Skip to main content

You can watch it here.

They use imagery of FDR to try and sell the dismantling of his signature achievement. The other side sure doesn't hold back on the bullshit.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 01:57 PM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Who's going to run a counter ad? (4.00)
    Someone?  Anyone?  Where is AARP in all this?

    When you couldn't get a real journalism job, there's Fox News.

    by The Truffle on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 01:45:21 PM PST

    •  We lose the ad wars (4.00)
      It our money (taxpayer) against our money (donated)
    •  Someone send a note to George Soros (4.00)
      He and some of his rich buddies are contributing money to counter the conservative ascendancy
      Yahoo News Story

      You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out God hates all the same people you do... Anne Lamott

      by crkrjx on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 01:56:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  How about Reagan on reduced SS? (none)
      An alzheimers patient wandering around in a city looking for home or a hospital, with a voiceover talking about the SS 'Crisis' might be good.
      •  Actually (3.83)
        Even Reagan wouldn't fuck with this American institution:

        "--First, this nation must preserve the integrity of the Social Security trust fund and the basic benefit structure that protects older Americans.

        --Second, we must hold down the tax burden on the workers who support Social Security.

        --Finally, we must eliminate all abuses in the system that can rob the elderly of their rightful legacy."

        From Reagan's Letter to Congressional Leaders on the Social Security System --May 21, 1981

        •  So throw this one back at Dubya! (none)
          I mean, Reagan's the icon of the neoconservative movement, right?

          When you couldn't get a real journalism job, there's Fox News.

          by The Truffle on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 02:27:00 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I totally agree (none)
            This quote should be everywhere, every day. Republicans go retarded for Dutch, it's the secret weapon, they can't fight against it. It'd make a good commercial, have his son read that part of the letter.

            BTW, I don't necessarily think Reagan was a "Neo-Conservative" in the sense that I know the word. He was more of a tradtional conservative; while he still had harsh foreign policy, it contained a hell of a lot of diplomatic elements, détente and containment. The NeoCons are cowboys, they don't/won't/probably can't negotiate...thus sometimes they get into trouble.

          •  CUT BUSH'S PENSION (none)
            The perfect way to counter this is for someone
            to propose cutting our elected represntatives
            pensions by a 1/3rd. This will shut them up real

            "Together we will stand every boy, girl, woman and a man."

            •  Divide and Conquer (none)
              The Bushmeisters know how to divide and conquer.

              They tell those who are on it that their Social Security won't be changed and the younger ones that it won't be there for them and that is how they take away the incentives for them to fight against changing it.

              They are also telling the black males that they die two years sooner than the whites and so it is unfair to them.  They tell them their life expectancy is 67 and then they talk about raising the retirement age to 70. I have read that blacks draw more of the disability so that averages out to where it is fair.

              The Bushies are all over the place on how long the whites live.  I have heard them say 77 and differnt ages up to 84. I think they just say whatever it takes to win.

              Maybe we could have a phone number ready to give to the elderly we know and ask them to call and tell them to leave it alone.

              And we can talk to the younger generation too. It is better for them to have social security too.  That is something that they can count on.

        •  Rupugs think... (none)
          that they ARE "preserve(ing) the integrity of the Social Security trust fund and the basic benefit structure that protects older Americans."

          Remember, they also think up = down.

          When the rest of the world decides to take care of the bully, I hope I'm not in Columbine.

          by georgeNOTw on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 02:44:16 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Only the ignorant (none)
            anti-intellectual (anti-smart/anti-education) dumb f**ks really believe the Repugs are saving SS. The peeps who are instituting this privatization travesty know exactly what they are doing.
            •  In other words, the masses (3.00)
              "Only the ignorant anti-intellectual (anti-smart/anti-education) dumb f**ks really believe the Repugs are saving SS."

              You mean, the 99% of the population who get their views from the network news?  (and believe what it tells them)

              Unfortunately, the Big Lie works.  (See:  War, Iraq)

            •  Well, they're getting "that man" (4.00)
              at last. That was one of the more polite Repugnican terms for Roosevelt.  They hated him, hated him, hated him.  They fought him and everything he stood for, including social security, for years; they passed an amendment to prevent any other president from serving two terms.  They named a great New Deal achievement "Hoover" Dam.  (Gag.) But they couldn't beat Roosevelt, even in death.

              Then they got smart.  They're pretending to have joined him (still an American icon) by "saving" Social Security.  They are, of course, going to kill it.

              The horror is, they've figured out how to do it and survive politically -- how to get around FDR's failsafe mechanism.  FDR deliberately designed the social security system to be "pay as you go," so that if the program ended, benefits would cease quickly -- resulting in immediate outcry and political suicide for the people who killed the program.  That, he said, would keep Republicans' hands off social security.

              He was right for a long, long time.  Social Security was the "third rail" of politics.  

              But now the Repugs have figured it out.  Fiscally conservative no longer, they're simply going to borrow the money (how many trillions is it, again?) to preserve benefits in the near term.  That, together with their years of convincing young people that the system won't be there for them, will combine to produce their victory over FDR.

              At long, long last.  Somewhere Martin, Barton, and Fish are chuckling together.

              •  Republicans have been planning this (none)
                a very long time.  My belief is that the Republican leadership broke from pay-as-you-go as a long term plan to kill the system.  Hate 'em if you want but remember that these people are playing with a long-term, vicous, sense of darwinian strategy.

                Geonomist in Austin

                by Geonomist on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 08:10:50 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I abdsolutely agree. (none)
                  George W. is going to accomplish what Prescott Bush couldn't.  Their cunning is amazing, but necessary; I remember what happened to Goldwater when he came right out and said that the social security system is simply socialism and should be ended.  That was the last honesty we got from them.  They've been lying ever since, calling Democrats out for trying to "frighten" old people when Dems have pointed out, correctly, that Republicans want to kill social security.  They've done a pretty good job of sneering the Democrats into silence, and most people seem to have bought their act.  Now, irony of ironies, they claim to be "saving" social security.  Reminds me of the Vietnam tactic of destroying the village in order to save it.  If only the American population knew a bit of history.
                  •  Oops! I mean "absolutely"! n/t (none)
                  •  If the American people knew.... (none)
                    ..."a bit of history" they wouldn't be the American people.  As someone graduating with a degree in history this May, I'm constantly sickened and infuriated by the historical ignorance of most of my countrymen.  

                    Every time Bush comes up with some new, asinine plan, I find myself wanting to stand on top of a tall building and scream, "Don't you know this has been tried before and the results were disastrous!?"

                    You tell me that it's gospel, but I know that it's only church--Tom Waits

                    by Flagstaff Ian on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 06:05:06 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  I've always wondered (none)
                I've always wondered what Fala, long retired to Happy Hunting Ground, thinks of Barney the Pretender.  
              •  Replacing Roosevelt with Reagan on the Dime (none)
                They almost replaced Roosevelt on the dime with Reagan I have heard.  I don't know what stopped them.

                They took down an "Arkanas Birthplace of Bill Clinton" sign here where I live.

                They want to use Roosevelt in the ads because the older ones will think it is good because he is on there.  They will stop at nothing.

        •  I wouldn't go that far.... (none)
          Reagan did raise the SS age.  I still consider that to be fucking with the system.  Sure people are living longer and the ratio of people paying in to those receiving is getting worse (and was then as well) but those who work their whole damn lives deserve a decent retirement.  Perhaps if we had our priorities in line then we wouldn't even be talking about this issue now.
        •  Doesn't matter (none)
          The Bushies are presenting their plan as a way to "save" social security.

          They could just as easily quote Reagan themselves, or any of us for that matter on how important it is to save social security.

          That's what they claim they are doing. We have the tough task of proving that they are wrong (lying).

    •  AARP (none)
      Is planning a campaign.

      But, of course, they're just an organization with billions of dollars who just want to spoil the president's efforts according to Fox.

    •  A counter ad... (4.00)
      Show FDR signing the Social Security legislation.

      Then show an image of Dubya ripping up the document and throwing the pieces to the floor.

      (And the stooges in the background are snickering.)

      Bush denies presidential timber.

      by Lumiere on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 02:06:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Don't forget to include the Bonus marches (none)
      •  Also show them saying... (none)
        ..."Hey, it worked with Iraq!!!...LOL"

        Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it. -Tom Paine

        by Alumbrados on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 03:56:09 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sounds like what I heard... (none)
          ... on NPR yesterday, when E. J. Dionne began stating his opinion on what the Misadministration is attempting to do to SS, he likened it when they made everyone worried about WMD to get into Iraq... I was glad to hear that comparison.


      •  Yeah Really (none)
        just cruising through the boards tonight and thought...

        Why are the producers of ads not using the super awesome CGI effect available - yeah I know its expensive hard work - but its about time those developing the ads start using the kick put 3D fakeout technology so you can create a video that really REALLY looks like like him.

        And dont tell me you couldn't get some awesome 3D animators to give some time.  Look at the crap they did with Jabba the Hut.

    •  Yes, who will run counter ad? (none)
      The Repubs say, "Strengthing" Social Security.  Where is the ad that says they want to "Dismantle" it?  
    •  They key seems..... (none) be finding a line of attack that will work against the republicans. I actually like the opening the FDR ad gives us.

      It looks like Bush as won the opening salvo of the SS fight. 74% of Americans have been fooled into thinking that SS is running into major problems. I hope that democrats artificially keeping the water warm so that they have a big weapon in their 2006 warchest.  

      I digress. I believe that there are three lines along which we can attack Bush effectively on his SS 'reforms'.

      • The President Crys Wolf Again - The Iraq war is clearly unpopular, but hasn't personally affected enough Americans for there to be an overwhelming backlash against him. SS is quite different in this regard. The timing for this first line of attack couldn't be better. The search for WMDs has ended with no WMDs. Bush is now hyping a social security crisis. Can we trust the boy who cries wolf?

      • History - Start from FDR. Make an ad that showcases the positions of prominent republicans on social security from the 30s till today. Can we trust the republicans when they they say they want to 'fix' a government program they hate?

