Steve,

What's the Conservative line on something like the Pozen Plan?

The punditocracy thinks that the wingers are holding their tongues for now on the Pozen plan, to see if Bush can bamboozle enough people with it to get private accounts through. But if it looks like last night's performance didn't do the trick, and from the AOL poll it looks like Bush went down in flames, then the wingers may start speaking out. The initial reaction from the right wing blogosphere was mostly positive, as would be expected.

The reality is that there's a big financial tsunami coming when there aren't enough tax dollars to go around. And it'll start being felt in about 4-5 years, when the social security surplus begins to shrink.

Right now, we have more and more surplus dollars coming into the system, that are just absorbed into the general fund and spent. As these surplus dollars diminish, the general fund will shrink as well. There will either have to be more borrowing to sustain current federal programs, or federal programs will have to be cut.

Starting in about 2009.

The problem is that there are no growth investments in social security.

Time for another military fiasco.

Just as with taking out Saddam, for Bush it is always whatever it takes. This bit about cutting benefits to the middle income was a political maneuver. He seeks to collapse support for SSI by turning the middle class. Once he's done that, he can get rid of it.

"There will either have to be more borrowing to sustain current federal programs, or federal programs will have to be cut."

Good try Muck. The WSJ needs guys like you.

Social Security is that baby blanket that every American holds on to; it’s that assurance that no matter how bad we mess up in life, we can still get by in the end. Even conservatives know that we can not let our self-serving, fiscally irresponsible president screw this up, and that is exactly what he will do if he proceeds with this plan.

Well, that's what happens when you distance yourself from the Tali-evan-fundies that put you in office. Poor religious douche-bags, ready to force us to our knees to pray at the knob of the great satan they worship. Then the moron in chief distances himself from them. Droll indeed.

And what an energy plan! Or better said, "What, that's an energy plan?" It relies on corporate greed and dependence on non-renewable sources. A great plan for anyone with the mental capacity of a third grader and no economic perception or conscience.

You've got to love the "social conscience" of the "great failure"...the name that must not be spoken...the idiot son of George Bush. It is absolutely and completely nonexistant. Not a drop of a conscience apparent. How can an entire family be so amoral and show no social concern? The quick answer, inherited wealth. It's time to tax inheretance at 99% over $250K, and make these people do it on their own, as the rest of us have to do. Of course, I could be wrong. The Kennedys all seem to have well developed social consciences, I guess it has a little to do with the intelligence of the parents and studying in school.

Take the $90,000 cap off SS taxes. Problem solved and onto more pressing problems like a bullshit war in Iraq.

The problem is that there are no growth investments in social security.

The problem is the wealthy and businesses are not taxed at rates that makes them contribute to the society that allows that wealth to grow and accumulate. They get to play, they just don't have to pay.

muckdog,

I think what you're speaking of is deficit spending in general. And where has Bush taken us on that one?

It's not just social security fueling the tsunami, it's everything the government spends money on. And I don't believe any of those items are real "growth investments."

I am wondering which country will be the next invasion, Iran or Venezuela? Wag the dog...Wag the dog...Wag the dog...

Listening to Monica Crowley and former Gov. Gilmore desperately trying to spin the performance as "outstanding!" is hilarious. "He showed great leadership last night!" LOL!

Don't forget the benefit of daiing up another terrorist attack too.

Rove's plan backfired because he ignored the cardinal rule of conducting press conferences: Never interfere with prime-time TV. People don't like it when their favorite shows get pre-empted.

Gee muck, According to the boy King, I would think a capitalist republican like you that feels so persecuted and in the minority would be pissed at the president's "proposal" on Social security.

According to the way Junior tells it, those people who earn less will now get more benefit than someone who earns more money. What's the incentive to make more money muck and pay more than my fair share of social security system when if I made less money I would get a bigger benefit and not have any cuts.
Those poor lazy entitlement lovers will reap all the "more than my fair share" of money I put into it social security. This is class warfare once again against the middle class and wealthy. Let those poor people take care of themselves. This sounds like another welfare program for the poor placed on the backs of middle class and wealthy, you know the type of a program you absolutely despise. You must hate this new plan.

Especially on the leading week into May sweeps.

