The democrats would be stupid to put a social s ecurity plan on the table before the president put his in writing on the table. The democrats have stated some broad indication of what cannot be in their bill for it to even be considered. The approiate time for a democratic bill is after the republicans present theirs and then they can haggle it out. My guess is there will be no bill, the arrogrant repulicans will not pull their private account idea and as long as that stays on the table no bill will get through. I belive that the same should apply to changing the indexing it would destroy the program. Just remember, the right wing lied us into a war we did not need to fight, and now they are trying to lie our future senior citizens into poverty. I'm heating the tar, you bring the feathers.

I think we should traffic exclusively in "secret plans," and "plans that aren't on our desks," but everybody kinda-sorta admits are out there somewhere.

Just make completely implausible claims, and when people call us on it, say "what plan? I never announced a plan! You people are trying to get me to debate with myself!"

Trust me; this stuff is gold!

The Democrats should offer solutions, but not to the problems that Bush says are problems.

Social Security, for example, is in far better shape than either the budget as a whole, or the Medicare fund, or the pension insurance program. There are patients bleeding to death, and Social Security just has a head cold.

Take on Medicare, for example. The very first thing the Dems could push, which would be wildly popular with the voters, is to empower Medicare to negotiate for lower drug prices.

Intra-party loyalty is a problem. I suggest that Pelosi address her problem by letting it be known that, when the Democrats regain the house in 2006, committee chairs will be assigned preferentially to real Democrats; stiff the party on too many votes, and you don't get the choice committee assignment you were hoping for.

I think you touched upon the problem a bit - cohesiveness or lackthereof within the Democratic party. It really is a chapter that the Dems. should take out of the Republican playbook, and has been discussed here before. Despite all the different factions within the Republican party itself and the various interests within that would seemingly create disagreement, they still know how to pull together and vote down the party line.

I think the bankruptcy bill is very telling here. My own representative, Dennis Moore (D-KS) voted for the bill. But despite my continual calls (called his office 6 times so far), they have yet to give me an answer as to why he voted this way. Why on earth would any Democrat vote in this manner (and that's not a rhetorical question - I realize lobby interests play a role).

Perhaps the problem is defining the core principles themselves, which Dems. do not seem to put forth very well at all. This is where the Republicans shine. You put forth core principles in a direct manner, you will be able to discern what individuals will rally behind them. From there you can build a strong, cohesive voice that can be brought forth on any table at any time, whether you are a minority or majority. And THEN will you be able to take advantage of opportunities provided to you when you see weakness in the opposition.

I see this happening more with Reid than with Pelosi. Reid's counterattack to the filibuster being broken is bringing forth 9 bills of his own that specifically address the people's needs. This is absolutely brillian, IMO. Granted, Pelosi has a much bigger number of Dems. to corale. But as some bloggers have shown a few days back, if the minority whip does not see eye to eye with her (i.e. those Blue Dogs), get someone who can. It has to start at the top.

Other than raising taxes, I haven't heard any plans from the Democrats.

At least in the 90's, the GOP had the contract with America. How come the Democrats aren't taking that approach? You can't just sit in the backseat whinining and complaining.

How about we clean house and get rid of all the incumbents and get new blood and better ideas on both sides of the isle. The special interests control our politicians and this country. Getting the Ted Kennedy's and Tom Delay's out of Washington just might help.

Throw in some term limits while were at it.

muckdog,

You mean RESTORING taxes on the top 1% in order to bring back some fiscal responsibility to our thrifty-spending GOP Congress? Keep in mind that Kerry advocated keeping the tax cuts for the middle class.

Since when did RESTORING irresponsible tax cuts that shouldn't have taken place during big an economic recession, a big deficit, and during a war become "raising" taxes? That's incredible spin, sir. The 2003 tax cut that benefits primarily the affluent, benefits big businesses, and coupled with more billions of $ in tax cuts for the oil industries from Bush's budget being passed as we speak is nothing shy of complete irresponsibility.

But you are correct about one thing - the Dems. need to set forth in plain language their agendas on the table and stick to them, just as the Repubs. did back in '94. I think it takes a good swift kick in the ass and to be thrown down far into the minority for any party to regroup and finally understand what it means to work as a cohesive whole. The problem, as it seems, is when that party gets too much power and become too wreckless. We saw that with the Dems. prior to '94, and we're starting to see that now with the Repubs.