      • The Nation of Enron - This is the best attack on privitization. It is also tricky because it shouldn't come off as anti-business. Bush is fond of using 'personal' examples to showcase his 'reform' proposals. Its time we trotted out a few too. I daresay our job finding personal stories about the Enron collapse will be a might easier. I'm not an ad guy, but here's what I think - a person whol lost his daughter's tuition money in the Enron collapse being thankful that his SS funds didn't disappear with Enron.  Show some pictures of current Enron execs living it up and ask the question - Do you feel secure with your safety net in these hands?

      p.s: I'm in the pro-partial privitization minority, I just don't trust the republicans to tackle the problem honestly. Plus, I love anything that gives democrats fodder.
      •  Already posted this but... (none)
        Try to tie it into how Wall Street works like a casino, not always an investment. A picture of someone gambling away their kids would be a pretty accurate commercial.
        •  Wall Street as pirates (none)
          swooping in to steal your children's social security money and give it to their friends.

          I sink a few more ships, it's true
          Than a well-bred monarch ought to do
          But many a king on his first-class throne
          If he wants to call his crown his own
          Must somehow manage to get through
          More dirty work than ever I do.

          -- The Pirate King, from The Pirates of Penzance

          (There's an anti-piratization ad in there someplace. I just know it.)

          I've figured out how to know what the Republicans are up to. Just listen to what they accuse the Democrats of doing. -- Me

          by Our Man In Redmond on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 02:33:41 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ooh, even better (none)
            A stockbroker, in a black suit with pasty skin, walking right into a Little League game and taking a kid's wallet.

            Or something like that.

            Greedy cokehead day traders stealing from kids, this is an image that triggers the psycho-protection-"Think of the Children!!" mechanism in every parent.

            •  SOCIAL SECURITY ATTACK AD: (4.00)
              Sorry to those who have seen this before but its gotten good feedback in the past, and its never been more relevant than RIGHT NOW.

              Average Guy (not a redneck, just a decent looking middle-class guy)sitting on his couch watching a TV. Kids running in and out of the house.

              Wife calls out from the kitchen: "Honey, the privatized Social Security account is due."

              Husband: "Gee, Honey, I just don't know whether we should go for the hedge funds or the junk bonds this time. What do you think?"

              Wife: "Oh, I don't know hon. Maybe we should call the family stockbroker."

              Husband looks into camera dumbfounded: "Uh, family stockbroker?"

              CAPTION ACROSS SCREEN: "Privatizing Social Security is for People Who Don't Need It. Count on the Party that created it to save it.  The Democrats."

              Putting our collective creativity into action, we can beat the Rove boys at their own game, but not if we don't realize they're running a 24/7/365 operation.

              see, for more.

              •  The problem with this idea... (none)
                .... is that the ad

                a) portrays the average citizen as a pauper

                b) tells people that the idea of having personal savings consultants or personal investment brokers is beyond their reach.

                People like the idea of having money to invest in stocks, mutual funds. etc... Making them feel like this dream is beyond the, sends a terrible signal.


            •  The Telephone Call (none)
              The ad I want to see is where a couple goes to see the wife's elderly mother and Mom explains that she's just signed up for a new retirement plan with the nice guy on the telephone.

              That guy is the one who's been calling other seniors chisling them out of their life's savings. But now the guy on the telephone is a Republican with his new retirement investment plan.

              The daughter has to explain to her mother what she's just bought: a pig in poke.

              The tag line: "It's okay, Mom. You can always come and live with us." It will help sell this if the camera is focused in on the husband's face when she says it.

              Liberal Thinking

              Think, liberally.

              by Liberal Thinking on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 12:21:01 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  More Gilbert & Sullivan (none)
            Tune: "We Sail the Ocean Blue"

            We are the GOP
            And it might be strange to think it
            Our Kool-aid's laced with pee
            But we still want you to drink it!

            So give three cheers and pay your fee
            For the death of So-ci-al Security!

            Please indicate on the doll where the angel touched you.

            by AdmiralNaismith on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 04:59:50 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Good one! (none)
          And I love the way the "Boy Who Cries Wolf" idea takes one of the Neocons' own attack ads from 2004 and beats them up with it.

          Per the suggestion above, how about a "Future Shock" commercial with a 40-ish person talking about being a 20-something wage ape when the Preznit first started dismantling Social Security. "I was scared enough to go along with them," s/he says. "Then they cut my mother's benefits in half. Now she's lost her home and her freedom. And it's up to me to take care of her." (Maybe show Mom and a small handful of college-age kids in the BG -- with implicit or explicit promise that it's the narrator's turn next.)

          "Oh God, please tell me I have a brain tumor and this is all just a side effect of the chemo." -- Meg Griffin

          by Penny Century on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 03:11:57 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Step up to the $2 window! (none)
          Young person walks up to the $2 window at the track, hands over envelope that says 'Financial Future'.  

          Man in window says, 'Sure you want to bet it all sonny?'

          President Bush wouldn't lie to us.  After all, we found WMD, right?

        •  indeed! (none)
          All you need to do is show the stock brokers on Wall St. -- hair slicked back, riding around in limos, etc. with the tag line "Do you want this guy taking care of your future?"

          Or throw up some mug shots -- Jack Grubman, Henry Blodget etc. -- again with the tag line "Do you want these guys taking care of your future?"

          Either way, middle Americans don't like oily stock brokers and all you have to do is make them scared of the slimy guy holding their money.

      •  Any day now, (none)
        Colin Powell will show up at the UN with aerial photos to "prove" that Social Security has WMDs.

        The bushies are using exactly the same tactics as in the rush to Iraq: lies, a false crisis, distorted numbers, et cetera ad nauseam.

        There's a nice-ninny priest/at tea in everyone,/all cozy and chatty as auntie,/but a saint comes/and throws rocks through the window. -- John Ciardi

        by Mnemosyne on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 04:12:54 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Why are you pro-privatization? (none)
        I'm not trying to be contentious.  I'm really curious about who this idea appeals to and why.  

        It's critical if we are to put together a campaign to stop it, and you sound like a good sounding board.

      •  use the wolf ad (none)
        Just change the ending.

        It would tie well into the 'wolf in sheep's clothing' meme.

        And it would confuse people no end. Confusion is good.

      •  We risk sounding like archaic and unimaginative (none)
        I'm still not sure where I stand on this issue.

        My point is that I guess for the last decade or so, we have heard that social security was running into major structural problems, that it needs to be fixed, but that no-one has the political cojones to do it.

        I'm not sure the case against the administration has been done very well until this point. Their message is clear: "We need to lighten up the burden on the federal government that is caused by demographic trends. We can do this by giving more freedom to individuals and relying more on the market..."

        Let me tell you, this is a message that resonates well. This may get me some troll ratings but it does. I don't think the case against this reform has been made as well. Why prevent this? Because the transition costs or the commissions to the private funds managers are too high? This is not a great defense and I don't think it will stand.

        I know this comment may get me some troll ratings but I just think we need to sharpen our message on this issue. Let me clarify at this point that I have an absolute loathing for this administration and George Bush in particular. I think what they did in Irak is unforgivable and might be the very worst policy decision by a president in the history of the United States.

        But on this debate, I think Bush comes out right now as the courageous, "ballsy" outsider who is tackling an issue that needs to be tackled but nobody ever dared to for fear of political repercusions.

        "We have already failed. Staying in longer makes us fail worse." -Three star Lt. General William Odom (retired), former head of National Security Agency

        by FightOn on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 06:13:06 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's NOT "reform"... (none)
          "We need to lighten up the burden on the federal government that is caused by demographic trends. We can do this by giving more freedom to individuals and relying more on the market..."

          This is like saying, "I need to fix my leaky roof before it falls in, and I can do so by remodeling my kitchen." It's Orwellian.

          Even the repugs have admitted that, in the short term, this "plan" will cause a shortfall in the trillions of dollars. How does that "lighten the burden?" The only way they can lighten the burden this way is to say, "Fuck the burden" - and eliminate, or drastically lower, benefits.

          Meanwhile, the money you've been "allowed" to invest in the freemarket maybe has made you a tidy sum over the years - or, you could just as easily have lost it all, like folks who had 401k plans with Enron.

          Social Security is supposed to be insurance against living your golden years in poverty. It's not going to the casino or the racetrack. If we want to "lighten the burden," we should consider a small raise in the retirement age, and/or implimenting some kind of "means-based" payout. It's crazy to pay a rich retiree money out of social security. Auto and home insurance companies don't give you a payout regardless after a certain period of time - they give you a payout when you need it.

          Step away from the Kool-Aid punch bowl...

          my weblog and my website - they're, uh, in progress, OK?

          by snookybeh on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 09:19:50 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Social security (4.00)
      The AARP is against changing SS . I think they had a come to jesus minute after they lost over 68,000 members over the medicare mess that was passed. The Democratic party better get it together and expose all the lies that we are about to be hit with for the next 6 months.
      Rove and the Repucks will not be happy until they dismantle ever thing the Democratic party ever put together. They will do and say anything to achieve a 1 party system for this country.
      •  One down one to go (none)
        They already have a one party system.
      •  Where was AARP (none)
        during the presidential campaign?  Why weren't they fighting this last fall?  I live in Germany and was tracking the election the whole time but I didn't see Bush plugging the Social Security privatization plan.  I remember him mentioning this in one of the debates but that was it.  I about fell out of my chair when he said he had a mandate and he was going to do this.  Why didn't the democratic campaign fight this?  According to both sets of exit polls, the real ones and the adjusted ones to match the election results, Bush did well in the Seniors age group yet polls show now that about two-thirds of this age group are against Social Security privatization.  
    •  We're working on it... (none)
      Tired of waiting for someone else to do it.

    •  FDR must (none)
      be turning in his grave. these people are sick f*cks!
    •  This ad (none)
      has just launched the longest Presidential election in the History of this nation.

      This my fellow bloggers is "war" ..

    •  More Republican trickery (2.50)
      The Republicans, determined to destroy the Democratic legacy and refuse credit where credit is due, have doctored the bill-signing footage to edit out a very key figure. Is there no low to which they won't stoop? See below for the original image; pay attention to the man above FDR's right shoulder. Poor John.

