WHERE'S THE (ss) PLAN??

[paineinthearse]

Does anyone remember the '72 Wendy's commercial that made Clara Pella a household word? WHERE'S THE BEEF!!! she would shout.

* has yet to show us details of the social security plan.

It's time for the DNC to take a lesson from Madison Avenue and dust off the WENDY'S "where's the beef?" campaign.



WHERE'S THE PLAN????

[whistle]

1. There is no Bush plan to save social security, only a secret...

...plan to destroy it!

[TrueAmerican]

2. Not 72

maybe you meant '82???

[paineinthearse]

17. Well, at least I found the graphic

What's 12 years?

[applegrove]

3. 1984 or something.

[demwing]

4. Lets roll out Fritz Mondale!

He'll ask the question!

Why does this idea make me feel oddly nauseated?

[Akno21]

5. What about the Dems plan?

Something needs to be done, at some point. And simply saying it's not a problem doesn't count. It's debatable when the trust fund will run out, but it will happen, and we need to propose not oppose.

[wisteria]

6. I agree!

[Old and In the Way]

7. Lift the income cap on SS contributions and rollback the taxcuts on

the wealthiest 2%. Problem solved.

[gulfcoastliberal]

10. Bingo!

Maybe Reid should read your post and counter Bush with an idea like this. I still don't understand what the dems are proposing to counter Roveco and get the people on our side.

[tkmorris]

9. Will there be a problem?

Sure there will, eventually, but it is a LONG way away yet. Attempting to "solve" the problem at this point in time is about the worst thing possible for Democrats.

Right now Republicans control the House, the Senate, and the White House. Any plan that gets enacted right now will inevitably be Republican flavored, even if it's a plan originally proposed by Democrats and then poisoned by their counterparts in congress. Furthermore you are dealing with a problem which boils down at it's core to simply not having enough money at some point in the future. The time to fix such a future problem is when there is enough funds in the budget to enact some sort of fix that won't destroy future benefits. Right now the budget is so far in the red that ANY plan which proposes ways to pay for those future benefits will be dead before it gets started. Right now the only viable option is to cut the guaranteed benefit in some fashion, and that is not acceptable. Of course that is why the Repubs want to worry about it NOW. Doing anything about it now means simply gutting the governments obligation, no other plan will fly.

So, what should Dems do? NOT fix it now. Try to get the budget fixed first, roll back those tax cuts, reduce our military obligations and budget, and THEN fix SS and Medicare, when there are enough funds to do it right.

[July]

12. I disagree.

At the moment, we need to stop the juggernaut to change the nature of Social Security. Bush has proposed a vague plan that will change SS radically and lead to benefits cuts -- why shouldn't we respond to that first? Since the trust fund won't run out tomorrow, we have time to develop a plan to maintain SS as it is. We DON'T have much time to stop Republicans from taking the first step toward enriching their Wall Street pals at the expense not only of seniors but of baby boomers who've paid into the system for many years (including a raised payroll tax that was imposed in the eighties to deal with the solvency issue) and now face potential cuts in benefits (so far, Bush is only promising full benefits to those over 55, which leaves out most of the boomer generation).

BUSH is the one who has to spell out the plan if he feels it's something so urgent that we must act now. Our obligation is to look at his plan and discuss it on the merits -- which doesn't mean coming up with a different plan yet. It's clear from their actions that the Republicans are trying the hard sell, so we must respond to what they're proposing if we want to stop it. Since they're not telling us any details, finding them out is the first order of business.

If there really were a "crisis," maybe I'd agree with you, but it's not here yet. We do have the luxury of SOME time.

[msongs]

8. DEMS should also have a clear plan in contrast............and

step up to the plate as a unified force to see that the DEMS vision is the one that wins the popularity contest.

DEMS need to oppose, and also lead the way.


Msongs
www.msongs.com/vvpb our paper ballot proposal for CA

[cestpaspossible]

11. This leaves us free to characterize the mystery plan however we want.

"Bush's plan will slash benefits by up to 60%"

and so on...

[ComerPerro]

13. That's a good point

He doesn't seem to have any sort of real, tangible plan. Just a bunch of vague references.

More double standard bullshit.

Democrats could release every detail of a plan of action on social security, and the media would still act as though we have no proposal.

Meanwhile, Bush gets a pass because he keeps making vague references to "Private accounts".

[Pepperbelly]

14. everything's on the table...

:D

[Avalux]

15. THERE DOESN'T NEED TO BE A PLAN

Duh!!! Anyone listen to Paul Krugman? * has fabricated a crisis over SS - there is no crisis. Why should Democrats be forced to come up with a 'plan' when all that's needed is a little tweaking here and there? SS is in good shape right now - THAT'S the message that must be screamed over and over by Democrats. The real crisis is Medicare.

Damn this pisses me off.

[paineinthearse]

16. When I asked "where's the plan", I meant the * plan

Dems need not advance one until * puts his on the table.

[Akno21]

19. Actually, I do

listen to Krugman, watched him on the daily show last night.

We need to say medicare is the real crisis, that works better than "SS is in good shape right now." More youngsters believe in UFO's than that they will get SS funds. We can't say it's going great and will go great forever, but we can point to more important problems.

[Sapphire Blue]

18. Hmmmm.... I thought you meant the Schutzstaffel plan.