If there was anytime that there would be support for his plan it would have been right after the press conference but there was no surge of approval. As a result I predict that it will go down from here. The only positive for Bush in that poll was that more people are giving him credit for tackling the problem and less think he is trying to destroy social security.
A positive aspect in the poll for democrats was that people want to continue the fillibuster and more people support the democrats' position on the fillibuster than the republicans.

I think Bush is going to need an out, though. Something to distract people and make them forget about his social security dreams - kind of like how no one talks about his man on Mars initiative anymore. Maybe a nice little contained war somewhere that we can actually win and get out. Call it "Bush's Grenada."

The basic appeal to selfishness inherit in Bushism falls apart when sacrafice is involved.
Sure red staters will wink at a war they and theirs won't be drafted to fight. The $300 refund makes many overlook the looting going on at the top of the income scale. But when faced with grandma moving in for finiancial reasons, well they had other plans for the extra bedroom.
Facing the true reality of Bushism is slowly sinking in and the poll numbers are starting to show it, stay tuned.

There is no way in hell 53% of the people said they wanted taxes raised. At least be honest if your going to give information, because that is a frikin lie if I ever saw one.

Steve,

This finding:
"Almost two-thirds of respondents, 62 percent, said it would not be possible to ensure Social Security's long-term future without either raising their taxes or cutting their benefits."

...is something Democrats ought to be concerned about. The facts have been clear from day one that the "nightmare" scenarios of social security's insolvency are due to pessimistic projections; projections that have been proven to be pessimistic year after year. They may never be a real insolvency problem with social security in 2042 or 2052. The fact that the public already believes there is a serious enough problem suggests that the Democrats have not done a good enough job in making people realize the house of cards used to construct the reality of social security's finances. Perhaps you can comment on it in one of your future posts.

I believe thate there IS a problem with the long term financing of social security. The problem is how to solve that problem. Even though most people believe that there is a problem that should be addressed sooner than later, more people would rather do nothing this year than to enact this horrible Bush plan. The only problem for Democrats I see is that when Bush calls their bluff and says I will take private accounts off the table then Democrats would have to address the insolvency issue. I believe secretly that the Democrats do not want to address this issue until there is a new president for they do not trust Bush.

Anon,

First, the most likely tax hike would be on those
making over 90k a year. Your not suggesting the 53% would rather lose the retirement security SS provides do you? Nobody likes a tax hike, but they like working until death even less.

doctordemocrat, hmm, I dont know. I think PSAs is his SS 'reform'. At the PC, he was asked point blank, would you take them off the table if there was another way to ensure solvency and he said "No." In other words, he doesnt really give a damn about SS, he just wants to destroy it and helps his friends on Wall Street in the process. I'm hoping Democrats will propose lifting the cap if Bush does remove PSAs for some reason, maybe not all the way but certainly to a hire amount than 90k or whatever it is now.

I agree with Dr. Democrat. You can't trust Bush. Anyhow, only a fool would give Bush any money, much less thier entire retirement. He's never made any money or saved any money, only lost money. He's the uncle who gets drunk at the New Year's Eve party and wears the lampshade.

I'm sure when folks are asked "Would you favor raising taxes on somebody other than yourself?" they generally answer in the affirmative.

"Would you like to lose weight without diet and exercise?"

"Do you favor other people carpooling and using mass transit?"

"Would you like Abs of Steel in just 2 minutes a day?"

So how's that any different than;

Would like to mandate that someone else carry a fetus to term if they get pregnant?

Would you like to dictate that someone else can't marry the person they love?

Would you like to invade Iraq if someone else's child is going to get killed doing it?

Would you like to save 50 cents on laundry detergent if it means someone else isn't going to get health coverage at their job?

I am in that category of possibly losing 40% of my social security benefits if progressive indexing is implemented. I was talking to people in my bracket which would you rather prefer: have increased taxes now or have a benefit cut later. All the people I talked to including myself would rather pay increased taxes now than get less when one is retired. I want a stable retirement. When I am too old to work I would rather have a easier life then and work a little harder now. Just because I am in that highter bracket I still want my social security. Since the stock market hasn't been doing well and I see my 401 K's decreasing, I always think to myself that no matter what happens I will always have social security. That is what most people think and that is the problem with Bush's proposal.

No way, Doc. I don't want my taxes increased. Neither do you. Think about it. You're talking about a 40% reduction in benefits; and, lets assume that this number is somewhat accurate.

That's fine considering you'd make more in the private accounts AND if you invested the money you saved (instead of paying higher social security taxes), you'd be even further ahead.

It's our money. We should control out retirement plans.