      "I told them on Inauguration Day. I said look into my eyes: no new enhancements." - President Johnny Gentle (Famous Crooner)

      by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 02:43:06 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Possible Ad Copy (none)
      Bush: They gotta be somewhere
                [a clip of him referring to the WMD to the National Press Corp]

      Bush: Next!
                [a clip of him taking questions at a press conference]

      Bush: Social Security will go flat bust
                [a clip of him from recent speeches]

      Rocky (the Flying Squirrel): Not that old trick again
                 [to Bullwinkle, the Moose as he attempts to pull a rabbit from a hat]
      Groucho Marx: Who are you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?

      Bush: You can fool some of the people...
                [a clip of his mangled speech]

  •  they are most serious about killing (4.00)
    the progressive era and it's greatest achievments next to go: 1. Common schools 2. Community colleges 3. Public universities 4. Factory fire codes 5. Medicaid 6. Unemployment insurance 7. 40 hour work week 8. Ban on child labor 9. Unions 10. Traditioanl liberalism and republican government
    •  really, how do I get my auto format back 2 default (none)
      1. Common schools
      2. Community colleges
      3. Public universities
      4. Factory fire codes
      5. Medicaid
      6. Unemployment insurance
      7. 40 hour work week
      8. Ban on child labor
      9. Unions
      10. Traditioanl liberalism and republican government
      •  and they have the nerve to call it (none)
        progress for america

        the nerve

        progressive will soon mean fascist and anti-republican.  damn them.  can they go too far.

      •  SS, Schools and the Kids (3.66)
        I'm the weak link on this fight -- I'm 23. My generation is the one that went for Kerry overwhelmingly, and it's the one that's vulnerable to any appeal that will claim to give us some control over our payroll taxes. And screw grandpaw.

        By all means, counterads should make clear the benefit cuts, damage to the retirees, etc. But someone ought to figure out how to go on the air and convince my dumbnut brethren that they'd be better off preserving the system.

        If someone could convincingly tie the promise that is Social Security to the promise of educational assistance, that might be worth pursuing.

        •  Yo mama (4.00)
          I'm 24. Before Social Security, the elderly were either living in hovels and eating dog food OR living with - you guessed it - their children and grandchildren. I can't see how the privatization effort is supposed to "free" our generation and our meager wages. What'll really happen is that the crushing burden of all those suddenly impoverished old folks will fall on us as private individuals, the arena in which most of us are far less well-equipped to handle it. The GOP asshats have no concept of public goods.

          Really, if the lower orders don't set us a good example, what on earth is the use of them?

          by Georgernon on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 02:20:27 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  good (none)
            inform your peers, your gonna see alot of fireworks in your lifetime.
            extreme weather, extreme friendly fascism.
            no political discourse, do what you are told.
            you are the only hope.

             some semblance of a skeptical liberal education, the bedrock of a democracy. the idea that you can discuss ideas will be considered sooooooo
            sept. 10.  it really is like 'farenheti 451' the book. remember there are things called 'books'. oh well, just do not get drafted.

            the ability to decipher propaganda from fact.
            i do not envy you but heh, what the hell the future belongs to you.
            bush is a bad dream but little boots gets to do what he pleases with your earth, your childrens education, everything. hmmmmmmm.
            we do live in interesting times.

          •  now there's an idea! (none)
            republicans are appealing to the self-interest of 20-somethings about privatizing social security?
            how about letting them know that when they are late 40/early 50 somethings their parents will have to move in!
            •  Ad: "Ding-dong" moms here (none)
              a 30-something couple walks by "sold sign" & up their front walk.

              Smiling and in love... he trips  her jokingly on couch & start madly smooching & groping.

              doorbell rings. fluster, pat hair in place..

              It's mom 65 , with suitcase, dog on leash, etc.

              Mom: "since the reductions in SS I couldnt afford to keep the house"


              •  Or this -- (none)
                Mom to stylish teenage daughter:  "please turn off the iPod for a minute -- we need to talk.  I'm sorry Grandma's going to have to move in with us.  Do you want to share your room with Grandma or would you rather share your little brother's room?"

                (Cut from shot of very unstylish Grandma to shot of obnoxious little brother picking nose)

                Teenager rolls eyes:  "Mom!  You can't do this to me!  You're ruining my life!"

          •  And you may not be able to afford a house. (none)
            The huge government borrowing that would be needed to finance the "transition cost" of the individual accounts is likely to drive up interest rates.

            It seems like I see a lot of 20-somethings buying houses I couldn't have dreamed of at their age (when mortgage rates were 13% vs. 5% now).  

        •  Try this: (4.00)
          "Would you let the people who brought you Enron invest your retirement insurance?"

          "Oh God, please tell me I have a brain tumor and this is all just a side effect of the chemo." -- Meg Griffin

          by Penny Century on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 02:21:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  My Niece (3.66)
          At Christmas, I saw my niece who is 24. We started talking about SS. She thought Bush's plan was great -- she thought she could make more money investing it herself, and besides there wouldn't be any SS for her anyway. So, my Mom and Dad and I pretty much bombarded her with arguments to the contrary. I said Bush's real goal was to destroy SS. The thing that really got her attention was when I pointed out that SS covers disability (she said "my step-dad is on disability") and survivors benefits (she said "my aunt gets survivor benefits"). Her eyes got real big and she said, "The other side needs to do a better job getting their side of the story to people because I haven't heard anything from them." Amen to that!
        •  re: SS & Educational Assistance (none)
          How about an ad that shows/has a voice over w/a
          person/medical researcher explaining how he/she: a) was eligible for SS Survivor's benefits, b)educational assistance, c) is presently doing experimental research to develop a cure for cancer or AIDS (something like that)?  

          Would that tie the two together?

          Also, maybe cut to a shot of the stereotypical rich repub. anticipating the benefits of the SS reform by figuring out how much $ he/she will make from it.  (Then maybe a shot of sick/homeless senior citizens/people with disabilities...)

          Then end the ad by saying something like, "If SS does not provide a safety net for an unanticipated catastrophe, dubya will destroy the country by wasting our most valuable resources--human resources."

          Just tossing out an idea.


          The only second term dubya deserves is 20 to life!

          by Street Kid on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 04:21:43 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  How about (none)
          all those orphans who couldn't afford to stay in high school, let alone go to college, if it weren't for Social security? Is that immediate enough?

          As long as I count the votes, what are you going to do about it? - William Marcy Tweed

          by sidnora on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 07:40:38 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  hmmmm (none)
          OK, how about this...

          Well dressed 20 something on his way to work. Has to run a gamut of elderly beggars, dressed in rags, grabbing at him.

          Gets to work, his parents call. They need money. The mortgage is due, and since their income has dropped because of the SS restructuring, they need help.

          Then his grandma shows up, also begging for money.

          Next his boss comes in, tells him all these personal calls and visits have to stop, or he'll be fired.

          Guy turns to the camera and says 'Do you REALLY want this? Or do you want to fund SS and help make sure that your parents and grandparents don't spend their senior years begging YOU for money? And remember -- you're next...'

      •  Where I live (none)
        Public universities are already on the way out.  Virginia has a new "charter university" initiative, the details of which are fuzzy.  It was brought about by extremely low funding on both a state and federal level.

        The 40 hour work week and unions are way gone in many industries as well.

      •  OSHA, nixon's baby, is (none)
        on the block too
    •  40 hour work week? (none)
      Mostly gone already, and I dont think we've seen the full impact of the new overtime re-definition yet.
    •  The common good. (none)
        What we to do is start explaining that these programs benefit the common good, not just the people who receive the checks, or are protected from abuse at work.  The ghost of McCarthy is laughing his ass off because nobody can talk about socialism without being totally dismissed.  So what we get are debates about who gets what, and who deserves it.  How about this debate: "What can we do for the benefit of everyone?"  I'm no historian, but I'd say this question or one like it created the new deal.  If we don't start arguing about how these programs benefit everyone, they will become separate issues that crumble one by one.
  •  My dad is gonna be PISSED OFF. (3.85)
    He grew up hearing about FDR from his dad and uncles, all union steel worker guys, who praised FDR   to no end.

    This is beyond bullshit, Markos!

    It's über-bullshit or something like that.


    A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -- Edward Abbey

    by Page van der Linden on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 01:48:18 PM PST

    •  Could Have Predicted This 60 Years Ago (4.00)
      Anyone who could count knew that the big move would come once the New Deal generation became too old for activism.

      As a boomer, it's my own parents who lived through this, they were kids at the time of the Crash, and while they're still alive and voting, they're getting too weak for political activism.

      Not only are Bushco mostly free of the first-hand New Deal generation, they have two younger generations who have only heard government and liberalism derided as the problem.

      We're about to learn why this last election win wasn't optional for us.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 02:06:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Norquist (none)
        Wasn't it Grover Norquist who said that he was looking forward to the World War II generation dying off because they were the last holdouts in support of the welfare state?  I'm not remembering the specific language, but it was basically a countdown to extinction.
      •  You Assume... (none)

        A. Bush will be able to rally the Republicans to gut Social Security, and...

        B. Knowing what existed before Social Security is what protects it rather than counting on it because you've always assumed it would be there.  In other words, you're denying blatant self-interest as a motivation to oppose the privatization of Social Security.

        Boomers are the group who have the most to lose from this, and I think it's going to be damn hard to keep that news from them.  Denial is selective.  It's easier to convince somebody that a change will hurt them than help them.  That's part of the reason why so many people--something like 50%--thought the tax increase in Clinton's first budget was being imposed on them, when in fact many people, through the EITC and other changes, actually paid less and those who did pay more accounted for only 2.7% of taxpayers.  On the other hand, just about everyone got some kind of federal tax cut due to the Bush tax plan passed in 2001, but while only a small number didn't get a tax cut, a sizable percentage, again, IIRC, around half, think they didn't get a federal tax cut, and (again by memory) about 10-15% thought their federal taxes went up.  

        That dynamic is one of the main reasons it's hard to scale back entitlements, especially those widely recieved like FHA loans, student loans for the middle class, certain tax deductions, COLA adjustments for social security, etc.  

        •  Agreed That It's Hardly a Done Deal But (none)
          "In other words, you're denying blatant self-interest as a motivation to oppose the privatization of Social Security."

          Clearly the Republicans thought of this because the marketing of the program is to hype self-interest in the private solution, and blatant fear of the existing system.