Because of the press confrence, ER was on at the same time as CSI. Panic struck in many, many households last night.

muckdog,

That 2009 date is quite a farce. That particular date is when the surplus starts to shrink, however we will STILL have an actual surplus to fully run on until either 2017 (ssa) or 2020 (cbo), from which at that point we would need to run on Treasury bonds,

the SAME bonds that the President just claimed last night were "safe" investments.

You wouldn't happen to be reading a bit too much of Luskin, would you?:

Luskin debunked

And there aren't enough tax dollars to go around because our fiscally idiotic president cut too deep on the taxes and intends to keep cutting. And then you and he both claim that we must cut programs as a consequence, despite the fact that the money being used from SS is funding the lost revenue from his tax cuts, which primarily go towards the upper echelon.

Classic bait and switch. We made primarily the lower and middle class folks brunt the financial burden of SS back in '83 with a small cut in benefits and an increase in payroll taxes. I'm not going to lose any sleep whatsoever if all we have to do to keep SS 100% solvent for the next 75 years is roll back the tax cuts for the top 1% now, or even raise the payroll ceiling a bit so the upper class shoulders more of the burden.

Why would one consider this wrong? Why would one protect the top 1% tax cuts so strongly when it would solve our entire SS problem 100% for the next 75 years?

Oh SHIT!! Remember the last time Bush was tanking with the public? Like around August-September 2001? Look out folks!

Yea, and I missed The Apprentice last night because my stupid GF wanted to watch Survivor and it ran the same time The Apprentice did. Freaken isoGB- woulnd't shut up for a god dammed hour!!!

Good thing she Tivo'd it back at her place...

Oh, and one thing that struck me as quite astonishing- one of the commentators last night said just before the Chimp came strutting out: "...And this is only the fourth time in his Presidency that [dickface] has held a press conference...."

FOUR PRESS CONFERENCES?!?!?!?!? FOUR?!?!?! How long has this idiot been president and he's only held FOUR press conferences?!?! Jesus! Even "slick willy" would come out and talk to us a couple of times a year...!! (For the record, I thought Pres Clinton did a pretty damn good job for us- can anyone say "BUDGET SURPLUS?!?!?!?")

I've said it before, I'll say it again, we need the Dem version of Ken Starr to ram a probe up his ass- he wouldn't last more than a few weeks before Impeachment proceedings would begin.

The ONE thing I'm truly afraid of at this point- seeing as we are FINALLY seeming to see some light at the end of the proverbial evil Bu$hCo tunnel- and it's something eriposte touched on recently (I think in one of yesterday's posts) is another terrorist attack as Jesusland Joe says above.

Just what the Fundies and NeoCons would need to distract the country from their fucked up agenda. God help us all if they arrange for another "unexpected attack"- not just the victims of said attack, but the entire country and possibly worse...

Have you noticed the complete and utter lack of Orange alerts since they stole another election?? I guess those terrorists that were so bent on striking before the election just decided to take some time off and smoke cubans and drink collada's in the islands or something right?? Fucking bullshit...

There will either have to be more borrowing to sustain current federal programs, or federal programs will have to be cut.

See, there's just no way to treat you seriously if you don't even mention raising taxes as a possible means of mitigating budget shortfalls (and you do mention "borrowing more," which is of course the number one stupidest way to confront a problem that you created by borrowing too much). You're not talking economics; you're talking conservative fantasy ideology.

God (oops sorry for the religious reference) you people are so ridiculous! Wasting your time posting mindless blah blah! Do you think that Bush will resign or somthing? Or get impeached like Mr Blowjob, I mean Mr Clinton? What a joke you people are. You people are nothing more than obstructionists like your House and Congressional counterparts. Get used to it, the Republicans will change things for the better whether you believe it or not. Yes, we will install God (forcefully) upon you at every turn. C'mon people, get used to it! Democrats can't win elections, so accept your fate with dignity and stop wasting your time with this idiotic bloggery!

God Love You & I'll pray for you.

