This is a key difference, one that is often cynically exploited by people who want to return to the Pre-SS days of Hooverism. I don't know where you get this scheme where the other side offers "no alternative",, many have made suggestions like Senator Kennedy of raising the retirement age and raising or eliminating the cap on which SS is taxed (and the president himself has not ruled that out either - which I suspect is how he actually plans to "save" social security - because, as I've mentioned ad nauseum - the proposed plan does nothing to "save" it from fiscal crisis, and in fact probably makes it worse). Of course this suggestion isn't vocally made, because the bleating masses will simply cry "tax and spend, tax and spend", not realizing the alternative is actually "spend and tax to pay for all the debt we ran up"
Sam - again...i'm not arguing for or against bush's plan. i'm laughing at the notion that groups of people who once labelled this a crisis are now spinning to say it ain't. it's politics as usual. i would imagine the dems feel like bush "stole" a pet issue from them by taking such a huge role in calling attention to the problem.
It is both. Clinton didn't say it was a crisis, and he was also wrong in the figures he used. It isn't bad to try and secure s.s. for the future. So far nobody including the president has put forth a plan that would do that.
I agree with Max that it does seem that one side of the spectrum that has been doomsaying about ss for awhile now is castigating Bush for doing so. However, I also understand the distinction Sam is making - his problem is that Bush's plan won't help ss (the whole negative neutral effect) and as such is nonsensical and misleading.
sam -- are you seriously assserting that the whole "fix social security...it's in trouble" talk hasn't been coming from the dems for a long time now??? i'm not defending the republicans here. they're probably grandstanding an issue here, too. but the dems have done it before as well. and to see them flip the switch like this is funny.
Nobody's flipping anything, Clinton was wrong when he said at least one of the two quotes you found, just like George W. Bush was wrong when he said Social Security wouldn't last through 1988. For the record, I have been under the misconception that SS was in crisis until within the past year or so too, but that was before I looked at the actual numbers.
have the trustees reversed course? if i remember right, a lot of the "panic" over this started during Clinton's watch...the mid-90's..when those trustees published reports that basically mirrored what GWB just said about the future of SS.
Exactly. (imagine sound of hammer wacking the bejabbers out of the nail, flush with the two by four) "Bush's plan won't help Social Security (the whole negative neutral effect) and as such is nonsensical and misleading." (HayesStreet) Have Democrats used Social Security, or the "lack" of security of same, as a political football? Of course. Both Democrats and Republicans have over the years. What Bush proposes, in my opinion, is ludicrous, dishonest, and an attempt to line the pockets of special interests. Or one could say it is nonsensical and misleading. Bush's proposal may also simply be a red herring, intended to get cuts in other programs, as well as SS, while proclaiming how he has "compromised." The fact that he wants to make his tax cuts permanent, which is another huge tax cut, when we are in the middle of a war that he refuses to include the costs of in his budget, and while he is proclaiming this Social Security "crisis," shows just how dishonest he is. I don't get the fixation on whether Democrats, in the past, have said there is a SS crisis, problem... whatever lingo they used. It has always been a political football. I'm surprised that more conservatives here aren't screaming bloody murder about Bush's dishonesty, and his reckless spending. Want to pass a prescription drug "benefit" for seniors? Lie to your own party, as well as the other one, and to the public about how much it costs. Want to make your insane deficits appear smaller? Don't include the cost of a war in your budget. Want to get "reform" of Social Security passed, so you can proclaim the need to cut it, as well other programs, and line the pockets of special interests? Lie about the "crisis" as well. Want to keep your gigantic taxcuts? Lie about how "necessary" they are and, most importantly, how they "don't" impact the record deficits he's running. Clinton lied about having an affair with Monica? Bush lies about everything else. Which is more important? Keep D&D Civil!! Bush lies about
I'll concede that Clinton raised the issue and he put forth a solution that got shot down. It was a straight forward solution but was too vulernable to corruption from special interest groups. I also was not aware of the facts about the actual condition of SS. I've always been led to beleive that we won't see a penny of SS. My financial planner even told me that. But as facts have been coming out, we are now learning that in the doomsday scenario portrayed, you'll still get 70-80% of your benefits. That isn't as bad as "flat bust" as we've been led to believe by both Democrats and Republicans. I give W a hard time because he is extremely effective at simplying his messages and repeating them to no end. when he does this, if there is a kink in his logic, he really exposes himself. Clinton was better at getting his messages out without painting himself in a box. "It depends on what your meaning of Is is."