          Like everything else they communicate, it gives them the simple message based on the most primitive emotions, whereas our opposition is most likely to be based on complexity and intellectualism. To work with fear for example we must make people afraid of their wartime president (tm). Basically, turn around and re-fight the election we just failed to win convincingly. And we can't match them in greed on the simple power of their "it's your money."

          We do stand a chance of winning this because the factors you mention are definitely true, but the Republicans have so far planned pretty well for them.

          We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

          by Gooserock on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 03:26:01 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Excellent observation (none)
        No matter how much we try to describe, my son's generation can't understand what society was like before the New Deal.

        Even when they have an inkling there is the undercurrent of complacency, the feeling that the hard work is already done.  What we are finding here is that the hard work is never done.

        The chips are down. Find your outrage.

        by sj on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 02:27:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  get him to read (4.00)
          the jungle, grapes of wrath, all those great books from around that time.  the books i read in my advanced English courses in High School where prime forces in turning me away from the conservatism of my father and turning me into a progressive.
          •  Exactly (none)
            That's exactly how and where I learned of such things in my senior year, 1980-81.  I will never, ever forget how after we finished Grapes, one of the class princesses loudly proclaimed "I just can't believe people ever lived this way."  Having grown up in a very poor (and diehard Democrat) family, I was thoroughly, utterly disgusted.  (Plus, I never could figure out what she was doing in the honors' English class in the first place, but that's another story!)
          •  and show him (none)
            the photos of Walker Evans et al. from that period. And read "How the Other Half Lives".

            As long as I count the votes, what are you going to do about it? - William Marcy Tweed

            by sidnora on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 07:44:57 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  One way the Republican's win (none)
        My parents loved FDR. Dad always said that the Rupublicans would not regain a lot of power until the older ones who lived through the depression died.  

        I found out the other day a method the Republicans use is lobbiests, but not the kind most people think of.  Not the ones that talk to the politicians about their company's point of view.

        The new lobbiests look about 25 to 35 and they go to the Kiwanas clubs and places like that where people hang out.  They casually start talking about what a bad deal social security is.  They know just what to say to make it sound like a hopeless unfair mess that won't be there for them. They are trained in what to say. They ask people to call their representatives if they seem to be buying the story.

        Plus they own the corporate Media which has told the younger generations for years that it won't be there for them. Now that same Media is saying the polls say the younger generation doesn't think Social Security will be there for them.

    •  Well you know... (none)
      ...the Grover Norquists of the world are waiting for him to die off.  It's harder to lie to people who learned about FDR because they or their family members survived the Depression.  This just makes their jobs easier.

      FDR had to save this country from crony capitalists once--why can't we seem to learn from history?  Oh well--at this rate, the middle class will soon be joining the poor at our local food pantry very soon.  Oh mean they're already there?

      Can't say that we weren't warned.

      "But sir, we've already lost the dock." A Zion Lieutenant to Commander Lock, The Matrix Revolutions

      by AuntiePeachy on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 02:24:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm actually shocked by this (none)
      I mean, I know they're liars.  I already know they have no shame.  Even so.

      This degree of contempt for people's ability to parse the image and the truth-- relying to this degree on people's ignorance, stupidity, credulity, and passivity-- shocks me.

      They keep lowering the gutter.

      "God help the political system in which a thoroughly addled sovereign is faced with a real crisis." Anatole Lieven, Carnegie Endowment for Peace

      by Tulip on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 03:54:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  And my grandma is rolling over in her grave. (none)
      FDR was her hero.  "He led us out of the Great Depression, dearie."  I can hear her now.  

      It's beyond offensive.

    •  to see FDR's face in a Bush add like this (none)
      makes me want to cry.  My Dad (died when I wsa 13) lived through the depression and love FDR and loved GOVERNMENT (yes... Grover).  This goes too far.
  •  There's a reason they're running these ads (3.75)
    They know they don't have the support for this initiative.

    "It is a common delusion that you make things better by talking about them." - Dame Rose Macaulay

    by Zackpunk on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 01:49:45 PM PST

  •  I'm not going to watch it (4.00)
    but I bet they make fun of the fact he was a cripple.

    "Would you really trust a cripple? We all know he just used Social Security to supply his cripple-habits such as: wheel-chairs, canes, and twizzlers.

    George W. Bush: A true, non-crippled leader."

    "In such a world of conflict, a world of victims and executioners, it is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners." -Albert Camus.

    by BrianL on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 01:49:55 PM PST

    •  Please Reword Your Post: (none)
      ex:  but I'll bet they make fun of the fact that he had a disability/used a wheelchair

      I also have a disability, but I am a person, not a disability.

      Others who have disabilities are people too.  Look past the disability and at the person.

      Thank you.  

      The only second term dubya deserves is 20 to life!

      by Street Kid on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 02:06:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You do realize. (none)
        That it was a satire aimed at the right, where nothing is sacred. I by no means meant to offend anyone, and completely agree with you. I'm just letting off some steam after work aimed at the right, that's all.

        "In such a world of conflict, a world of victims and executioners, it is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners." -Albert Camus.

        by BrianL on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 02:30:56 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Understand. But, (none)
          what I am saying is for us to concentrate on the use of the language/terminology and focus on the person, not the fact that he/she may have a disability. (That's just a pet peeve of mine.)

          The only second term dubya deserves is 20 to life!

          by Street Kid on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 02:43:01 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  missed the point (none)
            in that context, that's the very kind of language that must be used; he's talking about what the right wingers would say.

            If you were doing a satirical representation of the KKK, would you have them talking about "African-Americans," or "People of Color?" No - I think you'd have them using the N-word.

            my weblog and my website - they're, uh, in progress, OK?

            by snookybeh on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 09:30:37 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  First (none)
    Are the Bushies the first to put out a mass media ad on this subject? If so, why are they once again getting ahead of us on framing the issue?

    If not ... then yay for us!

    Where is the AARP?

    I am ready to learn.

    •  Bush Message Machine Strikes Again (none)
      At least it's a nominally non-govermental organization running the ads this time.

      As opposed to our tax dollars paying some douchebag like Armstrong Williams to preach to us about how wunnnderful Bush is.

      And yes, they're ahead on the spin thing. What else is new?

      Just for once, I'd like us to pro-act not re-act.

    •  AARP has already run (none)
      at least one print ad that I've seen , and it was a good one. In fact, their entire planned series of ads sounded good to me.

      But I'd like to know, where is this PFA ad running? Anyplace besides their website? Because once the Repugs start running print and TV ads, and they will, we're in for the big $$, boys & girls. We are gonna have to start raising money like we did for the Presidential campaign. We cannot afford to wait on this.

      And we need to figure out who we're going send this money to - AARP? I know there are people here on kos working on ads, too - any answers/ideas?

      As long as I count the votes, what are you going to do about it? - William Marcy Tweed

      by sidnora on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 07:52:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The Response We Deserve (none)
    Here's the kind of retort I'd like to be hearing from the Democrats.
    •  man that is frigging excellent (none)
      I am telling you - you should forward it to all of your local papers as an op-ed piece or letter to the  editor. send it to your senator and congressperson too.

      It is heartfelt, cohesive and strong.

    •  I would give almost anything (none)
      to hear the Democratic leadership start giving this speech.  Will somebody who knows this guy put him in touch with Pelosi, Kerry, Kennedy, et. al.

      Geonomist in Austin

      by Geonomist on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 08:33:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  pattern (4.00)
    They tell us Martin Luther King was against affirmative action. They increase air pollution and call it the 'Clear Skies Act'. Now they tell us FDR was against social security.

    So Nazis do have a sense of humor.

    •  It'd be funny if.. (none)
      so many people didn't buy into it.  America needs to brush up on our history FAST.

      "The revolution starts now, when you rise above your fear"-Steve Earle

      by SairaLV on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 01:56:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Warning: (none)
        the module
        is not responding to the system.

        Please restart your nation. If the problem persists, please reinstall or contact the vendor.

        We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

        by Gooserock on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 02:09:28 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  That's because the (4.00)
        living memory of the Great Depression is almost gone in American.  Anyone born after 1935 has no personal memory (direct first-hand) of it.  Only those over the age of 70 can recall that time, and not all of those people are GOP or were fans of FDR, and as they aged most likely came more and more to believe that they had succeeded all on their own.

        If Americans can't bother to ponder the meaning of a recent event like Iraq and how they bought the WMD hoax, how are they ever going to challenge something that began so long ago?

        Now FDR is an icon of a great President, but few actually know what it was that made him great other than leading us to a great and glorious victory in WWII.  Don't blame the GOP for making use of an icon, the Democrats were the ones who made him and icon and didn't bother to keep the vision alive.

  •  Somewhere (none)
    there is a server admin crying in frustration.

    They must be getting a gazillion hits, all at once, b/c even the small quicktime file times out (and I'm on fiber).  But keep hitting them, maybe they have paid for a finite amount of bandwidth and we can zap their account in about an hour.

    Wanna take a swipe at the GOP financial base? Cancel your cable subscription.

    by bionicKitty on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 01:54:47 PM PST

  •  The Cause (3.95)
    I've said it before, but it bears repeating.  Social Security did not appear spontaneously, nor was it the product of nefarious liberals who created it for their own purposes.

    Social Security was put in place because:

    1. Poverty among the elderly was extremely high, and painfully severe -- there was no magical safety net of family and religious organizations that took care of the elderly before Social Security.

    2. People who had invested their saving in the stock market or company pension plans were a large chunk of that poor population due to the sharp fall in stock prices.  Social Security wasn't put in because people didn't have stock.  It was put in because stocks couldn't be counted on to provide a consistent, bottom-line payment to keep the elderly from facing severe poverty.

    This country is great not in spite of the social welfare programs we've put in place, but because of those programs.  Social Security is vital, not just to the good health and decent retirement of our elderly, but to the economic health of our nation.  Our economy has grown, and our nation has risen, standing on the foundation of these programs.  Those that seek to chip away at them, want to replace the solid ground under our feet with quicksand.
    •  Absolutely (3.50)
      This morning my husband asked me, rhetorically, where my mom would be right now without SS. The answer was, I suppose, in our spare bedroom. Or in one of my siblings homes.