Huh? Cutting taxes in a recession is like Economics 101, dude. Read up.

Any increase in taxes is a tax hike. By definition. I know it's popular to think of a solution that excludes one's own participation in said solution. That's why hiking taxes on the other guy (aka, "the rich") is always popular.

We see that in CA right now. Every special interest group is on TV with ads sayinig why they shouldn't be asked to participate in the fiscal solution for the state. Nurses. Teachers. Police and Fire Departments. It's hillarious.

Nobody wants to participate, but they sure want somebody else to shoulder the burden.

Welcome to the welfare state.

The Democrats need to put forth plans, but not yet. Note that (IIRC) the GOP's Contract With America didn't come out until a couple months before the midterm elections. That is the time to make the sales job - when people are paying more attention. The goal right now is to attack Republicans, try to fracture their coalition, and drive up their negatives.

Other than raising taxes, I haven't heard any plans from the Democrats.

And that right there, muck, is why the Dems should not present any plans for social security. The Reps always come back with the "raise taxes" whine. Bush's latest "vision" for social security will cut benefits to the middle class rather than get rid of GWB's irresponsible tax cuts for the wealthy 1%. The Reps would rather screw the middle class than consider lifting the 90K limit on income that is taxed for social security. Whether you like it or not, taxes do need to be restored to what they were before GWB came to DC to play.

IGNORE THE MUCKDOG!
I suggest we start ignoring Muckdog. This will be the last I mention him. Mucky really has become a ridiculous troll with nothing to offer except continuous bushy lies. Lets stop wasting our time with him and his bushy religion. thank you.

Nobody wants to participate, but they sure want somebody else to shoulder the burden.

That's correct. Of course, the Republicans want the burden to fall on the low and middle class with benefit cuts and reduced social services. It's really simple: the wealthy can take the hit and still be wealthy. The low and middle class cannot afford any more hits from Bush's tax cuts and budget cuts.

Your premise is incorrect, Ann. I agree with you regarding the poor, but just who exactly in the middle class is getting hit with reduced social services and benefit cuts?

The middle class is doing fairly well these days. 70% of Americans own homes now. Americans' net worth is up. The stock market is up quite a bit from October 2002. The unemployment rate is just over 5%, a level regarded by the Fed as full employment. Inflation and interest rates are low.

Lots of opportunity out there for those who are interested.

Look, muck, we Democrats have long had a Secret Plan to fix all the stuff that Bush broke. Everybody knows that. It's not our fault that he only wants to play politics. It's sad, really.

Given the treachery with which good faith efforts to legislate by the Democrats in both houses of Congress under Republican leadership (see the Slaughter Report, see the results of Conference Committees in the last two Congresses, see the egregiously bad Republican changes in Democratic amendments to a House abortion bill over the last week--how many more examples do you want?), the only Democratic response to a Republican request for a plan, or a proposal, or a legislative initiative (even to give the Repubs cover) should be: "Remind me again, why should we trust you this time?"
Charles

Lots of opportunity out there for those who are interested.

So what's the problem with restoring tax levels on the top 1% to where they were before the recession? Is the massive flow of jobs they created going to dry up? Oops! Those jobs never really happened. Are the wealthy going to stop investing? Come on muckdog. Be honest. Restoring the tax levels on the top earners is the responsible thing to do when you can't get Congress to stop spending (another 82 billion for...something...what was it again...oh yeah...THE WAR THAT WE"RE FIGHTING!) We're fighting a war for God sake and Bush can't stop doling out tax cuts to people who already have more money than they can spend. All your hot air about sacrifice and people wanting the benefits but not wanting to contribute is bullshit if you can't even recognize that the wealthy in this country, at a time of war and national struggle against our enemies, have a need to share the sacrifice. It's so easy for you to accept the fact that the wealthy will just take their ball and go home if they don't like the rules. Why can't they be relied on to put the national interest first right now? What hapened to we pledge our lives, OUR FORTUNES and our sacred honor...? Because in everything you write on this site the relationship of the wealthy to this nation is nothing but a business relationship. And that's fucking disgusting.

