Dems. Adjust on Social Security Stance

[Pirate Smile]

Dems. Adjust on Social Security Stance

By GLEN JOHNSON
The Associated Press
Saturday, April 16, 2005; 12:44 PM

WASHINGTON - House Democrats have decided to quit emphasizing that they will not negotiate changes to Social Security until President Bush drops his idea for private accounts. The switch in strategy comes after Democrats learned from focus groups that people frown on the lawmakers for being obstinate.

"People feel like it doesn't show a good-faith effort," said a top House aide, who like several others spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the internal data. "It makes us seem like we're `typical politicians.'"

-snip-
Democrats say they are united in opposing a plan they contend would break a social contract by shifting Social Security from a government-guaranteed benefit to a personal investment subject to the risks of the market.

"I'm happy, we're happy, to talk to the president about Social Security if privatization is taken off the table, period," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada told reporters last week.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58754-2005Apr16.html

[crispini]

1. Damn them! Why are they listening to focus groups?

It's a perfectly legit tactic! It's been WORKING. GRRRR! :banghead:

[Zenlitened]

3. And why are they then telling a newspaper...

... "Hey, we changed our minds based on a focus group!" ?????

Fuck! Some of these people have GOT TO be GOP moles planted in our party. It's the only explanation that makes sense to me anymore, hearing the nonsense that comes out of their mouths.

:banghead:

[lancdem]

10. At least the Senate Dems aren't changing, it appears

I hope they stand firm.

[Pirate Smile]

14. I saw Craig Crawford say on MSNBC that one big problem the Democrats

have is that they treat the media like they are on the Democrat's side (they are NOT) or they are the Democrat's friends (big mistake).

[lancdem]

17. That's a good point

[Robbien]

15. They didn't want to tell the real reason is because of lobby money

so they are hiding behind a focus groups blind. Remember these are the same guys who got all the credit card money in exchange for their votes on the bankruptcy bill. Soon we will be seeing investment firm donations in these "New Democrats" pockets. Perhaps even Tom Delay will be throwing more money their way.

[lancdem]

8. Focus groups suck

They only tell pollsters what they want to hear. Focus groups were one of the reasons Kerry's campaign didn't go harder after Bush when it should have. BTW, what exactly is the Dems' new strategy? The article never says. And that sentence about both sides reaching for a lifeline had me puking. The Dems are beating Bush silly over Social Security; why do they need a lifeline???

[Born Free]

36. currently elected democrats are wimps

The currently elected democrats can only take so much pressure then they run and hide under their desks, screw America and what is best for it's people the currently elected group of democrats couldn't lead their way out of a wet paper bag.

[SoCalDem]

2. Okay, mr Rapist, I guess I won't scream, since you promised

you wouldn't hurt me if I didn't scream:eyes:.:puke:


and we wonder why we are a minority??

even when we are RIGHT, we "feel the need to compromise":puke:

[yorgatron]

6. the stock market just lost 200 points in ONE DAY!

it's a crap shoot,plain and simple.
either that,or it's rigged so ordinary people can't make any money in it.
either way,no thanks.

[cornermouse]

4. And they wonder why the public sees them as wishy-washy,

blowing which ever way the wind goes, and without any real positions or principles on issues.

[Robbien]

5. Those DLC/New Democrat house Dems are bonding with the GOP

pretty soon they will be wearing little elephant pins on their lapels.

[Auntie Bush]

27. You sound like Ralph Nader! n/t

[Jack Rabbit]

7. This voter frowns on privatization

I don't care if it's Social Security or water and power.

[SoCalDem]

13. AMEN.. some things are too important for 535 people to decide

for us.. actually more than 535, but when there's nearly 300MILLIO(N people here, it's too small a number...

Certain things should be agreed to by a consensus..

You want social security checks when you are old?? yes no
You want affordable gasoline? yes no
You want food AND electricity/gas? yes no
You want affordable health care? yes no


For starters we should ALL be able to vote yay or nay on THOSE issues, and it's up to our "elected" officials to see to it that THOSE things are FIRST... after those bills are paid, they can "play army"

[yorkiemommie1]

9. time to email our Dems again

i thought they were growing a spine????

:wtf:

[w4rma]

11. Idiots. Now they are making themselves look opportunistic by running away

from their tough stance (And on national security Dems MUST be felt as "tough"). In addition to that, they are dumb enough to talk about "focus groups" to the press.