      Your points above are so clear cut and sensible...I really don't have a feel whether or not people are buying W's arguments, but I get really angry when the news media treats the SS privatization situation like it's a viable idea, with little or no examination of the problems with it and the fact that the current system is working quite well and merely needs some adjustment, if it even needs that, based on what Paul Krugman's had to say about it.

      I've always been blonde!

      by bdizz on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 02:04:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  young people (4.00)
        Polls keep showing that younger folks are more supportive of privatization than older ones.  It's my view that they have lived a long time through the lies that Soc Security is going to run out of money.

          But besides countering this misinformation, how about an ad campaign or letters to the editor (see my post below on a low tech campaign), saying, listen up you twenty-somethings, DO YOU LOOK FORWARD TO SUPPORTING YOUR PARENTS IN THEIR OLD AGE?  IF SO, THEN YOU'RE FOR THE BUSH PLAN ON SOCIAL SECURITY.

        •  scary (none)
          they are being conditioned to serve the state.
          it reads like sci=fi, the totally cooperative populace.
          raised on computer games and fast food.
          no culture, no discourse.
          look after yourself and forget about the greater humanity.
          no only sad but predictable.

          the only trouble is the other countries like India and China. they did not collapse like The Soviet Union. they did their homework.
          and the Monkey in Venezuela aint going Democratic.

          I may be a boomer with no 'boom' but i can see the the sycthe acomin and it aint 'divine rapture'.

      •  Say it loud (4.00)
        Our social safety net is not something to be ashamed of, but to be celebrated.  Look around the world and find the countries that provide this service for their citizens.  Look at the living conditions there, and compare them to the countries that adopt a "hands off" attitude to social needs.

        I know where I'd rather live.

        There's a terrific correlation between countries that provide strong social safety nets, enjoyment of life, and life expectancy.  The elderly benefit from Social Security, so do the middle aged, so do the young, so does every small, medium, or large business in the nation.  

        TwoTaboos -- Politics and Religion.

        by Mark Sumner on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 02:28:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  yes and (none)
        she'd also not be buying gifts for the kids, traveling, eating out, etc.

        She wouldn't be putting money into the economy.

        Do these morons not realize that if the elderly don't have any reliable income, they DO NOT SPEND ANYTHING?

        That's how we have to frame it -- SS isn't a drain, it's a recirculating fountain. Everything that gets paid gets put right back into the economy.

        As opposed to investments, that don't spur any real economic activity.

      •  That's a meme (none)
        Bush's "Spare Bedroom Plan".  

        That could run a ways for the younger generation, and even more so with the boomers.  The boomers are already beginning to feel the bite from bearing portions of increased medical costs for thier parents, providing for long-term care, etc.  

        We should be making it quite clear what the world would look like in 30 years if this is adopted.  "Spare Bedroom Plan" sums that up pretty well, me-thinks.

        "Politics isn't about big money or power games; it's about the improvement of people's lives" - Paul Wellstone

        by nullspace on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 09:42:10 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Right--key word is *security* (none)

      Attack social security? No way!

      by eoglesby on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 02:15:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  and (none)
      Social Security was put in place by an enlightened plutocracy, who were growing nervouus about the spread of communism and socialism in the US.

      Thye have nothing to be nervous about now. America's solution to a crisis now is to elect Arnold-type fake super heros. Pathetic.

    •  Third Point (none)
      One has to remember that the Great Depression was a failure of all our financial institutions, not just a Stock Market Crash.  The Elderly were particularly impacted by Bank Failures, where they lost savings accounts, even after Reconstruction Finance Corp. Restructuring they only got 5-10 cents on the dollar.  The Real Estate market crashed, If you really want to understand the impact sometime, go to a big library and pull the newspapers and read the For Sale columns around 1932.  

      Social Security was not in the Dem platform of 1932, but it was in Norman Thomas's plan.  What moved FDR to adopt the program was the mass popularity of the Townsend Plan -- a populist program that was being pushed by Huey Long.  In just a few months thousands of Townsend Clubs formed around the country -- leading FDR to understand he had to design his own plan.  The actual "designer" was Wilber Cohen, a twenty something economist from the U of Michigan, who later became Secretary of Labor in Kennedy's administration.  

    •  Even FDR Had To Be Convinced (none)
      At least according to Howard Zinn, an historian whom I respect very much:

      "Sure, Roosevelt was a sensitive man. But it took mass protests to sharpen that sensitivity and make it take action. Then and only then did he take huge steps to help the poor, establish the minimum wage and create Social Security (which had been the Socialist Party's most popular demand)."


      So, let's not assume that our leaders in the Democratic Party have ultimate responsibility for ensuring the continuation of Social Security. That responsibility lays with us, the people.

  •  Well, they invoke Lincoln . . . (4.00)

     . . . when it suits their racist ways.

      How many years have we seen that these lying bastards have no shame, and know no issue that they can't twist out of recognition (No Child Left Behind = dismantle our public education system; Clear Skies = polluted skies; Pro Life = pro egg and screw the children; War = Peace; Ignorance = Strength; etc...).


    "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." T.J.

    by BenGoshi on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 01:58:55 PM PST

  •  John Dingell (4.00)
    On the website of Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), the "Dean" or most senior member of the House, there is a photo of his father standing behind Roosevelt as he signed the Social Security bill.

    (John Dingell Sr. was elected to the House in 1932.  Upon his death in 1955, John Dingell Jr., the present Congressman, was elected to replace him.)

  •  I think you killed their bandwidth Kos... (none)
    It's taking waaayyy too long [> 5 min at last check] to download the 1 MB [unless they're on a T1 or less] . A blog-induced DoS...maybe you should permalink it on the frontpage...
  •  getting rid of the workers (none)
    Read an absolutely horrifying interview with Club for Growth founder Stephen Moore. (Dec 2004 issue of Smart Money.) He basically outlines the entire right-wing agenda for sending the economy back to the 19th century-no taxes at all on capital gains, and all social services privatized.

    "People will make more of their money from wealth rather than from work," [Moore] says.  Somebody will have to be left to produce things, but that can be left to denizens of the Equadors and Indonesias of the world. "We will be the people who own things, and they will be the workers."

    The idea is to get people used to the idea of living off investments, not income.  A nice idea if you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth....

    Don't blame me, I voted for Bill T. Cat

    by magic1 on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 02:00:16 PM PST

    •  nice how he points out.. (none)
      that the path to owning everything is through borrowing money (from the saudis).  I love this new economy.  perhaps I'll go buy a professional sports team and put it on my credit card...

      don't give up, don't ever give up!...Jimmy V

      by Dont Tread on Me on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 02:10:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  link? (none)
      there a link for that? because if he said that, that means they're evil. i mean we already knew they were evil, but that's really evil. they really do have this sick vision of turning white americans into the bosses of the world, pampered by immigrants and third world workers. it's psychotic.
      •  I can't find it online anywhere (none)
        but it's Smart Money, December 2004, p38. Roger Lowenstein's Unconventional Wisdom column.  I haven't been a big reader of financial magazines in the past but with SS privatization looming I figure I better learn how to get my ducks in a row, and fast.

        Don't blame me, I voted for Bill T. Cat

        by magic1 on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 02:45:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  That's bigtime wedge language (none)
      Between the wealthy and the whacko wings.

      It's not in the position, it's in the language.  Blasting the concept of working for your keep is a Chenny'ing swear word in a lot of blood red 'Merika.  Oh for media outlets to hammer on this over and over and over....

      "Politics isn't about big money or power games; it's about the improvement of people's lives" - Paul Wellstone

      by nullspace on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 09:47:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Beaten to the punch again! (none)
    Why didn't we float ads telling the truth about Social Security first?

    This administration is always sinking to a new subterranean low. I understand no one thought they would be so brazen as to invoke FDR as they attempt to gut his legacy...but we should have...

    They're still treating it like a political campaign. We need to hop up on the information campaign. Get on the offensive.

    •  We Didn't Think The Republicans (none)
      would be this aggressive.

      After 40 years we've fed them just about enough rope to hang themselves. You can tell how desperate and near collapse they are by their boldness.

      As we've learned from the Iraq insurgents.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 02:13:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  say what (none)
        the press got to be with 'w' and of course they are all bent over saying how 'confident' he is. all are not punished as will shakespeare would say. but houses alike in dignity.  tom delay, unscathed, the rapture of rummy, alberto the toruturer in like 'flint', on and on.
        if they are in trouble they sure are stocking their larders with all that money they got from us the 'drones'  it is like a 'shark' feeding after john the noble kerry-face bit the noble dust. oh, bothersome fate.

        no, the democrats are hanging themselves.

        but no matter. the greater global reality is knocking at the door.

        i just hope they are not 'dirty bombs'.

    •  we SHOULD have thought . . . (4.00)
      You know, I'm getting pretty sick and tired of us keyboard brainiacs being able to outwit our feckless political leaders.

      For YEARS now, Karl Rove has been taking our side's strengths, assuming them for Republicans, thus innoculating themselves against the best defense.

      Did no one in Congress or the DNC or any progressive outlet anywhere not understand that FDR would be played this way? The effect is obvious; 'Murkins hear us say that SS is FDR's legacy, he would have been against privatization, blah, blah, and all they think is "Well, he seems to be on George W. Bush's side . . . I saw that television ad."

      They've been telegraphing this jujitsu for ever! When are we gonna catch on?


  •  we need to counter it (none)
    with another commercial.
    And I don't mean another technically bad
    Kidz-Made ineffectuality.
  •  asdf (none)
    I think we need some grass roots organizing to raise funds and run some ads.

    I'd be more than willing to donate money. If I had the time, I'd seriously be setting up the logistics.

    In any event, I hear AARP and the AFL-CIO will be expanding tehir initial January media buys from print and move into TV advertising. Supposedly no official announcement yet, but should eb coming shortly

    Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds - Albert Einstein. THINK fast - talk SLOW

    by GregNYC on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 02:02:14 PM PST

  •  GOP math (4.00)
    How the GOP do math in order to "save" Social Security, which isn't even in crisis.:

    Click to go to a page to download printable PDF versions (links at the bottom of that page).