Mike

Interesting that the House now can't wait to begin phasing out Social Security--oops, I mean retirement. The whole point of the House waiting was your last point, Steve, about those photo ops in 20-25 Repub districts over the next year showing who wants to cut Social Security benefits. The House wasn't going to risk a plan that the Senate wouldn't go along with, and have their members out on that limb all alone. I wonder what changed. That limb is still there looking might inviting for lonely Repub Representatives (judging from the first Senate Finance Committee meeting on SS earlier this week). Those photo ops touting friends of SS benefit cuts look mighty inviting. Or has the House finally descended into collective insanity?
Charles

See, there's just no way to treat you seriously if you don't even mention raising taxes as a possible means of mitigating budget shortfalls (and you do mention "borrowing more," which is of course the number one stupidest way to confront a problem that you created by borrowing too much). You're not talking economics; you're talking conservative fantasy ideology.

It wouldn't even take raising taxes, all they'd have to do is retract the tax cut given to the wealthiest 1% of the population and we wouldn't be having so many budget problems. They've been trying to "starve the beast" and that's what has been going on. Now, more moves to privatize everything so that the wealthy can afford things like health care but the poor are just SOL.

Mike,

Thanks for your prayers. Nice sentiments from anyone are always welcome.

Aside from that, what have you really to add to this conversation on Social Security?

Marty, that's four primt-time press conferences. Not four total.
Assuming of course that one even considers the modern-day staged media events a press conference at all. And that's a non-partisan complaint. When was the last time you saw a politician give an answer to a question that wasn't at least 75% meaningless platitudes or outright evasions?

MIKE,

Thank you! For illustrating so clearly for all of 'us people' here a perfect example of the idiocy and mindless group think that afflicts you and yours.

You have contributed more than you know.

Thank you.

And God bless you too.

BTW, it's House and Senate counterparts. Not House and Congressional counterparts.

Have a nice day.

Mike's contribution is "Don't worry, the republicans will take care of us."

I thought that the idea was for the Senate to start the legislation. There was - at least some months ago - concern by Republicans in the House that if they voted for a SS bill and then it failed to get past the Senate, those who voted for it would be killed at the ballot box. All they would have done is voted for cuts, and there wouldn't be any legislation passed to crow about (even if it's bad legislation).

House Republicans seem to be exercising bad political judgement.

From what I've seen, there haven't been any press conferences. Just chat sessions between an ill prepared and stammering Bush and a compliant, no hard follow-up Press.

House Republicans seem to be exercising bad political judgement.

Ya think? This looks like The Hammer's swan song.

Take a stand against USA Next, the conservative front group working to privative Social Security. Please sign this petition set-up by Democracy for America that asks TV stations to keep USA Next advertisements filed with hate speech and false claims off the air: http://bsd.democracyforamerica.com/page/petition/stopusanext

-Brown's Fan

What we need to do is campaign like hell and give the Democrats 2/3 majorities in the House and Senate in '06. That way we can override each Presidential veto and run the country via a parliamentary system during '07 and '08, while we impeach DimSon and Darth Cheney.

roamer,

Your sentiment is in the right place but the numbers just aren't there to go 'parlementary.'
A Dem. takeover of (hopefully) both houses would however lead to the perception that this era of fear and plutocracy is coming to an end. It would also serve notice that congress IS going to be held accountable for their votes. We're getting awful laws right now not only because the GOP is in control but also because currently there is no fear of the voters holding anyone accountable. Finally, a Dem. takeover of one or both houses in 2006 would also create the perception of momentium for 2008.

Wasn't it at the last press conference that our good buddy JimmyJeff asked his famous question? Did this press conference have any obvious plants?

I wasn't sure, but one can dream eh? Also, we may have enough turncoat Rethugs to get the needed 2/3 supermajorities.

Actually, if I wanted what is best for me, I'd just leave the current system as is. Let 'er rip.

I can invest my tax cuts much better than any government run program anyways!

The poor and middle class are the ones gettin' screwed by the current system. But if their attitude is "Thank you sir, may I have another?" then so be it. They've had lots of chances to take opportunity by the horns, but if they want to pass on yet another, fine with me.

Calling all bushies!
please read below and I want all of you disciples to follow your bushgod's advise. ha ha
from Brad delong-
It's the Circular Firing Squad of Flying Attack Monkeys!
Once again, that is the *only* way to describe the Bush administration's policy development process.

