Social Security Stance Risky, Democrats Told

[kskiska]

Bush Could Outflank Their Rigid Opposition

The opening round of the Social Security debate has played out just the way Democrats had hoped, with President Bush on the defensive, Republicans in Congress divided and Democrats united in their opposition to the centerpiece of Bush's plan, voluntary personal accounts.

But at a time when many Democrats are congratulating one another, others are beginning to worry that their strategy of rigid opposition has not begun to pay any political dividends and that Bush could yet outflank them before this fight is over.

The party's situation was posed most provocatively by two veteran Democratic strategists, Stan Greenberg and James Carville. In a memo issued last week, the two wrote: "We ask progressives to consider, why have the Republicans not crashed and burned?"

"Why has the public not taken out their anger on the congressional Republicans and the president?" they added. "We think the answer lies with voters' deeper feelings about the Democrats who appear to lack direction, conviction, values, advocacy or a larger public purpose."

more…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15356-2005Mar7.html

[Cha]

1. Well, fucking carville should know all

about .."lack direction, conviction, values, advocacy or a larger public purpose."

I say give it some time and the majority of the public will turn rabidly on this monkey who is trying to steal our SS.

[Jackpine Radical]

42. No matter how much "direction, conviction, values..."

etc. the Dems have, the public will never know about it due to the continuous drumbeat of the attack from the Liberal Press.

[Cha]

45. True! We need our

own percussion section! The sooner the better!

[woosh]

89. Carville is a dinsaur

He's on his way down and out...

[Nite Owl]

2. They are full of it

We do have a plan it's decades old and works. This is called standing for principals something some of these apeasers wouldn't know anything about.

[Larkspur]

3. Why does Carville think that progressives control the Dem Party?

The lack of direction comes from "centrist" Dems too worried about looking tough against Bush and from GOP appeasers and GOP appeaser wannabes, like Lieberman, who try to kiss Bush's butt any chance they can get.

As far as I can tell progressives have offered viable alternatives, it's the centrist and right-leaning Dems who offer no viable alternative.

[Blue to the bone]

48. Bingo, no truer words were ever spoken! n/t

[Al-CIAda]

50. ditto -eom

[me b zola]

71. Well said.

..And that's all I have to say about that.

[LiberalFighter]

73. Centrists and right-leaners capitulate to easily

They can't stand the pressure (heat in the kitchen).

I bet they can't analyze much of anything either.

[renaissanceguy]

80. We WILL control the party.

Let him say what he wants... he'll be sorry when '06 and '08 come around. http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.15010804

[TreasonousBastard]

4. An iron stance is always risky...

and you must be flexible to get anywhere. Particularly if you don't have the big guns.

But, the Democrats do have time on their side. They really don't have to do much at all while the whole mess implodes, so an "iron stance" is more like stonewalling.

[zipplewrath]

90. Health Care is the real issue

If the dems wanted to get out ahead of this issue, they ought to lay out the numbers on the future of health care in this country, including what it's going to do to the federal budget. Makes SS look like chicken feed. While Bush runs around talking about 2018 and 2047, the dems could be mentioning that by 2010 healthcare is gonna be a budget killer for the feds. The feds are the largest SINGLE consumer of healthcare. They have the medicade/care plans, VA, military hospitals, civil service healthcare, not to mention the buried costs in military hardware acquisitions. And tort reform really isn't gonna help.

And it isn't just the feds. Every business, virtually every person in the country right now is aware of the cost of healthcare. This could quickly become a national issue. It would push SS right of the map. We've got them on the ropes. Time to punch the lights out.

[Coastie for Truth]

5. I agree with the Dem Leadership

The program is PRINCIPALS and CORE BELIEFS!

Not Bush Lite.

1. No compromise on carve out private accounts. This is core.
2. Raise the tax base ceiling above $90K.
3. Maybe, just maybe - a Democratic "add on" of private accounts with refundable tax credits for lower income workers --- funded by dumping the 2% tax cut for the wealthiest 2%.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. NO

1. No compromise on carve out private accounts. This is core.
Fine

2. Raise the tax base ceiling above $90K.
It rises every year with the COLA. First roll back the tax cuts then we can talk.

