Pelosi's answer to Bush on Social Security reform

[ginnyinWI]

Bush seems to think that everyone should believe him just because he says it. Nancy Pelosi thinks otherwise: No, Mr.President, Social Security is NOT in trouble:

http://democraticleader.house.gov/press/releases.cfm?pressReleaseID=783

[LynnTheDem]

1. Finally, a prominent Dem speaks up and calls bush a LIAR.

Coz she's correct; SS is NOT in trouble.

bush is LYING about it now just as he LIED about it back in 1978 when he said SS would be bankrupt by 1988 if it wasn't privatized.

BUSH = LIAR. Congenital. No cure.

[Demeter]

3. Soc Sec Endangered by Bush

not by any inherent flaws in the program.

[ginnyinWI]

5. you got it

Bush lies reflexively--those guys have been known to lie even when they didn't have to! Lol

[Swamp Rat]

13. Yes there is:

A frontal lobotomy.

[zann725]

15. Doesn't he kind of look like Gordon Liddy?

Omen...or Watergate revisited?

[Swamp Rat]

16. They're cut from the same mold.

I've been waiting for Bush to actually nominate Liddy for a post in his cabinet. After all, he had Pointdexter in there for a while... where did HE go anyway?

[thecrow]

17. Poindexter resigned after that flap about betting

on the terrorists.

[Swamp Rat]

32. Yes, but what is he up to now... where is Richard Perle...

These guys don't really go away, they just hide until the average, brainwashed American forgets what happened.

A few weeks of Faux News is like a frontal lobotomy.

[livinginphotographs]

35. Funny you ask about Perle.

I read elsewhere on DU today that he was on some news channel blaming the current (shitty) state of the military on Clinton.

As long as a neocon is blaming Clinton, he's earning his keep, I guess.

[mslux]

2. Social Security is Healthy, Social Security is Successful

Frames, Nancy, frames.

[CBHagman]

4. Bush is already making this claim.

I don't know if you caught Bush's sorry performance in today's press conference, but he's already trying to suggest that Social Security will be completely insolvent in less than two decades. Every authoritative article I've read suggests that the system as it's currently set up should last a good deal longer than that.

What Bush is trying to do is plant the notion in people's minds that unless you are receiving benefits today, there will be nothing left. Folks, this sort of suggestion works well (look how many people bought the fake 9/11-Saddam link). We've got to get this bastard over a barrel TODAY and not let him frame the debate. Otherwise we'll be financing his "retirement" and be screwed completely out of our own.

[zann725]

11. And the scariest thing, he's pretending he's open to discussion

with Congress in revising the new SS plan. But Shrub has NEVER been open to discussion with anyone. He knows what he wants ahead of time, and he gets it...which is all the money currently in SS tranferred to private Swiss bank accounts for he and friends. He's gonna 'gut' the whole thing...Medicare included. (If he hasn't already. How would we know? Guess we will soon.)

[0007]

24. If junior doesn't care how history will grades him, why is he worrying

his empty fucking head over Social Security?

[iamjoy]

27. He Does Care

He wants to build a legacy, like Abraham Lincoln or FDR. He doesn't care what people think of him now (or so he says)

[0007]

34. Naw jamjoy, junior said he couldn't care how history would judge him

he'd be dead by then.

[ohtransplant]

6. For once the Dems in Congress need to work together

and build a coalition to make counter-proposals. Too many people are tired of being lied to by this administration.

*'s approach to SS is pure propaganda - not a shred of fact to back him up. His numbers don't add up and they don't want to talk about where the money will come from. Are they really suggesting we borrow the $2 Trillion to implement this hair brained scheme?

Th sad truth is - if SS isn't as healthy as it should be, it's because shrubya keeps stealing it's surplus to cover up his massive deficits. (It's a little like John Holmes using a wash cloth to cover up.)

God save the USA

[girl gone mad]

8. Yes, and we'll need to appeal directly to people..

through advertisements, etc.

[zann725]

12. Where are all those 527's when we need them?

That'd be a start...

[ohtransplant]

19. A lesson taught well by Ronald Reagan

Dare I say it? I didn't agree with his politics but he knew how to rally the American public and gain their support. He went right to the people and told them to call their Senators and Congressmen.

I'm repulsed by the Dems continually hiding in the corner while * eats their lunch. I hope this isn't one of those issues. Pelosi's comments should merely be the opening bell. They need to come out of their hole and fight. They'd be surprised by how much support they have.