    Mitch Gore

    Nobody will change America for you, you have to work to make it happen

    by Lestatdelc on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 02:03:12 PM PST

    •  Some Way to Link to Education Crisis (none)
      Based on his math and English performance, Bush should be able to sue to get a private tutor.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 02:17:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Strategy (none)
    As with their attacks on Kerry, the Republicans are adept at attacking a person or an issue for its strength not its weakness. They go right for the jugular.
  •  No Facts (4.00)
    I saw this on CNN yesterday, and the tactic being used just bothered me.

    The ad urges people to call their congressman & woman and urge them to "strengthen social security".  Of course, they don't want to bog down the ignorant public with facts, so they don't bother to explain what "strengthen" even means.  The ad is a call to action without any information whatsoever about the actual proposal, but it has the key words that Bush supporters like to hear.

    However, I don't know how effective it will be in actually getting people to call their represenatives, since it doesn't really tell them what to say.  But I guess that doesn't matter to the ad's target audience.

    You fasten the triggers For the others to fire Then you set back and watch When the death count gets higher - Bob Dylan

    by kateski19 on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 02:11:45 PM PST

  •  MoveOn or someone else should mock up (none)
    a campaign ad for 2006 showing the kind of shit a backer of privatization will get.

    "My opponent Candidate X voted for privatization." Then show bread lines or similar footage from the 30s with old folk.

    "Is this really what you wanted from your representative?"


    The more horrific the better.

    It only needs to be available on the web since its target is the Reps and Senators considering voting for it.

  •  low tech solution (4.00)
    AARP and others will run ads, and that is good -- But let's keep in mind that we can use a very effective low tech strategy:

    • Write op-eds to local papers.  If you have any "hook," like you work with seniors or teach history or are a social worker or whatever, use this as part of your introduction to the piece.  Local papers in small to medium cities especially like to publish pieces from local people.

    • Just because you wrote an op-ed doesn't mean you shouldn't also write letters to the editor.  Again, focus these on local papers.

    •  If you live somewhere out of the big cities of America, also send letters to the national papers and magazines.  They like to get folks from Peoria on the NYT letters page sometimes.

    • Call into local and national talk shows -- radio and tv.

    • Recruit others to do the same.

    • And, of course, write to all your elected officials and to state and local party leaders telling them what you think.

    Use as many details as possible.  It's easy to show there is no crisis, that there's more than enough money for years, etc.

    People power can do it if we all do it.  I've started, hope you can do it, too.

    •  Beware of AARP (none)
      They're a major insurance corporation who backed the Medicare reform. My wife and I are among tens of thousands who quit them at that time.

      Maybe they will oppose social security privatization but it's worth checking to see if they stand to gain by the program. The more they transform into a business the more important it is to check.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 02:15:14 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  heh they changed course (none)
        they changed their stripes.  get ready for the complete and utter 'schock and awe' at home no need to go the cineplex, they be abringn it to your living room. like it or not.
        oh divine rapture. i fell it, i really do.

        damn i have to fight the goddamn cat for the the cat food.  oh FDR so unraveled.  

      •  AARP has changed their tune (none)
        big-time for this issue. They have already stated their total opposition to the SS piratization scheme, and are already running print ads. I think they realize how badly they got burned by the Medicare thing. My only concern is that the guy who got them to go for the Medicare bill is still in place there, and is a known Repug - but maybe even he got the message this time.

        As long as I count the votes, what are you going to do about it? - William Marcy Tweed

        by sidnora on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 08:06:17 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  a change would kill them (none)
          They know it.

          No SS, seniors have no money. Maybe not right now, but soon. No money, no buying of insurance, trips, any of the other stuff they sell or advertise.

          They're just beginning to get the boomers to join, and probably lost some of them after the Medicare debacle. They'll lose them FOREVER if they don't fight this tooth and nail.

        •  As far as I'm concerned, they're on probation (none)
          A lot of coporations claim to change thier tune when the wind changes.  They simply ignore what they did in the past and move in some new direction.  Until the wind changes directions again.  Sounds like an administration I've heard tell of.

          Whether this will actually stick as a 'change in direction', I don't know.  I'll wait and see if a senior position becomes unpopular and they fight for it anyways, maybe I'll take them off probation.  Until then, whatever.

          "Politics isn't about big money or power games; it's about the improvement of people's lives" - Paul Wellstone

          by nullspace on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 09:55:36 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  ideas for counter ads? (none)
    I think a great one would just be showing some photos from the depression of older people who had nothing to retire on, shanty towns, etc.,   then just ask at the end what would happen to 'you' if your social security was invested in enron...

    what do you guys think?

    don't give up, don't ever give up!...Jimmy V

    by Dont Tread on Me on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 02:13:06 PM PST

    •  Better (none)
      Middle class family - both set of grandparents forced to crowd into a 2 bedroom home - talk about how they should have paid more attention to how the Bush plan for investing their social security was really going to work.

      -------- This space intentionally left blank --------

      by puppet10 on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 03:36:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's good to remember when framing ads ... (4.00)
    ... on this that all the Republicans voted against the Social Security Act in the Ways and Means committee of the House of Representatives in 1935 after a seven-month -long fight over the legislation in its various forms. Leftists, including unions, opposed the bill because it didn't go far enough. For instance, the old-age insurance portion came under sharp attack.

    During the full floor debate, New York Republican Daniel Reed said: "The lash of the dictator will now be felt."  And New York Republican James Wadsworth, said Social Security would "pull the pillars of the temple down upon the heads of our descendants."


    A now almost-forgotten part of the Economic Security Act, Title V, proposed voluntary old-age annuities to supplement compulsory old-age insurance.  All workers, including those excluded from the compulsory system, would have been allowed to make periodic voluntary deposits--in effect, loans--to the old-age fund.  Workers who participated would hold certificates representing amounts they had deposited.  At 65, workers would trade in their certificates for annuities, paying up to a maximum of $100 per annuitant per month, based on their total deposits plus interest.  Title V would have helped workers save for retirement, and would have helped the government raise revenue for the payment of old-age benefits.

    Insurance companies hated Title V because it would have put the government in competition with it over selling annuities.

    Bush: Taking the "social" and the "security" out of Social Security.

    We don't inherit the Earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children. - David Brower

    by Meteor Blades on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 02:16:22 PM PST

  •  the reagan miniseries (4.00)
    the bushnazis got the reagan miniseries pulled for far less than this blasphemy. we need to get FDR's family to weigh in with the networks.
  •  this plan lives up to Bush's mantra (none)
    as stated by the Daily show: "If you truly love something, you have to kill part of it first" (environment, Iraq, etc.)

    don't give up, don't ever give up!...Jimmy V

    by Dont Tread on Me on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 02:22:17 PM PST

  •  This is a GREAT opportunity (none)
    For liberals to show that they are looking out
    for the middle class.

    And protecting middle class services.

    A commercial needs to
    show clearly where the republicans are heading
    with this plan.

    And how they are only out to
    dismantle a service that the wealthy don't need.

    I hope that they will use a professional ad agency
    with creative writers and a track record, and not
    the kidz at moveon.

  •  We need our own Harry and Louise ads (none)
    The way the GOP stopped the Clinton healthcare reform initiative should be our playbook.
  •  They want to remove FDR's image from coinage... (none)
    and replace it with their true deity, Ronald Reagan. Was this proposal, since withdrawn, really an innocent gaffe? They want to remove his great legacy from our nation as well and return us to 19th century-style robber baron hegemony. To this end they continue to infect the malleable minds of our fellow citizens with Orwellian doublespeak which must be decoded as follows:
    strength = weakness
    liberty = oppression
    good = evil
    and on and  on. A sinister mission, every statement of fact a lie, every appeal to emotion a coldly calculated scheme...

    and if I sound like I'm aping Walter Winchell's pedagogic radio style, you're right. I think we need to give as good as we get and keep the fight in their court. If they want to invoke the remarkable salvation of the U.S. that came through FDR, fine. Let's show why that has NOTHING to do with the GOP.

    Good Evening, Mr. and Mrs. America, and all the ships at sea . . .

  •  Figures! (4.00)
    Why in God's name do Democrats always lose this freaking battle. For the past two months I've been preaching to everyone I know that we've got to get on the air first and invoke the image of FDR at every turn ... corner the administration on this issue.

    We should invoke FDR's name at every turn, but there's nothing ... lots of 'unnamed sources' in media stories. That won't do a damn thing.

    The key is to get ahead of the opponent, and Democrats have done a mighty fine job holding conferences and sessions designed to figure out what to do ... but never actually do it.

  •  Kill Me Now (none)
  •  Counter-ad (none)
    As Lumiere notes, up-thread, any counter-ad should begin with the same FDR images.

    What an excellent day for an Exorcism...

    by DianeL on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 02:58:48 PM PST

    •  shouldn't we use (none)
      Republican heroes stridently arguing to end social security?

      and here they go again type ad, only this time they're trying to make it look better.

      Beware of the wolf in sheeps clothing.

      -------- This space intentionally left blank --------

      by puppet10 on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 03:44:03 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  FDR, Denny Terio & Chubby Checker (none)
    Just like Denny Terio, our old revered FDR must be having "Dance Fever", down there, six feet under -- watching those lying thieving GOP sons-of-bitches tear apart his life's work.

    Either that, or he is twisting down there, like Chubby Checker.

    Either way, it makes me sick up here.

    SILVER LINING IN THE CLOUD: It took them 70 years to undo the good work of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.  I don't think it will take us that long to undo the harm Bush & Co are now doing.  Even though we missed an opportunity on Nov 2 2004, to undo the ill and evil wrought by George Bush, it wont take 70 years to clean up his sewage.

    Bush leaves stench in his wake even now.  FDR lives in blessed memory.

    •  Don't bury us, (none)
      we're not dead yet! And they haven't undone Roosevelt's work yet. And they won't if we can help it.

      As long as I count the votes, what are you going to do about it? - William Marcy Tweed

      by sidnora on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 05:27:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Compassionate Conservatism (none)
    This is Compassionate Conservatism (TM) at its best!

    I piss on these GODDAM THIEVES!

    "Democracy is coming ... to the U - S - A." - Leonard Cohen

    by Gearhead on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 03:02:50 PM PST

  •  Senior's and Poverty (none)
    I'm a Gerontologist and I see examples of our already poverty-stricken senior population ever day. To see it up close is truly horrific.