3. Maybe, just maybe - a Democratic "add on" of private accounts with refundable tax credits for lower income workers --- funded by dumping the 2% tax cut for the wealthiest 2%.

There are private accounts. They are called IRAs and 401Ks. SS is not an investment plan it is a pension insurance system.

[Coastie for Truth]

43. But people in the 36%

get more bang or the buck then people in the 15% bracket. Equalize the "bang for the buck" with a refundable tax credit.

A Democratic response should provide affordability for low tax bracket people (our constituency) to open up IRA's and 401(k)'s -- especially when ERISA "Defined Benefit Plans" are on the Endangered Species List.

I know SS is an "insurance plan" and not a "savings plan" and "Bush Lies" -- I have only been posting that since I joined the DU. And I have only been a Liberal Progressive Dem my entire voting life -- and MILK Jr - Jim Wallis - Michael Lerner "Faith Based Progressive Liberal" my whole life. And have been "tithing" to the Dem party since I became a civilian in 1970. ;)

[Warren Stupidity]

56. why not just roll back the tax cuts?

SS tax as is generates a surplus until 2018, and then it remains in the black until (worst-case) 2042. Why exactly are we raising SS taxes?

[Coastie for Truth]

70. No argument from me on rolling back the tax cuts (Unborn Fetus Tax)

The tax cuts are nothing but a deferred tax on generations yet unborn, or as the Rapture Right would say it "A tax on Unborn Fetuses."

I think it is immoral, heretical, unethical, satanic, and sinful to cut taxes on the wealthiest 2%, impose that tax on generations yet unborn, (or as the Rapture Right would say it "A tax on Unborn Fetuses")and then use the tax cuts as a lame brained excuse to cut spending on a myriad of social programs and economic development programs.

EVIL - EVIL - EVIL

SINFUL - SINFUL - SINFUL

-As you can see, I am a "Left Wing, Compassionate, Progressive of Faith" - in the traditions of MLK Jr., Michael Lerner, Jim Wallis, and Monsignor Charles Owens Rice, etc.-

My Grand Dad was a "Leftie" Clergyman -- and I really thought "Solidarity Forever" and "Internationale" were in the Hymnal - and so did Msgr. Rice

[LiberalFighter]

75. Those Rapture Right...

should declare themselves ineligible for ANY benefits from Social Security or their programs.

[LiberalFighter]

74. I doubt that many would use the 4% from SSI for private account

Their situation probably is such that they would spend it on immediate essential family needs.

Would those that have better economic situation invest that 4% or spend it on something else... vacation, toys?? But then again that 4% isn't much to invest or spend on vacation or toys.

A family with an income of $35,000 would only have about $1400 to invest.

As it is everyone has the option of either investing in pre-tax 401k or after-tax IRA's. Why aren't they doing it now?

How many people don't take advantage of those retirement programs?

[Coastie for Truth]

81. You hit it right

"As it is everyone has the option of either investing in pre-tax 401k or after-tax IRA's. Why aren't they doing it now?

How many people don't take advantage of those retirement programs?

In the lower brackets -- very few take advantage of IRA's and 401(k)'s. This is a real problem -- and both parties are shilly-shallying around it without meeting it head on. Bush sounds like he only ever talks to people in 36% bracket.

But many don't invest because, at the lower incremental rates - they can't afford to - it doesn't reduce their withholding tax that much. My take is - if we could tell low wage people - "for every dollar you save in a 401(k0 - we will reduce your withholding by 36 cents" participation would go up significantly.

---------At one time I worked in HR -- I have been through this "participation rates of the highest compensated one fifth versus the participation rates of the lowest one fifth" aggravation - as well as daily fights with health "insurance" (actually health "mafioso") people. Glad to get back to engineering.-------------

[LiberalFighter]

94. This and more needs to get out

They also need to know why they are unlikely to participate.