This whole administration is a great example of the Emperor who wears no cloths. Are the majority of Americans so blinded that they don't see?

Credibility? They think if they say their talking points enough times, they become true. Are they right? Are they making their perception our reality? I don't know if I can take four more years of that.

God Bless America.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

28. Really, and the Dems need to get some party discipline, too

Anyone who votes FOR privatization needs to be drummed out of the Democratic Party.

As Tevye says in Fiddler on the Roof, "On the other hand... Wait! There is no other hand!"

[A Simple Game]

31. If as is suggested it will take 2 trillion dollars

to implement *'s plan to end Social Security, congress should just say, fine we will spend the money. Then use the 2 to 3 trillion dollars to pay back what the government owes SS.

Same amount of money, easier solution. Everyone but * is happy.

[Straight Shooter]

7. The standard response to bush should ALWAYS be:

Why should I believe anything you say?"

[cap]

9. Pelosi should ask him why

the American people aren't owed an explanation of what he intends to do. We dont want any bills sprung in at the last minute without proper Congressional oversight.

[mulethree]

10. SS is in trouble IF :

IF wages and employment keep falling - then outputs will exceed inputs sooner than expected. Especially if they don't face up to falling wages - as the payments are indexed to the reported wage rates.

IF - at the time the outputs exceed inputs, the government refuses to redeem (defaults on) the bonds in the SS trust.

So, if Bush expects continued wage deflation, unemployment and underemployment, or if he believes that the huge deficits he's running up will bankrupt us (cause defaults). Then SS is in trouble.

I'd like to see a Dem legislator point this out. SS is safe and sound - unless the damage caused by Free Trade and the Bush Years are terminal.

[zann725]

14. That's too many "if's." For now it's fine. Keep his hands off

our money. The money of many of us, whose votes never counted...votes that were raped by BBV and outright fraud.

It's NOT their money to take. And they WILL be taking it, all of it...for purposes other than SS. That's grand theft.

Let's stop the lies NOW! Before we all end up spending our retirement in the gutter. And that isn't a joke...or an exaggeration.

[TahitiNut]

21. OASDI (Social Security) Trust Fund projections

This is the key graphic regarding the long-term adequacy of current Social Security policies (tax rates, benefits, etc.). The SSA (Social Security Administration) issues an annual report which incudes the viability of the system under three sets of economic assumptions (indicated on the graph as "I," "II," and "III."

The chart depicts the Trust Fund as a ratio to the benefits paid in the same year. In other words, a Trust Fund balance of "300%" means that the amount of money (investments) in the Trust Fund is enough to pay 3 times the amount of benefits paid in that same year.




It is critical that we understand that the economic assumptions rely on projected unemployment, real wages, fertility (babies per woman), immigration rates, and health care (disability and death rates both before 65 and after 65).

In other words, every economic policy on which liberals and conservatives disagree has a critical impact on the viability of Social Security. For example, increasing the Federal Minimum Wage improves the financial health of Social Security by increasing revenues, wider health care coverage improves the financial health of Social Security by increasing revenues and reducing expenses.

The Bushoilini Regime is waging war on the very economic conditions that create a threat to Social Security ... but Social Security is but one symptom of the damage they are doing to working Americans! By reducing the American workforce by approximately 10 million workers, they impoverish workers and threaten Social Security! By making health care less accessible to tens of millions of American workers, they increase disability rates (and DI beneficiaries) and reduce the workforce. When workers die before age 65, they not only don't collect Social Security they don't contribute to Social Security!! Every young person who dies or is permanently disabled in Iraq or Afghanistan shows up in decreased Social Security!

Peace, health, fair wages, and increased employment all assure the long-term viability of the Social Security system ... as long as it relies on a percentage of labor compensation!! When the 'ownership elite' try to shift such funds into the Greater Fool secondary markets for ownership equity, they place greater downward pressure on wages and attack the working class even more.


If you want to understand the chart above even better, just replace the labels. Replace "I" with "Clinton Economics," replace "II" with "Reaganomics," and replace "III" with "Bushoilini Plantation Economics." The Bushoilini war against the working class includes plundering the very Trust Fund the health of which is destroyed by their policies.

[mulethree]

29. Yes thats what I was thinking of

Plot II is the current assumption. Plot I has a lot of happier people in it.