    Our frail and elderly citizen's are the most vulnerable in our society. Those stories about senior's having to decide between their medication and food are not exaggerations. As A matter of fact most senior citizen's live in very diminished situations, with little support from anyone. We need to tell their individual and sometimes desperate stories to the public to explain what this SS measure would do.

  •  What scares me the most about this... (none) not the ad itself, but the name of the group.  This is the first I've heard of the group, and the fact that a conservative action group is using the word "Progress" to describe itself is scary.  Progressivism is inherently liberal, period.  They've already tarnished the word liberal, turning it into little more than a slur, we can't let them coopt the word progress as well.
    •  May be the first time you've heard their name, but (none)
      it's not the first time you've been exposed to their message.  Progress for America

      Charles Lewis of the Center for Public Integrity pointed out in March 2004 that election law specialist Ben Ginsberg, then counsel for PFA and a partner at the law and lobbying firm Patton Boggs, was "also the chief outside counsel to the Bush campaign."[3]

      During the fall of 2003, reported Peter Stone of the National Journal, Ginsberg talked "across the country to prominent fundraisers," asking them to serve on PFA's advisory board and to rope in large soft-money contributions. In August 2004, Ginsberg chose to resign from the Bush campaign after it was revealed that he had provided counsel to another GOP-friendly 527 group--Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

  •  Some things never change (none)
    What we need is an ad showing people jumping out of windows in 1929, and headlines of the Enron scandal and Worldcom with a voiceover saying.

    "The more things change, the more things stay the same.. Is this really  where we want to put our hardearned  social security taxes. Are we willing to risk our future for the promise of a fast buck? Americans needs to know they can depend on Social security.

    Increasing the retirement age to 66 or increasing the amount of wages we pay social security taxes on is a lot simpler and safer way to protect our future. Tell the Republicans, you like the way social works now. Don't let them cut the benefits of the many, so a few can prosper."

    •  people didn't jump out of windows (none)
      though I'm pretty sure the suicide rate went up.

      Pictures of breadlines might work. There must be some pictures of the shanty towns from the Depression around somewhere.

      Also, if I remember my history correctly, the WWI veterans marched on DC and camped out on the Mall protesting their treatment, that might be good to point out as well.

      Remember, all of this happened under HOOVER, a rethug of the first order.

  •  Idea for counter-ad (4.00)
    Of course there is always room for improvement...

    [FDR signing bill]

    Following the stock market calamity of the Great Depression, in 1935, Franklin Delanor Roosevelt created Social Security to insure that people who had worked hard their entire lives would always be able to retire in dignity.

    [Brokers in a mad frenzy]

    Today, friends of Wall Street see an opportunity to make a fast buck off of your lack of financial expertise.

    [Expand from the brokers on tv to an elderly couple, with extremely luxurient dining room table and china, etc., and the tv going on in the background with a bunch of stock market ding ding noises and stock bidding and such.]

    The stock market will always go up in the lo-oo-ong term, but experience has shown it is not at all a steady ride.

    [Elderly couple again, can popping noise, news report on tv says something like "and the markets continue to plummet, with loser outnumbering the winners...," and then a pitiful look of embarassment on the old man's face as he serves his elderly wife a can of cat food on the fine dinner plate.]

    Never gamble what you can't afford to lose.  

    [black screen with the word "dignity" unexpanding into the following string of text]

            Social Security:
      Insurance that guarantees
      your dignity in retirement.

  •  I'm a little confused ... (none)
    I recall Bob Kerrey (D-Neb) chairing (or at least serving on) a commission in the mid-90's that came to the conclusion that Social Security would have to be addressed sooner or later to remain solvent.  IIRC, he proposed something similar to investing social security funds in the private sector, but not individual private accounts.  Anyway, the conventional wisdom at the time was that no one would even consider touching the Social Security "third rail" and nothing happened.

    Has something changed?  New analysis?  Different forecasting assumptions?

    Or was Bob wrong?  Anyone know if he's had anything to say recently?  (Other than dressing down Condi Rice!)

    •  Now SS is OK to talk about (none)
      As opposed to 5 years ago, because the rich and powerful are now in a position to alter it to their advantage. Notice how the SCLM and that ad never bother to give you any hard facts? Call it a conspiracy, but the powerful right-wing 1%, in media, on Wall Street, and in the Government want to dismantle social services in general. Imagine the hell that would be raised if Clinton and Kennedy had tried to raise the minimum wage by $5 in 1 year. Outrageous. Unthinkable. It's because of whom it benefits. Public Education, the environment, social security, medicare all 'commie' (not to be capitalized off of)programs. They couldn't pull this off during Reagan, and definitely not during HWBush, but now they can. Doesn't this "crisis" remind you alot of the Iraq "crisis" that had to be dealt with stoopidly and quickly? It was because they always wanted to and again it benefits the powerful in the media, Wall Street and Government. Noam Chomsky covers it the best, IMHO.  
  •  "You Mean Like Enron??" n/t (none)

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy....--ML King, "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 03:33:51 PM PST

  •  Wow. Agressive... (none)
    And I thought I was pushing it making a Hitler got brass ones... For those who don't understand, click here
  •  No prisoners! (4.00)
    I believe this is an issue that the democrats cannot afford to compromise on.  Tie the republicans firmly to the third rail and watch them try to get off before 2006.  If we stand united and show resolve this scheme will self destruct within the republican ranks.

    That being said, the more ad time we can buy the better, particularly for good messages like suggested here.  Is there any group fundraising for air time?

    Democrats give you the Bill of Rights; Republicans sell you a Bill of Goods!

    •  This is right (none)
      Absolutely tie them the the third rail. Tie W. to the third rail and leave him there. Let's extract some good from the last election. Make W.'s greatest legacy that he is the person who tried to destroy Social Security and failed.
  •  The real FDR: (4.00)
    "With those payroll taxes in there, no damn politician will ever be able to kill my Social Security program" - FDR, circa 1938.

    He really took pride in it, although it hadn't actually been his idea to begin with.

    Still, this just proves the right will distort and misrepresent and sometimes outright lie when it suits its purposes.

    We MUST call them on this. And hold nothing back. These people lie. Let's not let them get away with it.

    I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

    by eugene on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 04:15:01 PM PST

  •  My favorite bits of this ad. (none)
    "It took courage to create Social Security; it'll take courage and leadership to protect it."

    First of all, note the condescending implication that it did not particularly take leadership to create it in the first place.  Second, notice the Orwellian use of the word "protect," to mean "dismantle."

    "Once, 16 workers supported one retiree, but when today's workers retire, only two workers will support one retiree"

    First, we have this old canard about ratios again.  Not mentioned is the fact that today, SS has a ratio of three workers per retiree and is running a big surplus.  Second, notice the phrasing " retiree[s]," as if those who are now retired are living off of others rather than having put money into the system themselves for decades.  Third, "today's workers"?  Can you vague that up for me, please?  That covers people from their teens to their sixties.

    "No changes for those at or near retirement, but younger workers..."

    OK, this is a divide and conquer strategy.  The intent of this bit is to throw a bone to the Boomers and the AARP, while putting the thumbscrews to the Gen X-ers and younger.

    "...should have the option of a personal savings account."

    As if you can't walk into any bank right now and get a savings account.  But get this: if everyone has a personal savings account, then the number of workers supporting each retiree is not two but(drumroll please) one, yourself and nobody else.

    "Urge [Congress] to strengthen Social Security for everyone."

    Except that the ad just finished saying that not everyone will be treated the same.  Older workers get one system; younger workers get another.

    I need a drink now.

    La raison avant la passion: Reason before passion. --Pierre Elliott Trudeau

    by greenknight on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 04:24:09 PM PST

    •  The counter-ad should be just as simple looking (none)
      And it should be a bit informative, because no TV pundit is going inform the basic facts. If we wish to persuade "dumbeats", we should not hurry with rhetorics.

      My ad text sketch is something like this:

      Why do they think that Social Security is in deep problem? Is it because we will have only 2 workers per retiree in 50 years?

      But now we have 3 workers per retiree, and the Social Security fund is still growing. The coming change is not so adverse as they say.

      Can Social Security be broken? If we do ill-advised things, yes. Social Security is supposed to be independent of markets' volatile changes.

      Why should we inflate financial markets with apparent savings only to put those markets under big stress when we would most need them?

      The best article on Social Security I saw is by David Price.

      •  Whjat we need is not a counter add... (none)
        It's a counter plan to show how we can maintain a financially healthy social security program in the years to come.

        If we don't come out with a clear alternative plan, we'll just appear as obstructionists.

        "We have already failed. Staying in longer makes us fail worse." -Three star Lt. General William Odom (retired), former head of National Security Agency

        by FightOn on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 06:23:40 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  First of all, (none)
          we need to inform the public properly. Since TV pundits and government do not do that, the best option that is left is commercial adds.

          Secondly, saying that we mostly need "a financially healthy social security program" is admitting that SS is in deep problem. It is not. (And there would not be absolutely no hint of problems now if Lyndon Johnson would not have merge SS with the General Fund in order to finance Vietnam war.) Even if we do "nothing", the current
          system can pay all benefits for 40 years, and even if worse scenarios come true after that, potential benefits would less than promised but more than  the current (even with inflation adjustment).

          Social Security is not in deep problem. There is "baby boom" pressure comming, but this problem can be dealt without drastic measures and big noise. We should make this point somehow, otherwise the SS case is hopeless.

          •  We need to make this case better than we have (none)
            You wrote: "There is "baby boom" pressure comming, but this problem can be dealt without drastic measures and big noise. We should make this point somehow, otherwise the SS case is hopeless."

            OK, I will buy that, but I don't think the democrats have addressed the issue of the baby boom pressure rewally clearly. First, if the administration is exagerating the baby boom issue, democrats in return haven't done much to call their bluff. Second, we need to lay out clearly what our suggested "non-drastic" measures might be.

            "We have already failed. Staying in longer makes us fail worse." -Three star Lt. General William Odom (retired), former head of National Security Agency

            by FightOn on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 09:12:01 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Democrats did not call the bluff, indeed (none)
              Gore and Kerry said nothing clear about SS future.  Since no one argued for 4 years (because of "politics") that SS might be OK after all, no wonder that folks are concerned now.