[July]

88. AFAIK, nobody's going to be able to buy toys w/that money.

My understanding is that the 4% would go to a different place (rather than to the govt. SS fund), but it won't ever get into our hot little hands. I believe it will continue to be withheld from wages, but we would choose to put it into a limited choice of stocks in a program managed by Wall Street.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

[LiberalFighter]

93. That's pretty much what I understand too

[athenap]

53. No private accounts!

If I want to gamble, I'll take my money to the riverboat casinos. If I want to play the stock market, I'll do it with money not tied into my social security retirement.

Everytime someone talks about Bush* and Social Security, there should be a pair of dice next to it. With Snake Eyes. Or a one-armed bandit. Or a roulette wheel.

They had flip-flops for Kerry. We need fuzzy dice for SS and Shrub.

[Coastie for Truth]

54. Keep private accounts out of the SS Code -- allow 36% credit for IRA, 401

I agree - your retirement is a triangle - private pension, personal savings, and SS.

The ERISA "defined benefit plan" is dead. It's now "defined contributions."

And BushCO says SS is in trouble; and we are not "saving enough"

To "fix" SS - eliminate the COLA adjusted $90K cap -- "all income from whatever source - without limit" should be subject to FICA -- just like it is for Medicare.

Now, let's go over to the Internal Revenue Code - 401(k) plans are governed by Section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code. Instead of IRA's and 401(k)s being a deduction (so the fat cats get a 36% deduction and everybody else gets a smaller deduction) -- give everybody a 36% tax CREDIT for IRA and 401(k) contributions -- "Level The Playing Field." The problem is that low income workers do not participate in IRA's and 401(k)'s the way higher income workers do. We have to address this problem - which - given the effective end of ERISA "Defined Benefit Plans" is going to explode.

How do we pay for it -- kick up the top rate on the top 2% - back to the old, pre-Bush, 39%.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. Greenberg Carvill and Ickes

Line up to advocate the Democrats ought to come up with a plan to fix social security, which by the way is not broken.

Gosh I am so shocked that the DLC K street boys are still trying to sell the same old corporatist toady crap.

Hey Jimmy! Here is our plan: Social Security, good now, good forever, it ain't broken, don't fix it. Party of Enron (you too Carville) keep your thieving hands off of our pensions.

[BillZBubb]

7. Simply bullshit.

The Democrats can show conviction, values, and a larger public purpose by calling Bush out on his Social Security lies and standing resolute against any change to the system--whether it is considered popular or not.

The worst thing the Democrats could do is be seen caving in to the Bush propaganda onslaught. Believe me, the public would see that as a lack of conviction and backbone. Democrats need to say NO! End of discussion. (Just like the Repugs did on Clinton's health proposal--gee that really hurt them didn't it????!!!).

[Gloria]

8. I got an email announcing that Ickes is going to head up ACT....

that doesn't sound that great to me.

[shanti]

21. ickes...

you mean david ickes???

[MAlibdem]

9. Now need to present an alternate vision

Not just obstruction, but opposition.

[Warren Stupidity]

13. It ain't boke don't fix it.

Anything else is buying into their bullshit. This has been the game all along: get the Democrats to start the wrecking by agreeing that SS, which is running a surplus and will be fully funded under worst case scenarios until 2042, needs to be 'fixed'. Talk to my two male cats about what 'fixed' means.

Please don't buy the bullshit.

[MAlibdem]

51. It's not broken

I don't believe that. But we can use the moment to raise the taxable amount from $80000 to $200000 and make it never have any troubles

[Warren Stupidity]

57. why raise the FICA tax at all?

It is a regressive flat tax to begin with, and it is currently running a surplus. So why exactly do Democrats keep calling for raising the FICA tax?

[MAlibdem]

77. it's not regressive as you raise the limit it can tax

for example, if FICA only started at $20,000 and went to $200,000 it would have a progressive impact overall. either way, it becomes less regressive as you raise the limit on which you can tax.

flat tax does not equal regressive, a flat tax is that, flat. not regressive or progressive.