I don't know that plot III = "Bushoilini Plantation Economics". Mainly because I haven't figured out the impact of his guest worker scheme. What scale? what affect on current illegal aliens? Would guests pay into SSA? Would they be exempt sub-minimum labor working at minimum minus (6.3 - 12.6%)?

Benefit rates are based on a broad-base measure of wage growth. Which might include a lot of exempt (>$90K) growth and overstate the growth among the <$90K SS Base. Hence the shift to price indexing rather than wage indexing?

But I'd like the sheeple to hear a good explanation of the differences between caseI and caseIII.

SSA will be broken because the 'cheap labor' people are driving down your quality of living and the increasing that of the higher class whose income is mostly SSA exempt.

[TahitiNut]

30. IMHO, the "guest worker program" ...

... is merely a way to keep real wages low, even in other jobs. Clearly, I think, the wages of "guest workers" would be spent largely in other than the US - except perhaps a newer version of the "company store." I believe one of the reasons Vincente Fox is involved is due to some intention to have an unholy alliance between the program and Mexican taxes/benefits/whatever.

The Reich continues to spout the propaganda that "these are jobs Americans won't do" ... without saying that the pay isn't enough to live on. If those jobs paid a living wage then there'd be plenty of people seeking the jobs. These bastards love spouting the "supply/demand" myth of labor pricing as long as it serves to rationalize lowering wages. When it would argue for raising wages, they play games with the labor market boundaries rather than pay fairly.

Yes, it's pretty clear that the statistical myth of the 'average' tends to mask real wage losses in the <90K range. The windfalls in the >90K ranges accruing to an ever-narrower class of 'ownership droids' have served to perpetuate the hidden impoverishment of low-end wage-slaves. If people looked at Social Security 'health' as an indicator of labor equity, they'd realize that the drums of doom are being beaten only assuming Neoconservative predations.

[wishlist]

18. Bush has zero credibility when it comes to managing U.S. finances

Bush has consistently lied about his ability to balance the budget and the effect of tax cuts and now is telling huge whoppers about Social Security while leaving out the devilish details of what his plan entails.

[salin]

20. Thank you Minority Leader Pelosi

still hoping to see you as Speaker some day...

[Triana]

22. Social Security is just fine, bu$hit is a propoganda-spewing LIAR...

...good for Pelosi. Now, if the rest of the Dems would grow a spine and join here, we'd have a resistance.

God forbid if THAT ever happened. (not holding my breath here...)

[chuckhoward]

23. Rep. Pelosi's letter...

...is a good first step. If we are truly an opposition party, the next step should be for the Dems to put forward our own proposal for addressing the "long term challenge" which she identified in her letter. The President seeks to abolish SS. Our representatives need to send that message to their constituents.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

25. The Democratic Party needs to go on the offense....

and not let the White House frame the congressional and public debate. Take it to the people, if the Idiot doesn’t want to talk about it with the American public force it by exposing the hyperbole that is driving their propaganda. It is past time that the 527s start to fuel access to the voting public through a PR campaign. MSM is only pushing the “Big Lie.” Get out in front before pubic opinions are formed and then hardened by the potent repuke spin machine.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

26. NYT/ Wall St. Lobby Quietly Tackles Social Security

By LANDON THOMAS Jr.
Published: December 21, 2004

As President Bush prepares to disclose the details of his plan to funnel hundreds of billions of dollars of future Social Security funds into privately held investment accounts, Wall Street has begun a muted lobbying campaign, chastened by bolder forays that failed in years past.
So far, the chief executives of most financial firms have refused to take a public stand in support of private accounts, wary of being seen as too eager to embrace a potential new revenue stream. (CONTD)

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/21/business/21lobby.html

“Plenty good money to made supplying the government with the tools of the trade.” Wall Street is who is going to spend massive amounts of money to sway public opinion by propagating the big lie and making the Idiot’s job a slam dunk. My big worry is how many Democratic Senators will they buy with their millions when billions are on the line. This may have to be a grass roots fight by the rank and file to keep our own party honest and motivated by their own personal survival in office instincts rather than satisfying any personal greed. I hope I am just being much too cynical.

[not fooled]

33. didn't some "dem" from fla just cave?

announce he will work with the 'pukes on ss phaseout (heard this on AAR; also call it what it is: phaseout not "reform" which is the 'pukes' euphemism)? if true and any dems play quisling with the 'pukes I am joining the Greens!