Muckdog
Private accounts are not a sure thing in making money. People make money and lose money all the time in the stock market. For example, my parents were retiring early 2000 and after stocks went down in 2001 my parents lost a lot of their 401 K retirement money so it CAN happen.

Ga6thdem, Bush is the ner-do-well of the family.

Why are we even having this discussion in the first place? Yes, GW wants to destroy SS, but why aren't people asking themselves why this problem, at this time, with so many other more important immediate issues? I personally don't give a rat's ass about SS problems in the year 2047, when millions of people right now have no access to medical care. Hell, millions of those same people won't live long enough to get SS without the ability to afford a doctor. What this idiot president has accomplished is diverting attention constantly away from the War in Iraq (barely mentioned anymore by the media), health care, medicaid, education, wages, etc. It is deplorable that this man sits in our WH and tells us all to get fucked. Trust this man? That's like someone having taken Hitler at his word that he wouldn't hurt the Jews.

Muck, and Anon:

As you know, the tax increase only applies to those making over $90,000 a year. Since a majority in this country don't make that lofty sum, of course 53% would vote for raising the withholding ceiling rather than seeing a benefit cut that affects all. That is the fatal flaw in Bush's plan. Thankfully there are still enough Americans who believe in some shared sacrifice rather than whatever is good for themselves.

There is nothing wrong with people being opposed to paying more withholding. I would be one of those that will be affected. But even though you may be opposed simply because it means more coming out of your check(s), I would rather pony up now and have the stable safety net base for myself later, than tell middle class and lower income folks "tough shit" because Bush blew trillions down the rathole these last four years.

But that's just me....you can, of course, be different in that respect.

I am a retired individual. Being raised in the 40's and 50's, young women were not encouraged to go to college. If you attended an university, it was to find an wealthy and educated man to support and "take care of you" for life. If you wanted a career, your choices were teacher, secretary or nurse. Unfortunately for women of my age, building a sound financial future was never a priority.

I married, twice, and built a good career in the advertising business. However, I did not plan as I should have for the future. I am now 63 and I basically live on SS and a part-time job (the part-time job is to pay for medical coverage). Any cut in my benefits would be devastating to me. I have learned to live well within my means and have access to many advantages that others do not have. Eventually I will receive an inheritance, another advantage that most cannot count on.

I guess my point is that SS is more important to some than others. For many, SS is their only income. To allow anyone, especially someone like Bush who has lived a priviledged life, to destroy the lives of millions of people, is unforgivable.

I'm 67 and am not really worried about SS for myself 40-50 years down the road. But, I make more than $100K per year and fully support eliminating the cap: my oldest grandchildren will turn 70 around 2060 and I really do want SS to be there for them. According to TurboTax, 83% of my SS income last year was taxable; if that portion of my income tax really went to the SS account, then there really is a means test on SS recipients.

muck, under Bush's plan, you won't be controlling your money and you won't have access to your money. the government will still tightly control what you can invest in and how you can withdraw the money - it's not going to be like cashing in a lottery ticket but that's what people seem to think. and don't forget that whatever someone would put into a private account would reduce their social security benefit by whatever that private account earns. and no one knows that they will earn more with private accounts than with social security. that's a leap of faith, not a proven fact.

"Would you like to get all the benefits of taxpayer subsidies for gasoline, foodstuffs, and emergency medical care without having to pay any taxes for it?"

"Would you like to get cheap consumer goods by making foreigners work for pennies a day making them for you?"

"Would you like to get to toss out lie-filled, Republic propaganda on a progressive site without being called on your bullshit?"

"Would you like to be considered a warrior when you ducked out of military service because you were a drunken cokeheaded deserter?"

Nobody likes to pay taxes, muck-filled pus toad. But some of the adults around here realize that you have to if you want a working infrastructure in your country.

Funny how you completely ignore the other commenters here who will be affected by a tax hike, who understand the necessity of it, and who are willing to pay for their own ride. Someone might almost think that you support corporate welfare and handouts to the rich at the expense of the poor.

Funny how your lies get debunked every day, yet you still trot them out and expect them to be taken seriously.

Funny how, every time you get called on your horseshit, you reach into the Repugnicant playbook and bring out another lie.

Funny how you think that giving your money to a greedy corpo-weasel stockbroker is going to allow you to "control your retirement plans". Maybe you should ask some of those people who planned on retiring before the market tanked how much control they have over their retirement today.

Funny how Repugnicant assholes like you think that they are always right, should be obeyed without question, and know exactly how everyone else should live their lives while you do the things you prohibit others from doing.

Perhaps you should come out from under that bridge in that gated community and take a look at the results of the pRezNit CEO's mismanagement of America over the last five years.