Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Any truth to Ted Rall's cartoon?

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
 
AllegroRondo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-21-04 04:33 PM
Original message
Any truth to Ted Rall's cartoon?
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/uclickcomics/20041216/cx_tr_uc/tr20041216&e=3

In the last panel, he says that when Bush ran for Congress in 1978, he said Social Security would be bankrupt in 10 years without privitization.
It certainly SOUNDS like something Bush would say. Do we have any confirmation? Can we alert the media and get this out?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
fryguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-21-04 04:38 PM
Response to Original message
1. i tihink i heard some mention of the comment on NPR
it was yesterday or the day before, but i couldn't tell if they were talking about bush, sr. saying something about it when he was in the white house or if it was dubya's comment. (i was too busy "white-knucking" in the snow to pay 100% attention....)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JHB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-21-04 04:40 PM
Response to Original message
2. According to the Texas Observer...
...and their Bushfiles:

The seventies saw major changes in the way campaigns were conducted across the country. In its 1978 elections roundup, Time magazine would assert, “Money, computers, polls, and image makers continued to change the face of American politics into something that would have been unrecognizable to the candidates even a few years ago.” With O’Neill as his finance chairman, Bush would raise just shy of $435,000 (compared to Hance’s $314,000, and Mahon’s $124,000 in the previous race against Reese), and both candidates used computer-assisted poll analysis to fine-tune their strategies. Still, the art of running for Congress was not yet as media-driven as it is today, and Bush “was a tireless campaigner,” recalls Mike Weiss, a Lubbock resident who volunteered to work for Bush after meeting the candidate in a shopping center. “He would do breakfast in one town, lunch in another, gatherings in the evening.” He knocked on doors and attended coffees, barbecues, living-room receptions.

According to Gary Ott, who was then a reporter for the Plainview Daily Herald, Bush stopped by the paper’s little office “maybe five or six times. He’d sit down at my desk; he was a fun guy. He was very outgoing, very friendly, and we would argue politics since I was a liberal. We’d argue over Carter policies.” Bush criticized energy policy, federal land use policy, subsidized housing, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“a misuse of power,” he said), and he warned that Social Security would go bust in ten years unless people were given a chance to invest the money themselves. None of this really distinguished him from Hance, though, so in the end Bush simply argued that a Republican could better represent the district: “If you want a chance in the way Congress has been run, send someone who will be independent from those who will run the Congress.”

http://www.bushfiles.com/bushfiles/midland.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Killarney Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-21-04 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Great find! We need to blast this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wicket Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-21-04 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. I agree!!!!
Excellent find, off to blast the media!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SheepyMcSheepster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-21-04 06:13 PM
Response to Original message
5. kick.
this info need to get out. thanks for posting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wicket Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-22-04 09:34 AM
Response to Original message
6. kick
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hfojvt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-23-04 01:38 AM
Response to Original message
7. trouble is, he was probably right
much as I hate to say such a thing. He was campaigning in 1978, in 1983 or so there was a Greenspan-inspired huge increase in social security taxes, and also millions of people working for the Federal Government were switched from a separate retirement system onto Social Security.
Thus was created the huge surpluses of the 1990s, by something which was anathema to George W. Bush - a tax increase. But it was okay because it was mostly a tax increase on low-income people who work for a living.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dpibel Donating Member (898 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-23-04 04:20 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Ya got me baffled
Fixing SS by a FICA increase makes Boosh right exactly how. In Post #2, the statement is: "he warned that Social Security would go bust in ten years unless people were given a chance to invest the money themselves."

So. 1988 has come and gone. There was no privatization. And I don't believe anyone was saying in 1983 that the system was going broke in five years. Thus he was right in what way?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hfojvt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-23-04 05:16 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. okay, half right
He was correct that the system was going to cost more than the taxes it raised unless something was done. His preference was for privatization. Rather than commit political suicide by dismantling social security, Greenspan, Congress and Reagan chose to increase taxes and increase the ceiling.
I do not remember what they were saying about when the system was going to go broke, only that they did pass some fairly hefty tax increases.
The thing that really irks me is that Bush keeps saying that Social Security was created in a different era and needs to be updated, when it was amended in 1939, 1946, 1950, 1952, 1954, 1956, 1958, 1960, 1961, 1965, 1967, 1969, 1972, 1974, 1977, 1980-84, 1986, and 1988-89 according to my 1994 Almanac.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-23-04 07:13 AM
Response to Original message
10. It should be rammed down junior's throat and be known to
America what this thug is up too!
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 Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 02:24 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