[Warren Stupidity]

87. a flat tax is regressive (nt)

[CTyankee]

91. I believe that you are right, warren

because it hurts the poor more proportionally to their income than it does the well off.

But here is my take on why Bushco is getting away with all of this regressive crap. I am convinced that a lot of working class people who vote Republican really believe that someday they will be among the very rich. And so, in their magic thinking, they vote Republican in order to be rich. This is the sort of mindset of those who think their retirement will be financed by hitting the lottery. In this way, Republicans sell dreams. We Democrats are trying to sell reality and dreams win every time.

Sigh...

[Warren Stupidity]

96. yeah I understand that

The Democratic Party ought to be front and center fighting that meme, reminding people that what is in their best interest is not what their tax consequences might be if they win the lottery, but what they are right now on planet earth. Our leaders are afraid to engage on the class warfare front, so no surprise the the Party of Enron is winning on that level.

What I do find suprising is that people posting here on DU are enthusiastic about raising the cap and continuing to pour more FICA tax money into Welfare for the Wealthy.

[LynnTheDem]

33. No we don't.

BUSH is the "leader". Let's see his plan. He STILL hasn't shown us HIS plan.

OPPOSITION party. That's what we are.

[NashVegas]

37. Correct

Force Bush to show his cards.

[Jim Sagle]

11. Chickenshit bullshit.

[GetTheRightVote]

12. The Dems must stand firm and ignore these types of remarks

:kick:

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

14. Real simple then. Give people eligible for social security a tax cut

( a word Bush loves) for an ADDITIONAL supplemental account.

[Warren Stupidity]

15. we already do that

It is called an IRA.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

16. I know. :)

it was sarcasm

[Warren Stupidity]

18. please include appropriate emoticons on this subject

People, including lots of folks on this forum, are FUCKING CONFUSED on this issue.

You did get me though :-)

[ECH1969]

17. The dems should come up with their own

Contract with America. But, they won't.

[Warren Stupidity]

23. Here is my Democratic Contract On Social Security

Your parents will get their full pension.
You will get your full pension.
Your children will get their full pensions.
We will protect Social Security now and forever.

[LynnTheDem]

34. Easy; Keep bush's TEMPORARY TAX CUTS for the RICH ELITE 1%...

as TEMPORARY.

And that would fully fund SS until the 22nd century.

[Skip Intro]

19. If we had a truly free and vigilant press, we wouldn't have to play

these stupid eff'n political games.

I mean DAMN - we warned people for decades that republicans would destroy SS if given the chance, and now that's exactly what they're trying to do.

We really are sticking up for Social Security.

The only reason Democrats have to fear some stupid political gimmick from bush is because the "press" is the US is bullshit.

If the truth were told, to the public, by the press, people in this nation would realize what a fraud bush, and 99% of the republican party are.

On the SS issue - Dems should not give an inch. Ironically, that's the clear lesson of this article.

We do stand for something, and we are standing here.

I really don't care too much, anymore, what Carville has to say.

[blackspade]

20. hey..

Greenberg and Carville can blow it out their ass.
I'm sick of these whiny Neo-dems.

[DELUSIONAL]

22. Sorry I can't take James Carville seriously --

not with that wife of his. He has bad judgment.

[Cha]

24. Worse than "bad judgement" imo..

irretrievably lost screws.

[jdj]

25. ouch.

and true.

My money is on her dick being bigger than his. (and Gannon's).

[Piperay]

95. Me either

he turned out to be a real jerk. :thumbsdown:

[kodi]

26. okay, revenue enhancement from those making + $90K

and butt nuggets like Stan Greenberg and James Carville will not admit that the media has helped Bush from stumbling even further down by not reporting the real costs of the Bush privatization plans.

when the press allows the GOP Mouths of Sauron to obfusticate the real costs of privatization is it any wonder that the GOP is not hurt more?

[Warren Stupidity]

40. NO

There is no justification for 'raising the cap'.

First, SS is running a surplus and will do so until 2018. Second, that surplus is used to purchase t-bills which will fund the system until 2042 or MUCH LATER, depending on how bad the economy is. Finally, the 'cap' rises every year, automatically, due to the COLA adjustment.