I read Bush's opening statement at his press conference last night:

Text of Bush's Press Conference-Part I: The money from a voluntary personal retirement account would supplement the check one receives from Social Security.

In a reformed Social System, voluntary personal retirement accounts would offer workers a number of investment options that are simple and easy to understand. I know some Americans have reservations about investing in the stock market, so I propose that one investment option consist entirely of treasury bonds, which are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government.

Options like this will make voluntary personal retirement accounts a safer investment that will allow an American to build a nest egg that he or she can pass on to whomever he or she chooses.

The "build a nest egg" part... The "invest in Treasury bonds" part... Let's mosey on over to the Federal Reserve and look at the safest long-term investment the U.S. Treasury offers: the twenty-year inflation-protected TIP:

FRB: H.15--Selected Interest Rates, Web-Only Daily Update--April 28, 2005: Inflation-indexed: 20-year 1.83 1.86 1.87.

What the Federal Reserve is telling us is that the 20-year TIP is currently providing a real yield of 1.87% per year. What Bush is not telling you is that, under the Bush plan, if you divert $1000 from your Social Security to private accounts, that amount is clawed back--charged to an account associated with your normal Social Security benefit, that amount is then compounded at 3% per year plus the rate of inflation, and then after you retired deducted over time from your normal Social Security benefit.

If you are 45 and if Bush's plan were available today...

Follow George W. Bush's advice, divert $1,000 into your private account, invest it in TIPS, and at the 1.85% per year interest rate you will indeed by able to collect an extra amount worth $10.11 a month in today's dollars when you retire at 65...

But the clawback would reduce your normal Social Security benefit by $14.16 a month. You're $4.05 a month behind.

"Building a nest egg." Feh!

Did nobody inside the White House bother to run the numbers? Did nobody care?

Daniel,

Thanks for the clarification- I KNEW there was just something wrong with that, although I was quite sure that he had the least press conferences of any president in the modern (TV-media) age.

And I agree with your point: "press conference" my ass. I think probably the early-mid 80's was the last time I saw anything that I could consider a real "debate" or press conference by any high power politician. Gone are the days when candidates actually faced off in a meaningful debate- rules be dammed and may the more skilled and intelligent debater win- and where smart, tuned in reporters take them to task and make them answer for unpopular or questionable decisions.

I don't think I'd be as quick as Soto to cue the fat lady.
I've seen a headline today saying " Blah Blah Bush's new plan to save Social Security". If the GOP Media Tool manages to ram home this latest "cut your retirement benefit" scam as a "Save SS", then Bush's dullspeak will have worked. See, little by little, they reshape the playing field...thats Rove/Bush's strategy, i.e. now he's "saving SS"...and over several months, with the GOP Media's help, the public will be discussing the merits of some totally different angle. But the intended result is the same - kill SS, not save it.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is absolutely correct when he said "U.S. citizens are oppressed by their own government". Social Security is the ONLY government program that is working. Bush is using the Social Security surplus to mask huge budget deficits. The real deficit is greater than $600 billion dollars. If he wanted to truly protect social security he would stop using surplus social security funds to finance his obscene deficits. The truth is that Bush is intentionally and unintentionally trashing the country. The lack of a call for "Impeachment" is a clear sign that the U.S. public is "hoodwinked". How can U.S. citizens stand idly by while Bush and Co. scam senior citizens out of $3 trillion to protect tax cuts to the top 1% and corporate welfare to the Halliburtons? These actions are not only immoral, these acts are criminal. This is Grand Larceny!!!! If our laws apply to everyone, Bush and Company would be send to jail for treason and grand larceny.

God Love You & I'll pray for you.

And you can go fuck yourself. Get down on on your knees and pray real good (think Deliverance).

Interesting. Last night on Nightline, the subject was press conferences. Ted was comparing the British press conference with the American press conference, which are entirely different. The Brits have what we use to call press conferences here. I remember the day when reporters yelled out their questions over one another and vied for attention. Remember Helen, or Rather, or even Donaldson? Those were the days you knew the reporters names. Those were the days when politness was not a consideration in asking questions and reporters wanted the truth, not platitudes. How I long to hear "following up on your answer to......", or "but Mr. President...."