Daily Kos

View Story | 37 comments

  •  Read The Story (none / 0)


    House Democrats have decided to quit emphasizing that they will not negotiate changes to Social Security until President Bush drops his idea for private accounts.

    ...

    Democrats say they are united in opposing a plan they contend would break a social contract by shifting Social Security from a government-guaranteed benefit to a personal investment subject to the risks of the market.

    i.e. they're going to start talking about what they would do more and just bashing on bush less.

    Mad Wombat

    by FleetAdmiralJ on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 08:24:01 AM PDT

    •  The Dems should say nothing. (4.00 / 2)

      Case closed.  They don't have to say anything.  It's Bush's job to make a proposal, not their obligation to make one for him.  As to obstruction, there hasn't even been a debate.  They should stop consulting pollsters and start thinking things through before the pop off their mouths.

      Knut

      by Knut Wicksell on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 08:33:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Dangerous (4.00 / 2)

      / they're going to start talking about what they would do more and just bashing on bush less./

        Dangerous strategy, given the current climate and our minority status.  If the Democrats begin to engage in substantive debate, making formal proposals, they run the risk of fueling a debate they are sure to lose.  Simply criticizing Bush, which has made his proposal completely unpalatable, is the only realistic tactic.  By offering alternatives we inadvertently acknowledge "the looming crisis", giving urgency to legislation.

        I think it far more desirable to continue the bashing strategy, speak in generalizations and wait until 06 when Democrats may have some muscle to really do something.  We all know that it is not crucial something is done this year, why fall into a trap we are sure to end up regretting.  Negotiation from a position of complete weakness seems risky indeed.

      Freedom is what you do with what's been done to you. Jean-Paul Sartre

      by Stevo on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 08:35:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Bashing sucks (3.00 / 2)

        it makes you look like "hahaha you suck...but we dont have any idea of our own"  thats the point they're making.  Even if we say "just leave it alone" thats better than having absolutely no plan.

        Mad Wombat

        by FleetAdmiralJ on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 08:37:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Bashing can be incredibly effective (none / 1)

          If bashing is done correctly, it can prove to be a powerful force. But, bashing Bush too much can be counterproductive, for the simple fact that he's not running for re-election. Instead, let's bash Republicans in general. Let's make Republican and conservative as dirty words as they've made liberal.

          by metal prophet on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 08:41:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Key words (none / 0)

            "if done correctly"

            While I think we've done a good job getting our point across, there are still two outstanding points:

            1. While saying that Bush's plan wont solve the "crisis", people still seem to believe that there still is a crisis.

            2. Given that 1 is true, and that Dems have no plan of their own, they're being seen as political opportunitists or, as the article said, just playing "politics as usual" instead of trying to address the problem.

            Now, we have two choices...address #1 or address #2.  The article didn't say which they were going to do, but it looks like they're going to do one of them.

            Mad Wombat

            by FleetAdmiralJ on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 08:46:00 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  address number one is the only viable (none / 0)

              strategy.  I have said all along that only dealing with private accounts left us vulnerable to being outflanked with the solvency issue. We should have been saying all along there is no solvency issue either.  Whch there isn't.  

              Doing the second is going to get some form of Social Security phaseout passed by George Bush.

              This is a losing tactic.  and it loosens the bonds of discipline the 2 Dem leaders have on their caucus.

              Debra

              by debcoop on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 08:55:14 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Not necessarily. (none / 0)

                What if they are trying to get Bush to come out of the closet with a plan and then preparing to jump all over it?

                You have to understand something about the way Reid thinks: He was a boxer once and he thinks like one. The goal is to get the Republicans to propose a plan, any kind of plan. Then, they counterattack and blow the plan right out of the water.

                Conservatism is Dead!

                by Eternal Hope on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 09:00:37 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Don't fall for it (none / 1)

          I can almost give a 100% guarantee that any bipartisan agreements will be flushed out of the final bill by the House-Senate reconciliation committee before W signs it. Anything good, goes away. All that is left, will be crap.

          It is a stupid trap.

          by fight2bfree on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 08:44:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Only Option (none / 1)

          We are in opposition, suck or not it is foolish to try to enact legislation when you are numerically challenged.  Unfortunately, when in the minority, the only realistic strategy is to stop the majority from enacting legislation that you deem harmful.  In this instance, we are winning the argument, there is no stomach for privatization, why mess with that reality, especially when anything more is unrealistic.

          Freedom is what you do with what's been done to you. Jean-Paul Sartre

          by Stevo on Mon Apr 18, 2005 at 08:50:17 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

View Story | 37 comments