he could have been more honest about the stupid thing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tinoire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 09:26 AM
Response to Original message
31. Here's the entire quote where he said he would entertain raising it
Mr. Russert: In 1995you were asked how would you balance the budget. "The way to balance the budget, Dean said, is for Congress to cut Social Security, move the retirement age to 70, cut defense, Medicare and veterans pensions, while the states cut almost everything else. 'It would be tough but we could do it,' he said." would no longer cut Social Security?

Dr. Dean: But you don'tno. I'm not ever going to cut Social Security benefits.

Mr. Russert: Would you raise retirement age to 70?

Dr. Dean: Social Security, Ithe best way to balance Social Security budget right now is to expand the amount of money that Social Security payroll taxes apply to. It's limited now to something like $80,000. You let that rise. I also would entertain taking the retirement age to 68. It's at 67 now. I would entertain that.

Mr. Russert: In 1995you were asked how would you balance the budget. "The way to balance the budget, Dean said, is for Congress to cut Social Security, move the retirement age to 70, cut defense, Medicare and veterans pensions, while the states cut almost everything else. 'It would be tough but we could do it,' he said." would no longer cut Social Security?

Dr. Dean: But you don'tno. I'm not ever going to cut Social Security benefits.

Mr. Russert: Would you raise retirement age to 70?

Dr. Dean: Social Security, Ithe best way to balance Social Security budget right now is to expand the amount of money that Social Security payroll taxes apply to. It's limited now to something like $80,000. You let that rise. I also would entertain taking the retirement age to 68. It's at 67 now. I would entertain that.

Mr. Russert: But the deficit's $500 billion You could close down the entire United States government, other than Social Security, Medicare and Defense and interest on the public debt, and you still wouldn't balance the budget.

Dr. Dean: But the problem for Social Security is that it is actually in fine shape until, I don't know, 2040 or something like that.

http://www.socialsecurity.org/dailys/07-02-03.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
killbotfactory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #31
40. So where does he say he wants to cut benefits and raise the age limit?
Like Kucinich claimed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RevolutionStartsNow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 09:31 AM
Response to Original message
34. Dean supporter here
...and I think Dean shouldn't have done this. He did it to defend himself, which I'm glad he's good at, but it made DK look bad.
DK mischaracterized Dean's position (again, he didn't say he WOULD raise the age, just that it was an option), but Dean did the same thing in saying he was against raising it.

Other than that, this was a great night for Dean, though Kerry had the best line of the night with his "trickling" comment.

I also don't get the uproar over Dennis. Of course he's mad, and so are the workers. That was an apppropriate forum to be angry in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 09:34 AM
Response to Original message
37. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
killbotfactory Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #37
39. At what point was that again?
oh that's right, several years ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w13rd0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #39
46. Yes, several years ago...
...back when Kucinich had a 100% anti-choice rating. Since then, DK has "evolved" his position on womans choice. No one else "evolves" their position. They waffle and weasel, dontcha know...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gully Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 11:02 AM
Response to Original message
42. Lets see the links about what Dean said please...
Lets frame the quotes. Anyone willing? I am a Dean supporter, and don't feel he's a liar.

I think perhaps his statements are taken out of context at times.

:) Thanks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 11:03 AM
Response to Original message
43. He didn't lie, but it will look waffley. Not from 1995, but MTP (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #43
51. First TR & then DK played "Gotcha" with him.
Russert attacked unfairly, Dean looked "waffley."

Kucinich attacked unfairly, Dean "wasn't a straight shooter."

Catch-22 Gotcha bullshit that could be pulled on any candidate -- even Chance in "Being There."



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
samurai_jack Donating Member (119 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #51
54. yeah, bullsh!+
Tell that to my grandmother whose ability to lead a dignified, independent life is based wholly on her social security check. Social Security is a deadly serious issue to millions of people in this country. Dean needs to treat it just as seriously as they do. Dean and crew seem to be of the opinion that this is just a game to "stop Dean." On the contrary, Dean's ability to come clean on basic, fundamental issues such as this go to the heart of whether he should or not be elected POTUS.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #51
65. Oh I agree, it can and will be pulled on every candidate (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nazgul35 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 11:27 AM
Response to Original message
47. How's about a little perspective here...
instead of arguing semantics...

Dean said that he would require ALL INDIVIDUALS to pay for SSI....

Right now it's capped at around $85,000...

If the very wealthy had to pay 15-17% of their income to the social security fund....we wouldn't have to worry if the program would be solvent anymore!!!

And the age could then go back to 65...I think Dean would send it back if he could get the change that allows for all people to pay for SSI...

At least he's putting out programs that are realistic....not claiming he's gonna roll back Taft-Hartly, NAFTA and the WTO...which, once ratified by the Senate becomes the law of the land...so the only way to change it is either to ratify a new treaty...or get Congress to pass a law that would change it....

