Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Watching Scotty dance...

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: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Career Prole Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-29-05 06:04 PM
Original message
Watching Scotty dance...
Wanna know why shrub's "plan" is doomed?
Just watch Scotty do the hat dance around the word "cut".

Q Scott, if you're expecting a benefit check of a certain level, and a benefit check comes in that's a lot less than that, isn't that a cut?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, let's talk about -- let's talk about this, because there are essentially two options --

Q Why isn't it a cut?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- two options we have right now.

Q Can you explain why that's not a cut, though?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, what are you comparing it to?

Q A check that you're expecting versus the one that you get.

MR. McCLELLAN: The current system -- the current system if we do nothing will lead to significant benefit cuts for all Americans. All Americans. That's why we need to fix the system. That's why we need to make it permanently sound. And the clock is now starting to tick on Democratic leaders. They need to come forward with ideas and quit simply standing in the way of solutions. The American people expect their leaders to work together to address problems and not engage in partisan schemes that simply block solutions.

Q I understand the nature of the debate, Scott. The use of the word "cut," if you're expecting a check of a certain level, and another one comes in that's less than that, why is that not a cut?

MR. McCLELLAN: It's a question of how fast the benefits grow, Mark. That's what the question boils down to. Under the current system -- that's why I'm pointing to -- there's the promise of the current system, but that promise is an empty promise. And if we continue on the current course, Americans -- all Americans, including low-income Americans -- are going to see significant benefit cuts. That's the "do nothing" approach.

The President recognizes that we have serious problems facing Social Security and the American people recognize that we have serious problems facing Social Security. If you go back and look over these last 60 days when we've been campaigning out across the country, more and more Americans have come to the conclusion that there are serious problems facing Social Security and that Congress needs to act. And that means Democratic leaders need to stop blocking solutions and start offering ideas.

Q So what you're saying, though, is that either way it's a cut -- it's just, you pays your money, you takes your choice? Either way benefits would be cut, the President wants to do it one way --

MR. McCLELLAN: What I'm saying, under the current system if you do nothing, there are going to be significant benefit cuts. That's why the President believes we need to have a permanent solution; that's why he believes personal accounts are so important, because personal accounts -- personal accounts will enable you to realize a much greater rate of return.

I just pointed out what the conservative estimate is. I think many people would expect to realize much more. If you look back at the stock market from 1926 to 2004, the real rate of return from the stock market is nearly 7 percent. What we're talking about is a conservative mix of bonds and stocks that people would be able to choose from, much like members of Congress and federal employees can do today under the Thrift Savings Plan.

But the President also added an additional option, which was that if you want to invest in even a safer option, then you could put it aside in all Treasury bonds. So what you need to do, Mark, I think is go to Democratic leaders and go, you are talking about problems, well, what ideas are you putting on the table -- because it's time to come to the table with ideas and quit blocking solutions.

Q I'm asking about the use of the word "cut," because earlier today you called -- you said it was irresponsible to use that word, and I'm just trying to figure out --

MR. McCLELLAN: No. No. Actually --

Q -- whether that would appropriately apply.

MR. McCLELLAN: -- let me correct you. That's not what I said. That's not what I said. I said it's irresponsible when a headline says that, Bush cites plan that would cut Social Security: affluent more effective. That leaves the impression, one, that it's affecting everybody now; and, two, that that applies to everybody across the board. That's not the case, and you know that that's not the case. And that's not what -- I disagree with the way you characterize the way I cited it.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/04/20050429-6.html


Seems to me if they're that danged sensitive about that one little word, Dems should be shouting it every time they see a camera or microphone. I hope they take advantage of it!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
LSparkle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-29-05 06:07 PM
Response to Original message
1. Yes, a cut to the MIDDLE CLASS
We need to be stressing that Shrub's idea of "better off" is anyone who makes OVER $26K a year ... They've moved from just plain class warfare into deceptive, DISGUSTING class warfare, lumping poor shlubs like me in with people like Dick Cheney and calling us BOTH "well off." Yeah, right ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pk_du Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-29-05 06:09 PM
Response to Original message
2. I believe the tune is...
da-da-datta-da-datta-dadata
da-da-datta-da-datta-dadata
da-da-datta-da-datta-dadata
da-da-datta-da-datta-da-dah!

Oley!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-29-05 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. scotty generally dances at each of press conferences--ends up saying
absolutely nothing about nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Career Prole Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-29-05 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. But he says nothing
so well! :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Frances Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-29-05 06:17 PM
Response to Original message
3. Idea
The Repubs keep saying that the Dems should come up with ideas. Here's my idea: the country throws the Herbert Hoover Repubs out because they've been against social security since FDR created it over their objections.

Put the Dems back in charge and they will see to it that you get your social security check because they believe in social security.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Career Prole Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-29-05 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Yes indeed...I think the preznit
has stepped on the third rail with both feet now, and Scotty can't save him cuz of the lightning bolts shooting out his butt.
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Roland99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-29-05 06:21 PM
Response to Original message
5. We need to cut them off at the knees in 2006!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FormerDittoHead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-29-05 06:21 PM
Response to Original message
7. NEXT question - Jeff Gannon, do you have a question?? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
smoogatz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-29-05 06:26 PM
Response to Original message
9. There are only two ways to insure the long-term solvency of SS
Edited on Fri Apr-29-05 06:27 PM by smoogatz
Either cut benefits or raise taxes. It's pretty simple. Bush sees cutting benefits for the middle class (everyone who makes over $25k is now "affluent", according to Bush) as a politically less risky--or ideologically more sound--alternative to raising taxes. The question the dems should keep asking over and over is this: why can't we roll back some of Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans so middle class people can keep their SS benefits?
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 Thu Apr 18th 2024, 09:45 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) 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