WaPo editorial attacks Dems stance: Bush Social Security soundly rejected

[ProSense]

. . . and the Democrats' Reply

Cynicism that needs to stop

Friday, August 4, 2006; Page A16

YOU MIGHT THINK that a call from the new Treasury secretary for reform of entitlements would get a respectful hearing from Democrats. If entitlement programs are not reformed, they will squeeze out other spending programs that Democrats care about; they will create a budget crunch that no responsible party could want. But some Democrats do not appear to understand this. Yesterday an e-mail sent out on behalf of Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader, dismissed Henry M. Paulson Jr.'s comments on "privatizing" Social Security, adding that this policy has been "soundly rejected by the American people."

The Social Security reform that President Bush pushed last year involved personal retirement accounts. But it did not involve "privatization": The accounts, which were to be optional, were to be designed and administered by the government, with no opportunities for Wall Street salesmen to foist enormous hidden fees on unsuspecting workers. Besides, the idea that the American people rejected Mr. Bush's plan is only half true. The president failed to get traction not least because Democrats were doing their best to scare voters into thinking that their retirement checks would be confiscated.

In his speech Tuesday, Mr. Paulson did not say that he wanted to reintroduce last year's administration proposal. Instead, he said that his approach would be bipartisan and that he aimed to address entitlements because "when there is a big problem that needs fixing, you should run toward it, rather than away from it." He even said that it was this philosophy that led him to give up a top Wall Street job to come to Washington. Now Ms. Pelosi's office is saying what it thinks of these sentiments: Forget bipartisanship, forget problem-solving. We hope other Democrats will be less cynical.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/03/AR2006080301496.html

So, they're trying to push the Bush plan by claiming Democrats are scaring people? Seems they're behind about 1,800 editorials (every day since 9/11) denouncing the scare tactics Bush has been using to run the country into the ground and create chaos around the world!

[rodeodance]

1. "privatization": = capitalistic greed=personal health accounts!

[Joe Bacon]

2. Nobody at the Pravda on the Potomac lives from paycheck to paycheck

They're all well off and their Führer has seen to it with his tax cuts that they're well taken care of.

The WEEKLY WORLD NEWS is more believable than the WHORESHINGTON POST!

[bluerum]

3. Ahh. The putrid stench of KKK Rover boy in the morning.

This WaPo BS was surely written and approved by the Rover. It bears one of the classic political hallmarks of this wretched administration - smear your opponent with your own feces.

The president failed to get traction not least because Democrats were doing their best to scare voters into thinking that their retirement checks would be confiscated.

It's not like the administration was using scare tactics to stampede people into believing that they will be broke and destitute in old age because the existing social security program (that the administration neglected, failed to reform and underfunded) would never be able to provide for them. If it was'nt for the fact that we have mortgaged our futures by buying a war in ME on credit we might actually have something left to improve SS.

And we all know that color coded terra alerts and threats of WMD's are, you know, reality based.

I have a suggestion - take a few billion from the ongoing military efforts to destroy the ME and invest it in the SS program. Take a few more billion and invest it in education. Take another billion or two and start some real alternative energy development programs. There should be plenty left over to keep a few tens of thousand US troops stationed in the ME.

The dems better dig in on this one. Destroying social security would make us all dependent on the mercenary "good will" of the free market. It will transfer even more of this countries resources to the already well off and rich. It is insane. We know it will happen. It has happened before. The rich and powerful will subjugate the weak and desperate. It is a simple formula.

[tsuki]

4. Watch the language. "Entitlement Programs" = "Welfare"

"Social Security Recipients" = "Welfare Queens" They always say "Medicaid & Medicare," as if they are the same thing.

The Republicans are setting up Seniors to be the new "hate group" out to steal our hard earned tax dollars. They are pathetic.

[GoldenOldie]

5. Lost me with the first sentence.

"....would get a respectful hearing from Democrats."

When has this Administration or Republican controlled house ever held respectful hearings??? They hide behind closed doors where decisions/laws/regulations are handed to them from Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, the pharmaceutical, insurance, financial, lobbyists, etc. They then hastily appear in the middle of the night and call out thier "loyal opposition," and demand an immediate vote......their is to be no reading nor debate on what is to become the law of the land.

This administration/congress has no respect but only contempt for the US Constitution and WE THE PEOPLE.

[gratuitous]

6. "We hope other Democrats will be less cynical"

My goodness, what has the Post editorial page been smoking for the last 20 years? They seem to have completely erased everything from Iran/contra forward in their estimation of Republican political aims and tactics.

If the Democrats are cynical about GOP machinations, especially where it concerns the most successful government program of all time, one that has saved millions from poverty in their final years, then it's only because the Republicans have earned that cynicism. And they've earned it not just once or twice, but dozens and dozens of times over the years as they've sought to make government more and more dysfunctional for the majority of Americans, and the private plaything of their overrich sponsors.

You know something, Washington Post editorial page? Fuck you, that's what. Just fuck you, you conniving assholes.

[OzarkDem]

7. Our local rag has been pushing the meme, too

Plain Dealer recently did a series on retirement - can you afford it? I could tell they were gearing up to start pushing the GOP privatization plan.

As usual, they seem to know in advance what the GOP talking points will be on the campaign trail.

[ProSense]

8. "In this case the Post really is an arm of the RNC."

(August 06, 2006 -- 10:11 AM EDT)

There's no party more smarmily mendacious in the Social Security debate than the Washington Post editorial page. As long-time readers know, for several years the GOP has been trying to fool voters and protect vulnerable incumbents with unpopular positions by continually forcing changes in the name of their policy on Social Security. For literally decades they called their private account policy 'privatization'. But when support for the policy began to go south they insisted that the name for the policy was actually a slur. They even went so far as to say it was a name of denigration devised by Democrats.

Friday's Post editorial on Social Security actually went so far as to ape not only the 'it's not privatization' bamboozlement but even took the GOP's lead banning the phrase 'private accounts' in favor of the better poll-testing 'personal accounts'.

From the Post ...

Yesterday an e-mail sent out on behalf of Nancy Pelosi, the House minority leader, dismissed Henry M. Paulson Jr.'s comments on "privatizing" Social Security, adding that this policy has been "soundly rejected by the American people."

The Social Security reform that President Bush pushed last year involved personal retirement accounts. But it did not involve "privatization": The accounts, which were to be optional, were to be designed and administered by the government, with no opportunities for Wall Street salesmen to foist enormous hidden fees on unsuspecting workers.

On one level, semantics is certainly not as important as the substance of the underlying policies words describe. In this case, 'privatization', by every relevant standard and criterion, is the appropriate word for the policy in question. But editorial pages are supposed to forums for forceful discussion and advocacy of policy unencumbered by either sides spin and bamboozlement, but especially by one side's intentional efforts to deceive voters. In this case the Post really is an arm of the RNC.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/009317.php

[sendero]

9. As soon as these same people..

... rail against the utterly wasted half trillion dollars spent on this useless "war" they might be worth giving a listen to.

As it is, they are ignoring the real problem so why should anyone listen to them?