Muckdog says:

Huh? Cutting taxes in a recession is like Economics 101, dude. Read up.

You know something, you're correct. I shouldn't have thrown that in there. I should have kept my point to just the deficit and wartime instead. Thanx for pointing that out.

Any increase in taxes is a tax hike. By definition.

By your definition, I'm sure. By this logic, we could simply do away with taxes altogether, then as our highways, our schools, our military, our medicare, our SS, our public libraries, and anything else that is payed for by the government all gets shot to hell, well I guess we just can't say we should "restore" our tax levels back to sane levels to subsidize the costs because, well, there's no such thing as "restoring" taxes. Just as there's no fiscal responsibility whatsoever with this current Administration. It's all a tax hike, right?

Silly me, what was I thinking when I feel that we should take a little bit of fiscal responsibility for a change? I guess Lefties like myself and fiscal Conservatives should just shut the hell up and let our Administration continue giving tax cuts to people who don't really need them near as much, while we allow our deficit to sink even deeper into the abyss.

I know it's popular to think of a solution that excludes one's own participation in said solution. That's why hiking taxes on the other guy (aka, "the rich") is always popular.

Umm, no, that's not why it's "popular", whatever that means. Restoring taxes on the affluent make sense during a deficit and lagging economy because it puts revenue back into the government programs that are in dire need of $, esp. those programs that help the elderly, the disabled, the minority, the poverty-stricken, and the children - all of which Bush's budget proposal wanted to cut (and to some extent was successful in doing so). Furthermore, as a consequence, state and local governments have to raise taxes of their own to offset federal $ no longer given to them, which is a regressive tax by nature and thus hurts the lower and middle class even further. Giving tax cuts to the affluent (i.e. those that invest and save much more frequently) does not stimulate economic growth in any manner. The breaks should continue to be given to those who give back most to the economy - the middle class. Republicans and Dems. alike agree that a strong middle class is the engine to economic growth.

Not to mention restoring tax cuts on the affluent will also bring in revenue to help with the budget deficit. But since the deficit is a useful tool to Bush and the GOP as an excuse to not pay for anything they choose (like programs that assist the elderly, the minority, the poverty-stricken, and the children for example), while continuing to cut taxes for the affluent whom do not need them near as bad, or for corporate businesses as they continue to put their P.O. Boxes in the Caymans, or for the oil companies who seem to be struggling so gosh darn hard nowadays with their "meager" profits, I doubt we would see such fiscal sanity anytime soon.

muck, I was referring to Bush's social security plan. Under his "vision" the middle class would see major cuts. As for how well the middle class are doing these days, not so fast. I'm still waiting for a tax cut like the rich kids got. I actually paid about $300 more in federal taxes this year even though my income went up a measly 4% with a cost of living raise.

And you must factor in increases for services on a state level. With fewer federal tax dollars being returned to the states, thanks to those tax cuts for the uber-wealthy, states are cutting services and increasing fees.

Any way you want to cut it, the middle class get hit while the wealthy buy more SUVs.

5{very rich white americans. They use the religious nuts, blue collar racists and ultra-nationalists as patsy's. By the time those three groups realize they helped throw themselves into the lower class of a two class society, they'll be toast.

Democrats need to get out of this debate and start on the future of our Republic. Let the Rupublicans set the agenda and try to sell it to the American people. We need to bring forth a vision of what a Goverment would look like if it were run by a party that believes in Governance. As the minority party we need to only provide warnings of the current administrations direction and to plan for a better future. Trying to set forward a plan of any current programs is ignoring the situation at hand. We are the minority party.

Let's don't forget that it's those 1% who are profitting mightily off of this "War on Terror".

The Republicans like to steal Democrats ideas, take credit for them, then turn them into garbage--homeland security, etc., etc. If the Republicans think dismantling Social Security is a great idea, they have the power to pass it. Let them get the glory for it--or blame. Or, maybe they don't think it IS such a great idea. And if not, why should Democrats say anything?

Massive tax cuts for the rich did not do much to goose the economy, so restoring taxes on the rich won't really harm the economy. Fiscal sanity will allow government actions to address economic problems.

Riddle me this, riddle me that, Mattman. Not such a Secret Plan that the democrats have. It's no secret that they just want to raise taxes.

