Democrats Failing in Framing Argument Against Bush's Social Security Plan

[David Zephyr]

The Democrats are completely failing to make the strongest argument against Bush and his plan now to cut the benefits of millions of Americans under 55 even though they have paid into that fund for over thirty years in many cases.

How are they failing?

By not reminding the American People that just four years ago as Bill Clinton and Al Gore left the Executive Branch that there was a projected $2.2 TRILLION SURPLUS in Social Security funding.

Georgie Bush who is the first to comlain about what he "inherited" from the last administration has now apparently forgotten he inherited the biggest surplus in projected Social Security funding in American History and that if, as he likes to say, he is now faced with any projected shortfall,then he "inherited" it from himself.

Remember Al Gore's "lock box"? Why aren't our national party leaders helping remind Americans that there WAS a surplus, a huge surplus, just four years ago...before Bush's War in Iraq and his tax cuts for billionaires.

Americans, even those in Blue States, are going to be pissed about having to receive reduced benefits. REALLY PISSED.

We must remind them that ONCE UPON A TIME JUST FOUR YEARS AGO WHEN THE DEMOCRATS HAD THE WHITE HOUSE that there was a $2.2 Trillion Dollar Social Security surplus WHEN George Bush became President.

Where the hell is it now? George Bush spent it all up and is now asking Americans to suffer the consequences!

[Peace Patriot]

1. The Democrats need to say something like: We're going to rescind...

the charters of all global corporations, and kick them out of the country, socialize medical care, pensions and college educations, break up the media monopolies and give the air waves back to the people, take over the means of production and share them out among the workers, convert to alternative fuel in five years, and reinstitute the progressive tax. From each according to her ability to each according to her need. Like that. Fuck up their heads.

[sendero]

3. I...

... like the way you think :)

[tsuki]

2. I think you are wrong. From 20 years of whispers, word of mouth, and

innuendos claiming the Social Security will not be there for us (baby boomers), Americans are now hearing how solvent Social Security is. Those in my office that were against Social Security last year are hell bent to keep Bush and the Republicans from destroying it.

A year ago, most 30-somethings thought Social Security would be broke and out of money. (I never really understood where they thought the yearly intake would disappear.)

Now, because of the national debate, they are looking at 2052 or longer if the economy grows.

Without the national debate, the truth would not have come forward. The whole argument is going to back fire on the Republicans, and the Democrats will be able to go into 2006..."We save SS."

[despairing optimist]

4. This is the first sane comment I've read about SS on DU tonight

I agree completely with you. It's great that the facts are getting out there. The NYT and even the WaPo are stating in editorials that * is at least exaggerating if not outright lying about the "crisis" in SS, and remember that so-called TV news journalists and producers read those papers closely every day when planning their top stories aand how they will present them to viewers. Add to this the fact that more and more pro-* reporters are being labeled as on the take from the GOP, and the administration's spin doctors do NOT have the media in their pockets on this issue.

If only the Dems in Congress unite and oppose, obstruct, and kill this--using the GOP's own playbook for killing Hillary's national health insurance plan--we will have scored a great victory. Republican leaders can't count on party unity for SS "reform" either, so things are looking good. Just keep the pressure on and fingers crossed. We're in for a bumpy ride.