If the problem is that the government will have trouble meeting its debt obligations then I suggest that the solution is to ROLL BACK THE UNSUSTAINABLE BUSH TAX CUTS.

There is no problem with SS. It ain't broken. Don't fix it.

[rukkyg]

60. Wouldn't raising the cap just mean that those people

would just get more money when they retire in 1-45 years? That doesn't sound like a solution.

[Warren Stupidity]

62. no it would not affect benefits

Some Democrats are falling over themselves proposing that there be a one time upward adjustment of the FICA cap. This does not include an equivalent increase in benefits. It would mean that the FICA surplus, currently projected to stop around 2018, would continue much longer. In my opinion it is a way bad idea. FICA is a regressive flat tax and SS is running a surplus. Raising the cap would just allow the republicans to continue to subsidize their unaffordable tax give-aways to the wealthy with the FICA tax on working families. No thanks.

[TankLV]

64. Make ALL income liable to SS withholding and put a MEANS test on it.

The wealthy would pay into it more - then - if there is a need - cap benifits at some level - say $200,000 or limit receipt of benefits only to persons who lack their own retirement plans so they can keep collecting their lower income salaries.

Or make ANY income - including income from investments, etc, which the rich only have as their source of income - elligble for witholding.

With CEO's earning 1,000 and 10,000 times the pay of their employees (it's only "fair" they cry - can't limit executive salaries!) - I'm sure it would be solvent in a year forever!

[Warren Stupidity]

69. Would one of you advocating 'raising the cap'

please explain two things:

1) why do this before rolling back the tax cuts?
2) why do this at all while SS is running a surplus?

[TankLV]

79. I suggested this as just possible solutions - not any particular order.

Just more solutions.

All are good ideas.

Yours are VERY good questions - especially #2.

Personally, I think the best thing is to DO NOTHING - SINCE THERE IS NO "CRISIS".

Now, we can always plan ahead, however, to make it EVEN BETTER AND STRONGER AND PAY OUT EVEN MORE.

Allowing anybody to leave the system is out of the question, off the table. That is non-negotiable.

[ebayfool]

83. Means test - I know a couple that are very comfortably retired & still

receiving income from investments along w/their SS benefits. They donate it to the dog pound EVERY month & have for years. Makes me cringe when I see other old people w/out the same means fingering foodstuffs in the market w/a look of longing, then putting the cheap commodities that they can afford in their baskets & walking away. I asked them why not people once, was told that no one is this country is truly poor. They were indignant that I even asked the question. I think means testing might be worth a look at, if it would prevent that sort of crap. I know it's their money, but - christonacrutch, what they gave to the dog pound in the time I was around (they didn't really have a soft spot for critters, they used the deduction to offset the other unearned income) would have fed dozens of poor families for years.

editted cuz I need to learn to use the durn speelchucker more often!

[rukkyg]

84. Well then

raising the cap would effectively just be a tax raise on those who make more than the cap. So of course it makes sense to just raise "normal" taxes (roll back tax cuts) on those same people (except those who make $90k-$200k, who probably don't deserve to have their taxes to be raised).

[Warren Stupidity]

86. my point

Raising the cap is yet another tax hit to hard working middle class families, principally those on the two coasts living in metro regions, where 90-200K/yr is not wealthy at all. Meanwhile the truly wealthy have their dividend tax elimination, their capital gains tax cut, their estate tax cut their income tax reductions etc. and noise from the white house that they want to make these permanent and increase them.

The current surplus from the FICA tax is being used to subsidize the bush tax cuts. An increas in the FICA will of course just increase the subsidy we are currently giving those needy rich people. Why do we continue to play their game?

The 'crisis' facing the Bush administration is that the FICA subsidy is winding down. They cannot afford their tax cuts as the boomers start to retire and the annual FICA surplus starts to decrease. Their solution is to get working middle class families to pay even more taxes so that the bush tax cuts can stay put.

