Of course I can. Before Bush decided that the chicken needed its head cut off, Democrats and Republicans in Congress were basically agreed that some minor changes needed to be made to keep the program solvent: just like happened in 1983. It wasn’t a huge central issue for beating each other up over the head with. The only really contentious issue was over the effect of the deficit: SS could actually have been fine without doing much of anything.
Clinton’s rhetoric wasn’t directed at Republicans to sell a new program that has nothing to do with fixing SS.
Bottom line, there is nothing coming down the pike with Social Security that’s so outrageously catastrophic that merits a radical solution like privatization. But sensible, well-reasoned solutions won’t allow the Bush Administration to accomplish its real goal of destroy Social Security. Hence all the bullshit talk about the Social Security “crisis”, which is merely recycling the same tactic they used to sell the Iraq war two years ago.
Baloney. First of all, the money is being invested - in government bonds. Second of all, the bulk of the money is going to current expenses. You might as well argue that the government should be investing the money it puts into the military. If they had invested all that money then our current taxes would be lower. Of course they couldn’t do that because they were soending the money for current expenses; just like SS.
You’re either missing or astutely avoiding the actual point – that Bush didn’t come up with the “crisis” hyperbole. You and Apos both said that the Social Security crisis hyperbole was created by Bush for political gain. I’ve pointed out that Clinton also referred to a “looming Social Security crisis” 3 years before Bush took office. So you’ve got two choices: admit you’re wrong and that the idea of Social Security in “crisis” was around long before Bush, or explain why Clinton’s characterization of a Social Security “crisis” was accurate while Bush’s is wrong.
So I’ll ask again – has the Social Security situation improved under Bush? Or was Clinton also “lying” when he said Social Security was heading toward a “crisis”?
I’m not debating Bush’s methods for avoiding the Social Security crisis. I’m debating your methods for arguing that Bush is a jerk.
I have no problem with people asserting that privatization alone won’t avoid the problems with Social Security. As I said earlier, privatization alone isn’t intended to avoid the insolvency of Social Security. I have a problem with people making up facts about Bush to advance their own political agendas.
And if Social Security would have been “fine” with only minor adjustments, then why did Clinton refer to the “looming Social Security crisis”? Was he also lying or playing political games?
Moreover, even if you think privatization is a bad idea, that has nothing to do with your assertion that Bush is responsible for making up the idea that Social Security is in crisis. It’s simply not true.
In the interests of full disclosure, I should also point out that Clinton never ended up doing more than advocating for privatization, and he only did that for a short time.
You Republicans have a quote from Clinton you can cut out for every occasion. I’m finding it harder and harder to understand what your visceral hatred was for the man.
But, yes, please. Encourage Bush to be more like Clinton. We could use times of peace and prosperity again. It was good to read the speech that Age Quod Agis linked to - you can see how a leader actually discusses an important issue and how to develop a solution.
Here’s a hint - he doesn’t use scare tactics and then tell you there’s going to be a one size fits all Washington-generated solution shoved down your throat.
Ya so Clinton said there will be a crisis down the road.
Here is what he said should be done
*t is now estimated that with normal ups and downs in economic growth, over the next 10 years, after 30 years of deficits, that the United States will have a budget surplus in somewhere in the range of a trillion dollars in the aggregate over the next 10 years. I have said before we spend a penny of that on new programs or tax cuts, we should save Social Security first. I think it should be the driving principle of this year’s work in the United States Congress – do not have a tax cut, do not have a spending program that deals with that surplus – save Social Security first.
Now comes George Bush.
And ya bush says we have a crisis with SS
Lets disembowel it.
I think this collumn by Josh Marshall lays out pretty well why the Clinton and Reid references are so transparently bogus and dishonest, even better than I can. Par for the course:
It’s gotten much much worse, because the federal deficit is far bigger problem that reduces our flexibility for dealing with things like SS.
Read the State of the Union address again. What is Bush clearly implying his plan will do? He launches directly from his rhetoric about the system going broke into his privatization plan.
Because those minor adjustments had to be made, and since they would inevitably require either some people getting taxed more or other people getting benefits, it was something people had to be prepared to accept.
Your love for dishonestly twisting the words of others to ask bogus questions is paralleled only by posters that have now left. I didn’t say that Bush first invented the idea that the system was in crisis. I said that he took something that was a fairly non-partisan issue with plenty of reasonable solutions on the table, jacked up the rhetoric to apocalyptic proportions and then tried to use it to sell a plan that doesn’t solve the crisis but only makes it worse.
I didn’t hate the man. I thought he was a really good, really effective President. But I doubt that you actually care about that, or that it will effect the army of strawmen that you’ve launched in leiu of an argument.
I’m still waiting for someone, anyone to show me where Bush said anything different than Clinton. Both used the word “crisis.” Both talked about substantially raised taxes or severe cuts in benefits. Both used substantially the same rhetoric. And despite your assertion that Bush is calling for “a one size fits all Washington-generated solution shoved down your throat,” Bush explicitly acknowledged that there are lots of proposals from both parties that could help fix the problem, and he called for continuing discussions about the matter. Once again, your characterization of Bush’s speech is just false.
No argument there.
I don’t think this is true. Let’s take a look at Bush’s State of the Union, shall we?
So instead of launching directly into the stuff about privatization, as you suggested, he talked about numerous other methods suggested by both parties. And then he said he was hoping to find a combination of reforms, as opposed to just adopting privatization. So it seems that your characterization of Bush’s speech is (say it with me now) totally incorrect.
So wait … you’re either unable or unwilling (ahem) to accurately point to anything in Bush’s speech that would lead you to believe that Bush’s rhetoric was more inflammatory than Clinton’s. So you apparently just want us to assume that Bush’s speech was “apocalyptic” in tone. I guess because we all know Bush = Hitler, right? Fine. even though you have been unable to point to anyt rhetoric in Bush’s speech that was more inflammatory, I’ll assume for the purposes of this post that despite the fact that your argument was factually incorrect, that Bush’s speech was more inflammatory than Clinton’s.
But now that we’ve made the (factually incorrect) assumption that Bush’s speech was rhetorically stronger than Clinton’s, you want us to ignore the fact that Social Security is worse under Bush, thus making the need for Social Security reform more severe. Wouldn’t a greater need justify heightened rhetoric?
And your reason for giving Clinton a pass is because he needed to get people prepared to accept raised taxes and “other people getting benefits” [I assume you meant “people getting less benefits”] There are numerous problems with this statement. First, Clinton never actually called for raised taxes or cuts in benefits. He called for spending the surplus to “save Social Security first” so that we wouldn’t have to raise taxes or cut benefits. So I’m not sure how you think his speech prepared people for something he was actually advocating against.
Second, are you suggesting that people now do not need to be prepared for raised taxes or cutting benefits? I mean, you have suggested in this very thread that Social Security is not in crisis and can be saved through “minor adjustments.” So it sounds like you need to be prepared for the inevitable tax increases and cut benefits.
Well, if I’ve misinterpreted your words, I apologize. Let me explain where I got my impression, and you can clear it up.
If this “suddenly” became a crisis, do you mean that it “suddenly” became a crisis during the Clinton admin? Or are you actually suggesting that it “suddenly” became a crisis during the Bush admin? Thanks for clearing that up.