Opus, I haven't heard the proposal for eliminating all taxes. Everybody agrees taxes need to be paid. And they are. Heck, the rich pay almost all the taxes in this country as it is. And here you are in your holier-than-thou act, trying to determine who needs to have their taxes hiked. It's always the other guy, right Opus?

Heck, the rich pay almost all the taxes in this country as it is.

Yeah. We should be taxing the hell out of the poor because they're the ones with all the money!

Cat, you're not one of these liberals who think money grows on trees, are you?

muckdog,

I know perfectly well where money comes from.

The Bureau of Engraving and Printing in Washington D.C.

Muck Doggy Dog-

I would define myself as middle class.

My tax burden has increased every year Bush has been in office.

I'm still being penalized for being married. I thought Bush was going to fix the marriage tax penalty. So much for family values. I would be better off getting a divorce and filing taxes as separate individuals.

My local community services have been cut. Firehouses have closed. Police staffing has been cut. Schools are closing despite an increase in student census. Hospitals are closing in the area. Nursing staff at the remaining hospitals is being cut despite an already abysmal nurse to patient ratio. Open space is dwindling as Bush relaxes environmental regulations used to protect and expand open space and parks. I would say my middle class life has been negatively impacted by the Bush tax cut. I'm still paying my share, but I am not getting much in return.

It is beyond me how you can continue to support this administration. I cannot think of one positive thing they have done to improve my standard of living.

It is beyond me how you can continue to support this administration.

There are no viable alternatives.

Playing problem solver or compromiser in today's Washington is a loser for the Dems. After all, most of the good in the compromise gets negotiated away and if anything potentially useful happens Bush gets full credit and the Dems. get critizied for having 'no ideas.' Be the opposition party, it's the only way to avaid the blame as things fall apart.

The Democrats need to point out to people how much Bush's micro-rebates cost them. There are many examples such as increases in state and local taxes plus service cuts and fees for services that used to be free.

Now is not the time for Democrats to come forward with concrete ideas and solutions to the nation's problems. Democrats should wait until at least 2006. We should just let the Republicans dig themselves into a bigger hole with their "solutions" (Destroying Social Security, Rewarding Energy Companies while gas prices keep increasing, ...etc). Democrats should RESIST all of Bush's agenda in the meantime. Also, it is very apparent that Democrats need more time to try and get some unity in their caucus (Bankruptcy Bill is an example of great discord in the Democratic ranks). Finally, Democrats should realize that NOT working with the Republicans is the safest political course. Every time Democrats try to work with the Republicans, they get conned into voting for some really bad legislation that only helps Republicans.

It's futile. Still, the Dems should just come up with ridiculously good legislative proposals that the Cons will never let through, and make sure it gets plenty of attention. It sets the record on who had what and who didn't take action (the Re-THUG-licans); it's good pr to have good proposals; and it's like throwing rocks at the glass house those Cons live in. It's win-win for us.

There are no viable alternatives.

This is the first time I must agree with Muckdog. What are our options?

Opus, I haven't heard the proposal for eliminating all taxes. Everybody agrees taxes need to be paid.

Certainly not libertarians, which currently have a firm hold on our Administration's economic policies. I was simply carrying YOUR argument of tax cuts to their logical end. Something that you missed - knowingly or unknowingly I'm not sure at this point.

And they are. Heck, the rich pay almost all the taxes in this country as it is.

In terms of total amount paid to the government, you are correct, but I'm certainly not arguing that. In regards to the value of the $ toward their income, this is patently untrue for both payroll and sales taxes.

And here you are in your holier-than-thou act, trying to determine who needs to have their taxes hiked.

Well let me take off my preacher robe that you slapped on me and just state that historically speaking, keeping us out of the huge deficit, creating good jobs, and stimulating AND maintaining a strong economy is done by doing exactly what I advocate. You were around in the '90's, right? I restate my point on this, just in case you missed it (which is apparent you did):

"Restoring taxes on the affluent make sense during a deficit and lagging economy because it puts revenue back into the government programs that are in dire need of $, esp. those programs that help the elderly, the disabled, the minority, the poverty-stricken, and the children - all of which Bush's budget proposal wanted to cut (and to some extent was successful in doing so). Furthermore, as a consequence, state and local governments have to raise taxes of their own to offset federal $ no longer given to them, which is a regressive tax by nature and thus hurts the lower and middle class even further. Giving tax cuts to the affluent (i.e. those that invest and save much more frequently) does not stimulate economic growth in any manner. The breaks should continue to be given to those who give back most to the economy - the middle class. Republicans and Dems. alike agree that a strong middle class is the engine to economic growth."