[w4rma]

27. Carville & Greenberg are framing the message that they "stand for nothing"

They should become *former* veteran Democratic strategists over that.

Same for Ickes.

They sound like they
A) do not understand the debate

or

B) are corporatist moles

[Mechatanketra]

28. WTF do these boneheads want?

"Why has the public not taken out their anger on the congressional Republicans and the president?"

Is this really what it's about? They're waiting for us ("the public") to, what, storm into the Capitol some weekend and hold a Cromwellian slaughter of the Parliament?

Sorry, but that's not how it works (yet). As long as this is a representative republic, the "public's" hands are more or less tied between elections. It's your job to do any 'taking out' that's needed. Dean slogans aside, the common people (sadly) aren't equipped with the power to fight this crap on a day-to-day basis.

Of course, what I really love is how the "voters' deeper feelings about Democrats who appear to lack conviction" translates to a justification for, uh, weakening one's stance. In other words, proving their lack of conviction.

I ask progressives (and the public) to consider, how much do these two geniuses make in a year? How much trouble are they going to be in financially as the GOP's slash-and-burn economy progresses, compared to you? Is it possible that maybe we should stop looking for advice from people who don't need to win?

[fob]

47. That was my question too. Isn't an ELECTION when "the people"

take out their anger on, in this case, congressional repugs and bush*? What the fuck do they want "us" to do? Demand the 2006 elections move up to right fucking now? I think the polls have shown "the people" ain't buying bush*s shit and THAT'S why they're having to shift, flip-flop, spread new lies.

[FlemingsGhost]

29. The DLC is killing the Party. At this point, I say, let it die.

The GOP won't be too far behind, and then we can get on with the business of national rebirth.

[Payback Time]

30. We Do Have Conviction

Especially with Reid, Boxer, and Dean leading the charge. A clear strong voice will emerge.

[FlemingsGhost]

31. Why are you still banking on a criminally corrupt system?

A system that has failed you time and time again.

Good luck with that, by the way.

[LynnTheDem]

32. ROTFLMAO!!! Love the SATIRE!!! Dems stance on not killing SS "risky"!

TOO FUNNY!!!

Gawd, these guys should go on the stage, they're damned good comedians!

[creeksneakers2]

35. Dems made a mistake saying SS has a problem

SS has no problem. Any projections of shortfalls as far away as 2042 aren't much more than guesses. There is enough money in the fund to pay until then.

The Dems are still afraid that somebody will call them partisan or obstructionist. So, they give up a little to the lies so the party will look "reasonable." What we wind up with are smaller lies. The public has accepted that there is a "problem." Smaller lies will hurt us too.

Now, Carville has warned the Dems that they can't afford to look like they are doing nothing about the "problem." So, they offer to negotiate if Bush will give up private accounts. Saying "I'll negotiate if" is the same as saying "I'm ready to negotiate." Negotiating gives the GOP more proof that there is a "problem." The Dems gave up half and Bush hasn't even said what his plan is yet.

When the GOP said SS has a problem, Dems should have said it doesn't because we paid in extra to cover the baby boom. That fact has barely been mentioned, and its a powerful argument against cutting SS. It also puts the GOP on the defensive to explain where the money went, and why it won't be there.

There is a problem. The problem is that the its going to be very expensive to pay off all the money the GOP borrowed from SS. We have a debt problem, and Dems should have defined the debate that way. Ask the GOP what happened to their promises that tax cuts would pay for themselves. Ask what happened to the peace dividend. Ask where all the savings they promised from smaller government are. Ask them how much taxes will have to be raised on the next generation to pay off all the money the GOP spent on tax cuts for the rich and the military. Ask them why a $200 billion shortfall in SS in 2042 is a problem but a $400 billion deficit in 2005 is not.

The debt the GOP has accumulated is the real problem. If Dems would stand up to lies and speak the truth they'd do much better in the end. They need to stop worrying about what the GOP will say and start sticking up for America. If they let Bush define the issues and the terms of the debate they'll get nowhere.