And a little bit of history, even if we do win back both chambers...which is highly unlikely...the repugs still have the ability to filabuster...something they did in the early days of Clinton....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dansolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #47
71. Dennis doesn't know the Constitution
Dennis looked like a fool when he said that the first thing he would do is withdraw from NAFTA and GATT, and then he was especially disingenuous when he challenged the other candidates to make that same promise. Except that the president doesn't have that authority, and when you look at that along with his stance on a flag-burning amendment, I am getting the impression that Dennis doesn't have much more respect for the Constitution than Bush does. Dennis seems to feel that the president is entitled to unilaterally withdraw from treaties. Just like Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madfloridian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 12:25 PM
Response to Original message
55. With all the attention on Dean, the going-to-war votes have been forgotten
With all the attention on every remark out of Dean's mouth, we here have all forgotten that Edwards and Kerry gave Bush the right to declare war.

I remember talking to Edward's campaign headquarters after we started bombing Baghdad. I asked the lady who answered how he might feel about this war now. I was informed that he did not feel good about the bombing and the deaths of civilians and soldiers. I said that is what you get when you vote for war.

She tried to argue and discuss, but there was not that much she could say. They had the TV on there, watching.

But now, everytime Dean appears, another thread appears, questioning every word he says.

Kerry and Edwards and their votes for war have been forgotten.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #55
63. Get used to it
The votes on the Iraqi resolution are not going to be as big an issue as you would like it to be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quahog Donating Member (704 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 12:33 PM
Response to Original message
56. I'm looking at this from a slightly different angle
Maybe because I'm drunk and laying on the floor.

Just kidding!

Seriously, folks, these guys are all politicians. We would love for them to be our heros, we would love for them to meet all of our litmus tests, to be progressive and kind and beautiful and loving with smiles that creep no one out and a perfect history of absolutely and always saying and doing the right thing. But they are politicans. All will fail us in some regard.

Back when Lieberman rolled over on election '00, many of us started screaming about the lack of fight in Democrats. And we've been screaming about it ever since. We've got people on this board (not being critical here, luv ya all) who are supporting some sort of a draft of Al Gore, and I'm thinking, "Oh yeah, that's the candidate we need, a guy who has made it clear that he doesn't even want to run."

I love Al Gore. I love Dennis Kucinich. I try to love Joe LIeberman, but damb, that man makes it so hard to do. But for our candidate in '04, I want a fighter. I want someone who is smart, and canny, and even cunning when he needs to be. I want someone who has outrage about the Bush administration and vision for a better future.

Frankly, I was stunned that Dean was able to so effectively fluster both Lieberman and Kucinich last night. I didn't think he had the skill set, I thought he was limited to running on his enthusiasm and anger and respectable (even if not sufficiently progressive) record in VT. These things all made him look good to me, but last night he showed that he had the killer instinct. And I think the guy who is going to beat Bush needs to have that killer instinct. He stole Lieberman's ONLY good line for his own use, and he body checked Kucinich when he knew there was no way DK was going to be able to call him on it until it was a day late.

This was incredibly gutsy, and yes, MEAN. DEAN IS MEAN. Big meannie. Good. I am glad! I can't wait to see him be mean to Bush!

Gore could have mopped the floor with that gibbering chimp in the '00 debates, but he played nice instead. We can't afford that mistake again. Smirk is going to lie his ass off about our candidate, the entire GOP Mighty Wurlitzer is going to be in full effect telling lies about our candidate and never getting called on it. We will need to find and exploit every chink in their armour, and knock them down every time the opportunity presents itself.

Dean showed that he is willing to do that with guys who are, let's face it, his OPPONENTS. He saw an opening, and he scored two big hits. This, to me, looks like the right stuff.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #56
64. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Quahog Donating Member (704 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Aug-06-03 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #64
66. That's SO constructive
DK misrepresented Dean's postition, and Dean perhaps spun his response too far the other way. This is not bullshitting, this is playing politics with the big boys. Clinton has done it every damb day of his political career. It's simply looking for an opportunity to establish an advantage over your opponent.

I'll agree that Dean has to get more polished with consistently presenting his message. The key for our stupendously dumbed-down populace seems to be, find ONE WAY to phrase your position, and just repeat it over and over and over (see "compassionate conservative" or "humble foreign policy"). Dean has a tendency to state his position in more than one way. Not changing his position, simply trying to explain it when he's asked by dim-bulbs to explain that which is already perfectly clear. He should just repeat himself over and over, as this is what the majority of Americans seem to need in order to understand. Since nuance is dead, sound bytes are needed.

"Dean is mean, he is bad, he is a weasel."

"Kucinich is a shrieker, he is effeminate, he has a fetus fetish."

"Gephardt kisses Bush's ass, he is a war monger."

"Kerry voted for war, he is a war monger, he is republican lite."

Man, these are NOT the kind of sound bytes we need. It's amazing to me that SO MANY threads at DU that have 80% well-considered and thoughtful commentary are derailed by this kind of mindless sloganeering. I swear, some people should duct-tape a Depends to their computer keyboard, and not remove it until they're sure that what's going to come shooting out is something other than verbal diarrhea.
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 Sat Aug 30th 2014, 08:13 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) 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