Now do you agree or disagree with the known point that a strong middle class is the catalyst for economic growth? Why or why not?

It's always the other guy, right Opus?

Did it ever occur to you, dear Muck, that I just might happen to be "the other guy"? Did it ever occur to you that there are "other guys" out there, i.e. those who have upper class income, who also believe that the principle for keeping the economy strong, fiscally sound AND responsible is to be able to pay for programs that give the lower and middle class a better leg up? Did it ever occur to you that there are those in the upper class who freely advocate restoring their tax levels back to the Clinton levels in order to see a more prosperous economy and job market, which would also help their business and financial interests much more in the long run than what we have at present?

Please explain why a person of wealth would ALWAYS be against restoring tax levels back when it serves in everyone's best interests, including their own, especially when that upper income individual understands the idea that progressive taxes are fair across the board in terms of the value of the dollar vs. total income.

My own representative, Dennis Moore (D-KS) voted for the bill. But despite my continual calls (called his office 6 times so far), they have yet to give me an answer as to why he voted this way.

He's too busy galloping through the sword on his horse Concord. Soon every lupen in the land will be in his merry hands.

Mister Moore!

Lupen-da-lor!

Extra-or! (dinary)

Muck,

Just to make sure I understand you here, let's not carry your argument to its logical end for a second. Let's just talk about definitions here.

A tax that is cut loses revenue to the government, right? So when we need funding for government programs that were once funded by the revenue now lost by those tax cuts, why is it called a "tax hike", when logically it is merely restoring that lost revenue via restoring that tax in order to subsidize government programs?

To me a "tax hike" is when we increase a tax in order to pay for an additional program(s). But merely restoring a tax in order to cover revenue that is now lost as a direct result of a tax cut does not equate to a "tax hike". So why call it that?

Now let's take all of this and add to the fact that Bush's government is the LARGEST in history. In fact, the last Democratic president held the smallest government than the last 3 Republican presidents. So if we have a President that continues to enlarge the government, but yet keeps cutting taxes and thus loses revenue to pay for his enlarged government, what do we have?

A major deficit, right?

And who ultimately pays for this lost revenue? Well since the majority of the tax cuts are going back to the affluent who tend to INVEST and SAVE their finances much more, the state and local governments must fend for themselves from not receiving federal funding. And who gets hurt the most from local tax increases in terms of the value of their $ vs. total income? (hint: it's not the upper class).

And we haven't even touched upon wages yet, have we? Wages grew 3.1% in 2002, 1.7% in 2003 and 2.5% in 2004. Compare this wage growth to inflation, which increased 1.9% in 2002, 2% in 2003 and 2.7% in 2004. In other words, wages rose below the rate on inflation for the past 2 years. In other words, the average worker is making less money for the last 2 years.

(via bonddad at DKos)

Now how have those wages been for the affluent lately?:

"the median salary and bonus for chief executives in office at least two years soared 14.5% last year to $2,470,600." The cash-compensation upsurge is "the biggest since the study began in 1989."

(source: ">WSJ

(source: ">Link

(source:WSJ)

As the NYTimes explains:

"the overall wage figures hide a split, with an elite group getting relatively large gains."

(source:Link

So I believe there are legitimate gripes here about how the lower and middle class are getting squeezed much harder than the upper class. These are the groups, esp. the middle class, that we must stimulate, not hinder, in order to have a strong and sustaining economy.

My god MO1, I do believe you've stumped him...!!! BRAVO!!!

His capacity to constantly spit the backwards rethuglican NON-logic has always astounded me. He's obviously intelligent and well read (for the most part,) so his inability to see the fallacies in his arguments is simply amazing...

And the ultimate bottom line to deficits is inflation which is a flat tax on all spending. So if you ignore all the tax shortages for programs you end up with the ultimate flat tax on spending. Anyone think that will improve the econmy?