[sadiesworld]

44. I can't (ok, I can) believe the dems came up with the slogan:

Fix It, Don't Nix It. They've conceded the primary issue. MY slogan: IT'S THE DEBT, STUPID!

Perhaps the most important question in US politics today is WHY DO DEMOCRATS ALWAYS FIND A WAY TO LOSE?

BTW, nice post.

[BlueManDude]

36. Stopping SS "reform" displays values, conviction, direction, ...

and a larger purpose. Jst say no to any SS changes and deal with the issue when there are people of good will across the isle. Scary that many Dems just don't get it about making deals with the GOP right now.

[salin]

38. Same folk who advised congressional dems to vote for the war

because it would hurt them more to vote against it... completely ignoring how difficult it would be to later be critical of an awful policy due to the rw echo chamber claiming "flip flop" - thus working to make it look like those dems (re Kerry) "don't stand for anything." - So they are giving the same advice... now? In the name of fear of looking like they don't stand for anything? If the dems don't fight for working americans, by standing to protect SS, then just exactly what will it look like they do stand for (after abandoning the image of fighting for working americans?) sheeez.

[TankLV]

65. Correct. That policy worked SOOOOO well for Kerry, didn't it?

I'd rather go down fighting the good noble fight for what is right than always triangulating and losing anyway!

God with friends like these, who needs the GOP?

[0007]

39. Carville is a spot light loving buffoon that has out lived his best day.

[xchrom]

41. fully funded social security now and for the future.

that IS a plan.

[DemocracyInaction]

46. Perhaps Carville should read the polls

The longer Bush stays out on the road and pushes this thing, the more the public turns against it. And the polls show that 60-plus percent of the voters, in general, want the Dems to be an opposition to Bush. Why in the fuck would we take something that is working FOR us for a change and become groveling little terds in front of Bush in order to save his sorry hide??? Our problem is that we have listened too long to Carville, Begala, etc. They lucked out during the Clinton time because Papa Bush was seen as a whiney, pantywaist and we had a depression going in much of the land. It wasn't because of their teriffic input.

[TankLV]

67. It's the first inning, we haven't scored yet, the other team has 3 runs,

so we should just give up and go home with 8 more innings to play.

Great advise from these DLC stooges.

[JerseygirlCT]

49. (ducking here) I think they've got a point

There needs to be a well-coordinated, well-communicated, over-arching vision coming from the Dems. It doesn't much matter if we here at DU know what the party stands for: the people "out there" obviously don't have a good grasp of it yet.

They need to see each issue we fight over in the context of our (forgive me) vision thing. Social security, civil rights, the environment, the awful bankruptcy bill, the recent effort to raise the minimum wage -- it's all got to feel of a piece. Otherwise we DO leave ourselves open to GOP cries of obstructionism. We don't want to be seen as the naysayers -- we want to be seen as the fighters for the average American. This is contrast to the GOP who are not in the least bit interested in the average American. Make that case, and we win, period.

And we haven't succeeded in making it yet. I'm optimistic about Dean's abilities here, but the Congressional leadership has to hold it together and our herd of cats needs to start moving together.

[nolabels]

52. The fools are much too close to lens

This statement would be my first clue


"Why has the public not taken out their anger on the congressional Republicans and the president?" they added.

I have contributed over forty k to the system (that I will probably never see much if any of), my father drew his just a couple years before he died after his life long contributions and have quite few other stories there about it. Our family don't think it's inequitable, we think of it as necessary. All and all you could probably get a consensus with all of us that's it's a good thing. Mostly the general population don't really know whats going on with congress because corporate media makes it a point to keep them un or misinformed about it.

If and or when people rise up it might not be the manageable thing they are envisioning.

[Trish1168]

55. I disagree.....an iron stance is needed and wanted

Have you guys been to one of those town meetings? I went to one in Mass and everyone was angry. It was in a blue collar town which is traditionally conservative. Yet, people were very angry about messing with social security and everyone was down on Bush's privatization. I have a friend who went to one in New Hampshire, which is also very conservative (Bush won NH in 2000). I heard that about 90% of attendees were angry and upset. Maybe 10% were supporters of W's plan. For anyone who knows NH, this is remarkable.