Dems have been doing a great job this year up until this stumble.

This is a good example of the "fix" being worse than the "problem".

[creeksneakers2]

12. Morans

They just can't stop thinking in terms of how to escape some possible negative perception. Instead of caving in, they should show some pride in their obstinacies. After all, they are standing up to extremism and abuse of power. The Republicans don't hide from every possible negative consequence.

They aren't looking at what this does to the other side either. We are winning for a change.

If anything, they ought to up the demands. Bush should be forced to promise that all government bonds held by the SSA will be honored. If the Dems explain to the public that they've been paying extra, and Bush is trying to cheat them, being obstinate looks even better.

[lancdem]

16. Exactly

Did the Repukes change strategy when they opposed Clinton's health care plan in 1993 because of focus groups? Hell no. And they ended up winning control of Congress in 1994.

[yorkiemommie1]

23. yes, when * is being obstinate he is portrayed as being

resolute, and steadfast. Once again, the Dems do not have control of the language.

[Rose Siding]

18. So says one anonymous House aide, anyway

This story looks more like a lifeline for the bushies than anything else.

[keopeli]

19. I personally disagree with all these strong negative reactions

First, the Dems stood strong and have won - Bush* has egg on his face
Second, sticking with a 'we won't cooperate' attitude is NOT the best policy. It's better to win and get your way.
Third, their change in position is dependent on Bush* CONCEDING - which he really never does. Bush* would have to agree that the ONE thing he has insisted be a part of the plan will be removed in order to get the Dems to cooperate. Even then, there are no promises - just Dems saying, "I you say uncle, we'll talk to you."

Not a bad idea at all, I think.

The former policy of 'we'll never give in' worked really well. Rove is now re-structuring his attack plan and, as he does, the Dems are changing the rules.

Let's have a little faith in the Dems...just a little bit. They don't really deserve it, but they're all we've got right now.

[Pirate Smile]

25. Isn't it a change in emphasis, not substance? I think everyone knows

Bush's plan is going down in flames.

"House Democrats have decided to quit EMPHASIZING that they will not negotiate changes ..."

[madfloridian]

20. Those are the New Dems in the house.

They are not for us, they are for corporations. Remember their enthusiasm for the bankruptcy bill?

[thebigidea]

21. of course, when Bush is obstinate - he's praised for doing what he says

[Dr Ron]

22. I can see not having opposition to private accounts as sole litmus test

It's ok to discuss private accounts as long as they can provide satisfactory answers to these questions--which most likely will kill the idea. Of course my point is that Democrats should also raise these questions to show it isn't a case of being obstinate but having valid reasons for questioning the plan:

How do you provide private accounts (which means current workers would be paying less into the system) without either decreasing benefits to current beneficiaries or borrowing money and increasing the deficit?

What protections will there be to insure that transaction fees don't enrich Republican Wall Street supporters at the cost of people paying into the system?

What protections will there be to insure, should there loses in the market, that retirees will still receive sufficient income to live on?

My second question possibly could be answered. The first also points out that if Bush hadn't rushed into tax cuts when taking office, there might have been money for transition to private accounts, but not any more.

My third question points out the reason for the current system. People would be best off with a system of private investment accounts, including investment in the stock market, to prepare for retirement. However, this should come after having a basic plan to ensure retirement income regardless of what happens with these accounts--such as the present Social Security system.

[grytpype]

24. I also think this is a mistake.

They should not shift into a bipartisan mode. It's a disaster if they do.

The dem message, what they should be saying over and over and over, is that the repubs intend to privitize social security by hook or by crook, and that the dems will stop them.

And that all this talk about "Everything is on the table" is just a repug trick to get to privitization. that if the repugs had their way we would wake up one morning and SS will be privitized whether the people want it or not.

Going bipartisan now just gives the Repugs a lifeline.

Hopefully this is a ruse, it might be. We have the smartest dem leadership right now, they know what's at stake and they are willing to throw punches.

[msongs]

26. there IS NO Bush SS plan put forward, none. trying to sucker the dems into

putting up a dems proposal so it can be blasted and everything blamed on us.

there IS NO BUSH SS PLAN. the dems should demand to see the BUSH plan in writing then advertise that there is none.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[MisterP]

28. let's deliberately annoy both the liberal base and the apolitical personal

-results swingers!

