CNN said Dems are softening stance on SS privatization because...

[NAO]

"focus groups have determined that people do not like stubbornness". CNN Headline News story.

WTF?

Where do they find these "focus groups"? Are the questionnaires prepared by Karl Rove?

How did they ask the question? If they asked people -

"if the government was going to take away your Bible, or your guns, and a political party was stubbornly opposed to that, how would you feel about them?"

you can be damn well sure the focus group would conclude that people absolutely LOVE stubbornness. The Democrats are already fighting the notion that they have no backbone, please tell me they are not changing an important opposition strategy on an abhorrent program that would leave millions of elderly people in abject poverty because of some lame "focus group".

Maybe someone should start a petition, "tell the Democrats that we DESPERATELY WANT, DESPERATELY NEED them to be stubborn as hell"

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. They wish.

And CNN can bite me.

[Al-CIAda]

19. Perhaps the Dems need a fucking e-mail blaster

up their asses. No matter, they fuck this up and you may as well bury this JOKE of a party. Scum.

[rockymountaindem]

2. From what I understand they aren't changing the position, just the frame.

I believe the ploy is to stop saying "we absolutely won't consider private accounts" and taking a stance that "we'll consider it, but we're not impressed (nudge nudge)".

[rodeodance]

5. what about the pure stubborness of the Repugs -it keeps getting them

re-elected!!

[dweller]

13. no, that would be DIEBOLD. n/t

dp

[sandnsea]

9. No

We're ready to talk about social security solvency, as soon as privatiation isn't a part of it. Some sort of separate private accounts, after social security is resolved, is acceptable.

[dflprincess]

3. The best argument the Democrats can use against privatization

is the dive the stock market took yesterday.

[TheDebbieDee]

15. Another great, one word argument against privatization is............

ENRON!

John Edwards used that line in a speech during the Presidential Campaign and I thought it was the best, simplest argument against privatizing EVER!

[mikehiggins]

4. This would be good

Then I could finally stop hearing about how Congresscritter so and so would be a good candidate, or Senator whosis is just what this party needs.

Any Democrat who compromises on this issue should be driven out of our party, bar none, no exceptions. This is a make or break issue and if the Beltway people don't see that, they have no legitimate claim to representing anyone other than their own careers.

Actually, though, I am just venting. I think this is more CNN bullshit. Oh, for the days when reporters REPORTED the news instead of trying to create it.

[Skink]

8. Who watches CNN anymore?

I deprogrammed them after the election and funny but I don't miss them.:shrug:

[sandnsea]

6. nuance

Instead of saying we won't talk about social security until privatization is off the table; Dems are saying we're ready and willing to talk about social security as soon as privatization is off the table.

Slight difference in perception, same bottom line.

[creeksneakers2]

7. Another thread on the AP's story

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1399503


I'm so glad this was brought up again. I hope the Dems get lots of angry E-mail about this. I sent one myself.

[sandnsea]

10. Why?

Because Dems are ready to talk about social security just as soon as privatization is off the table?

That's all that's been said, slight adjustment in tone, no adjustment in privatization at all.

[creeksneakers2]

12. Blink and the GOP pounces.

The thought process behind changing the wording stinks too, even if that is all they plan to do. The Dems need to up the anti and demand more in exchange. They need to go on the attack against Bush instead of laying back and hoping Bush will destroy himself. I thought they might have learned this lesson.

[sandnsea]

18. Bush lost

It's time to make it obvious he lost on privatization and pressure him to start talking about preserving social security.

“Democrats are committed to strengthening and safeguarding Social Security. We urge the White House to drop privatization and come to the table without any preconditions so that we can ensure that American workers receive the benefits they have earned."

http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=737

[patricia92243]

11. Disgusting. Utterly and completely disgusting. A pox on their houses.

[madfloridian]

14. Blind quotes. They quoted no one.

The other article that was posted here just said an unnamed House aide.

The official stance is no plan until Bush takes privatization off the table...then maybe they will talk.

[Roland99]

22. "Some say"..."Some have said"

[high density]

16. More Fox News-style "real journalism"

Instead of getting real news we just get garbage like this day after day. Thank goodness for news sources on the internet.

[Jack Rabbit]

17. Don't blame CNN for this one

It ran on the wire services and was picked up bi the Washington Post this morning.

The DU thread in LBN is here.

[wisteria]

20. I know my opinion is unpopular, but we need a plan.

We have to offer something to strengthen SS. I will add this though, we should hold off introducing anything until the republicans offer theirs first. I wouldn't want to see them take credit for our plan- which would be a better plan I'm sure.

[mrdmk]

21. Get rid of trickle down economy and that will fix Social Security

This is not a joke. If the middle class had real wages instead meager wages, Social Security would/will not have a problem. If the Federal Government did not supplement the General Fund with Social Security, there would/will not be a problem. Social Security is a class warfare made problem, nothing more nothing less.

By the way this is not an offer the Republicans, it is a cash infusion to Wall Street and Corporations who will receive the cash. There is no way that this plan will fix anything.

[NAO]

25. Easy, Simple Plan to Save SS - Raise or Remove the cap on payroll tax

The payroll tax that funds SS is extremely regressive. It is a flat rate tax that is split between employee and employer.

If you make 5K/yr, you pay the same %tax as someone who makes 50K/yr. But once you hit the cap (I think it's around $90K/yr) the payroll tax rate goes to 0%.

To save SS, all that is needed is to raise that cap. If we raised it to 100K, I think that would be enough to make SS solvent indefinitely. If we raised it to 1 million/yr, we could dramatically increase benefits. Remember, this is not about taxing the rich at higher rate, it's just about taxing them at THE SAME RATE as people who work and earn less than the poverty level.

[leftofthedial]

23. I thought his stubbornness was one of the reasons the idiots

like the little bushturd . . .

[cestpaspossible]

24. CNN said Dems are softening stance on SS privatization because...

CNN is a GOP tool.


This bogus article is classic disinfo.