The dems will negotiate, but privatization can NOT be on the table. Carville would get this if he took the time to attend some of these events around the country.

I think that with the grass roots having taken over the scene, people like Carville and Begala ary trying to stay relevent. But guys....it ain't workin'!!
:kick:

[confludemocrat]

58. Invoke mercy rule here

don't some sports at some levels of competition have mercy rules to end a travesty as far as when one team is taking so thorough a drubbing as Carville and the other guys line of thinking has taken here? So go ahead and lock this thread.

[B Calm]

59. Rigid Opposition. Give me a break!

[Rex]

61. political dividends? do we sell everything in this country?

nt

[bpilgrim]

63. why haven't the 'crashed and burned'? BBV

and who owns the BBV machines?

reTHUGlicans.

next.

someone needs to send them a link to DU asap ;->

peace

[Edgewater_Joe]

66. What The Democrats Have Been Told Is WRONG

They've drawn their line in the sand: Bush has to take privatization off the table, explicitly and publically, and THEN they'll sit down and talk. And to date there has been absolutely NO evidence that Bush will take that off the table, and absolutely NO evidence that Bush is gaining one iota of support as a result. Ergo, whoever these BELTWAY LOSER ADVISORS are telling the Beltway Dems, they are wrong and should shut their pieholes.

Why the fuck didn't those same BELTWAY LOSER ADVISORS tell the Dems to band together to stop the (Morally) Bankrupt Reform act today? THAT is the risky stance that was taken by the Bidens and Stabenows and Salazars, not this.

[not fooled]

68. Here we go again...

...the Dems take a firm, principled stand that is correct on the facts (no SS "crisis"; program works so don't fuck it up) and the media turns it into "rigid opposition".:eyes:

What about the chimp's rigid unyielding attempt to ram something down the throats of the American people that they have made clear they don't want??? Why isn't the MSM pounding home the message that * obviously has a pathological hatred of programs such as this that help people??? And why not expose *'s and the 'puke's crackpot obsession with destroying SS?

:puke: :puke: :puke:

Why am I not suprised that the MSM is trying to make the chimp look good even in this case???

[wisteria]

72. I agree with you!

They are always made out to be the "bad guys", even though they are doing their jobs and defending and protecting the rights and welfare of a majority of us Americans.

[autorank]

76. Screw Greenberg and Carville...Go away, go away, losers!

OK, were kicking ass on Social Security and these guys are whimpering. They're all part of the old-school, DLC, corporatist Democratic losing machine that lost congress and two presidential elections (well, let them get stolen!).

NEW LEADERS FOR A NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY

[madmark]

78. Well why don't they just bend over and surrender like they did on

on the bankruptcy bill today.

[wisteria]

82. Carville should have reserved judgment for a little longer

on this issue. This issue has not yet fully played out. People are just now beginning to understand the full impact these private accounts will have on the SS system. Carville represents part of the problem with our party in my opinion, why must we always air our differences in public. If Carville or others in like positions within the party are concerned about a strategy or position, why can't they discuss their concerns internally? The republicans use our own criticisms against us. Chaney referred to Carville's remarks just today. I hate hearing republicans repeating what they shouldn't even have heard about in the first place.

[Andromeda]

85. Carville has been sitting across the ...

breakfast table from a Republican operative for too long. You can't mix two worlds and still remain objective.

What Carville needs is 'intervention' to break his addiction to the Washington good-life.

[Gothmog]

92. Bush got his dividend tax cut through, we need to be careful

There are some issues that we can not compromise but we have to keep our eye on the ball and not get outmaneuvered. I am still shocked that Bush got his dividend tax cuts through on a partial basis. These cuts were horrible economic policy and had no stimulative effect.

Bush is pushing hard here and Karl Rove would not have Bush put so much on the line if they did not have a plan to win on this issues. We need to keep the fight up and pound that social security is not broke and Bush is wrong.