[Iowa]

29. Unbelievable!

Using "focus groups", then telling the press about it... These morons would screw up a two-car funeral.

[shanti]

38. right, i don't believe it either

sounds like bullshyt to me.

[creeksneakers2]

30. E-mail for House Ways and Means Committee Democratic staff

http://www.house.gov/waysandmeans_democrats/contact/index.shtml

[depakid]

31. Dems don't deserve majority status

and the way they continue to act (or not avt), they're never going to get it.

For whatever reason, sometime over the past decade the dems lost whatever ability they had to take a principled stand. A significant number of them will sell out their own mothers and their own children for whatever political expediency looks palatable at the moment.

I think Howard Dean's goiung to discover that he made a big mistake getting involved with these folks as DNC chair.

What people don't like- and won't vote for- are wishy washy types- to put it bluntly- cowards, which is what the party as a whole has come to stand for- and not just throught the Republican's efforts to brand them as such.

[Nite Owl]

32. I don't get it

* can be obstinate and that's ok but for the dems it's a problem? What are they smokin'? Make the boy king present a damned plan. Then we can talk. He's the one who refuses to let people see what it is they really want to do. We got a plan already and have to decades and it works, that's our plan he's the one who wants something different. We aren't opposing a plan because they don't have one.

[iconoclastic cat]

33. People, people: Are you sure this isn't propaganda?

Seriously. Where are the quote attributions?

I don't buy this. Write emails regardless; raise a stink. But I don't buy it for a second.

[Zorra]

34. Sounds to me like somebody is using propaganda, trying to desensitize

the American public.

Why did they throw this blurb in about Reid? What Reid is saying is that they will gladly talk if privatization is taken off the table

"I'm happy, we're happy, to talk to the president about Social Security if privatization is taken off the table, period," Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada told reporters last week.

Hint to this unnamed "House Aide", (that is probably a republican working for Dennis Hastert), or whoever is putting out this BS:

NO means NO. We are not going to bed with you.

Anything else is rape.

[depakid]

35. Come to think of it- this IS the Washington Post

Maybe I should have taken that with a much bigger grain of salt.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sharman]

39. Here's why

Remember, Social Security was started in the Depression. There wasn't a whole lot of money lying around. The brilliant idea was to borrow from future generations. Thus, you can't just decide to remake the program, without first accounting for the debt owed to the current generation of retirees. Under the system, current earners pay for current retirees. If you let current earners take their payroll taxes out of the system, the current retirees (who paid their payroll taxes in their turn) are high and dry.


Now in theory, you could talk about a private account system, just as long as you responsibly deal with that debt. The time to talk about such a change is absolutely not when you have enormous deficits, and you (party in power) are hellbent to cut revenues (taxes) even more.

Also, if you want to invest for your retirement, there are already tax-advantages instruments. But you are a foolish investor not to grab social security with both hands. Every portfolio should include some safe investments, and there's no safer investment than an annuity that pays as long as you live, and also provides for disability and for your dependents on your death. With virtually no risk.

[Iowa]

40. Excellent post sharman!

SS is not just another 401(k) - never has been. The SS trust fund is a debt owed to the working people of this country, but Bush & Co. have squandered massive amounts via tax cuts for the wealthy, Iraq, etc. Bush is the spoiled, aimless offspring of a wealthy man, who has always sat atop a velvet cushion and doesn't begin to grasp the concept of personal responsibility, honor, or integrity. So now he's looking for a way to make the working class pay for his spending/tax-cut spree. This is nothing more than an attempt to initiate a massive transfer of wealth from the working class/poor to the rich.

Unpopular, just understand what Bush is. Just picture the dumb, lazy, arrogant, swaggering, smirking, aimless, rich, Daddy's boy from your high school (we've all known guys like that) and take the position that's opposite to his. You'll never go wrong. You will always be safe to assume he's wrong, lying, clueless, manipulative, or conniving.

[Lindacooks]

41. 'Obstinate'???? OBSTINATE????

Standing up for what's right is 'obstinate'?? Fighting for the poor, elderly, young, and helpless is obstinate??

Then call me the queen of obstinate. Fucking MSM.

[cestpaspossible]

42. Glen Johnson is so full of shit he's choking on it.

This article is pure GOP disinfo, no Democrat is quoted in support of Johnson's bullshit assertions.