              Now we already have good arguments in the defence of SS. An important work is to find ways to present them better. But (apart from the silence of dems) the biggest problem is that TV pundits and the government do everything that those arguments and facts would be unknown. Just visit of the last month, and you will see how TV and press comentators push only the GOP story, and completely ignore "inconvenient" facts. Someone has to say at least once the simple fact that SS survived without problems the employees/retirees ratio drop from 16 to 3.

              There are few things to do in this debate, but explaining your own "non-drastic" measures is not the most urgent. Especially if your view is that SS faring reasonably well. There are 2 most elementary points to make clear:

              1. What is the extend of the "crisis"? Is it really so serious as Bush preaches? What "bankrupcy"? The worst we may have in 2050 is that SS will be able to pay just 80% of promised benefits, which would still be nominally more than current benefits. (Actually, there must have been a big burden of proof for the fearmonging of conservatives. For God's sake, global climate is declining fast while the SS fund is still many years away from shrinking; yet the public still has no concern of climate while it is "sure" about SS.)

              2. How will the measure of republicans work? Will they really ensure that today's "young workers" will get a better deal? Actually, Bush's proposals ma have really bad consequences. Their polic would inflate stock markets (a short-time bubble success), but when the "baby boom presure" comes, it will pressure those stock markets enormously. Not only retirees will get lesser value of their savings, stock markets will be pushed down.

              The most rational "non-drastic measure" now would be monito demographic situation, gather better information and make more informed prognozes. We better "reform" SS only if we really need that.  That may be a tough sell in the current political climate, some concern demonstrations would be necessary.
              •  Bill Clinton was for the Bush reform... (none)
                At a Dec. 3, 2002, conference of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, Bill Clinton said:

                "If you don't like privatizing Social Security, and I don't like it very much, but you want to do something to try to increase the rate of return [on Social Security assets], what are your options? Well, one thing you could do is to give people 1 or 2 percent of the payroll tax, with the same options the federal employees have with their retirement accounts, where you have three mutual funds that almost always perform as well or better than the market"--which means much better than the return on Social Security revenues that buy government bonds as I.O.U.s--"and a fourth option to buy government bonds, so you get the guaranteed Social Security return and a hundred percent safety just like you have with Social Security."

                "We have already failed. Staying in longer makes us fail worse." -Three star Lt. General William Odom (retired), former head of National Security Agency

                by FightOn on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 09:34:21 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  personal savings account (none)
      they do. It's called an IRA, a 401k, 403b, etc. You put in pre-tax money.

      But SS is definite. The returns on an IRA aren't.

      Ask those who planned to retire but now can't because the stock market tanked a few years ago and still isn't back where it was. It may be YEARS before it's back where it was.

      And most of them will be boomers, or slightly older. They know how much of a hit they took, how much they lost.

  •  Counter strategy is really quite simple (none)
    To counter this Repub attack on SS is really quite simple.  It involves an adds/education campaign to teach the voters two major items/lessons.

    1.  The SS trust fund was set up in the past to have an excess funding paid in during the "good" program times demographically so that it would be able to pay benefits during the "bad" program times demographically.  It is only because of mismanagement and greed by lawmakers that the IOUs the government owns to the fund may be ignored!

    2.  What was the reason that we needed the SS program in the first place.  Bring out all the facts about the destitute people, especially the elderly, and what a burden they were on society.  Show statisitcally how SS has prevented this from happening since its inception, giving the elderly dignity and a true safety net that has worked amazingly well for 70 years.  Then ask the big questions:

    --Do you really want to go back to those previous times?

    --If not, then what happens when Bush's privatized version fails and leaves many elderly out in the cold once again.  What do we do then?  Why screw around with success?

    Political censorship is the root of all evil! It is the antithesis to a functional democracy!!

    by truthbetold on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 04:27:50 PM PST

    •  Please don't use the word IOU (none)
      The word IOU softens it like its between friends.  These are legal Treasury Bonds.  Should the federal government reneg on its obligation to pay those who buy government bonds?  Should the federal government CONFISCATE the money people have paid from their WAGES in good faith?  These are not IOU's.
      •  Wishful thinking on your part! (none)
        Many if not most economists, do not consider intragovernment agency debt to be a real part of the national debt in the eyes of the law.  That is just the way it is.  It is similar to how debt would be treated in a joint ownership agreement of all assets with rights of survivorship.

        Political censorship is the root of all evil! It is the antithesis to a functional democracy!!

        by truthbetold on Fri Jan 14, 2005 at 01:51:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Seventy FIve Years ago... (4.00)
    ...anti-democratic forces began mobilizing in Europe. Their goals were to limit the power of the people and to secure their place in the world by controlling the world's oil supply. They would also control the people by aligning their policies with those of industry. Industry creates jobs, not the people. Industry is also a great control mechanism to keep the rabble in check.

    Many of the wealthy anti-democratic families in the U.S. who felt betrayed by FDR and wanted America to stay out of WW2 were looking forward to the right wing success's in Europe, hoping they would migrate across the ocean and become the cornerstone of American policy. In fact, they even had plans to assassinate FDR in an attempt to install such a government controlled by the military in the U.S. Some of the families looking forward to such right wing rule were the Lindbergs and the Bush's. In fact, Prescott Bush was supporting the anti-democratic forces in Europe, even while U.S. armed forces were battling them.

    In the intervening years these right wing power brokers have been disgusted by the amount of autonomy offered the American People from Social Security Benefits all the way down to Unemployment Benefits. Such programs remove much of the leverage many American Companies could wield over their employees. Between these programs and unions actually "representing" the average citizen, they decided the situation was simply unteneable.

    As a result, through careful planning and large investments in think tanks and specially selected individuals placed within the political/judicial system, they have been able to erode our democracy to the point where it barely stands today. It is now just an empty shell going through the motions. The body is there, but it's spirit has been thoroughly corrupted and substituted with an anal/oral political fixation that submits to the will of the lowest common denominator, with regard to intellect and decency. No longer exalted and respected by those chosen to represent the far right, they have become the conduits by which to topple the very government they swear to protect.

    It is a cancer of the spirit that removes the ability to empathize with the human condition. The very same forces that wreaked havoc in Europe seventy five years ago and by exension, the world, are now back at it. Only this time, their base of operations is Washington, D.C.

    History truly does repeat itself and each time around it's usually worse than the previous experience. What was it Nietzsche said, When you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back?

    Don't look down.

    Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it. -Tom Paine

    by Alumbrados on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 04:29:18 PM PST

    •  WE hold these Truths to be self-evident... (none)
       ...that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness --

      That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed,

      that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

      Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed.

      But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.

      Welcome to TLA News: The world's least trusted news network

      by Dean Nut on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 07:30:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I can't believe we let them get the jump on us (4.00)
    This should have been our imagery, our ads, we should have been running them pre-emptively.  How stupid do we have to be that we let them steal FDR imagery so that now whatever counter-ad we make looks like tit for tat instead of putting them on the offensive.

    Most of you who know my posts here know that I am almost always the voice for caution and pragmatism.  But pragmatism calls for knowing when it's time to attack.


  •  Maybe an ad... (3.50)
    discussing the trials and tribulations of the present "sandwich" generations...

    One that points out that this is already where many families are. And it is where many many more families will be after the 'Black Thursday' Market Crash of 2029.

    Just a thought...

  •  The ad ideas r good, now lets round up our posse. (none)
    This is one of the few serious issues that we have to fight. The SCLM apparently want this to happen. And it can. We can stop this disaster.
    We still have a network after Nov 3rd, it didn't die. We, you, all of us need to use it. I work with dozens of people about to retire and they aren't exactly day-traders or have confidence in the economy. I have a crap-load of numbers and email addresses of writers, politicans, and media types leftover from 11/04. Heck, I'm a member of various left-wing groups now that I think about it.
  •  Scare the younger crowd (none)
    The younger crowd will truly be scared of  having to care for poor, elderly parents.  Somehow we need to make them understand that that would be the future.

    Quote of the day: Bush administration tactic: invent a fake crisis to get what you want. - Paul Krugman

    by reform dem on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 05:42:02 PM PST

  •  Tom Toles hits the nail on the head (none)
    Toles is the resident WaPo editorial cartoonist. This excellent cartoon captures the essence of Bush's piratization in two simple panels.
  •  Take the fricking gloves off , Dems (none)
    As a former repub, I know that they see us as the enemy as will do anything to defeat us.  Take the damn gloves off and start fighting them.  Yes, we have to fight dirty.  Yes, we need people (as does the CIA) who will go into the trenches and deceive and lie and be a real a$$hole to get our point across.  It is all nice and well to be a perfect lady or gentleman.  Until the man across the street is kicking our ass for 6 years.

    Take the fricking gloves off.  Be serious about this.

    New York - One of the last bastions of the Enlightenment

    by Maren on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 06:01:08 PM PST

  •  we have to stop this (none)
    but does anybody besides me think that this Progress for America is ad is lousy?  I don't mean that some people might not be convinced by it, but it's really not very good.
  •  soylent green (none)
    The true republican social security plan is "Soylent Green".
  •  Irony (none)
    Here we have the image of a leader who transcended his background and class for the good of all America (and by some accounts saved it) used by a leader who seems more a shill for his own narrow interests and agenda while disregarding the greater American good.  The term bastardization fits here, I think. The user might learn something from the man whose image he is using.  
  •  Great Depression (none)
    After the repugs drives America into another Great Depression Americans should round them up an put them in "Judas Camps". And each repug in the Judas camps is given a rope!
  •  Yeah, I Saw This on CNN This Morning (none)
    Cheeky bastards, (ab)using FDR.

    I immediately sent the warning out to my email list about it.

    Welcome to TLA News: The world's least trusted news network

    by Dean Nut on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 07:27:51 PM PST

  •  Cass Sunstein book (none)
    Has anybody here read Cass Sunstein's recent book "The Second Bill of Rights: FDR's Unfinished Revolution, and Why We Need It More Than Ever"?  Good stuff.  He makes a pretty strong case for not only saving Social Security, but making various economic rights (to a living wage, health care, etc.) as important as political rights such as freedom of speech and religion.  One can argue with some of his explanations as to why this isn't the case today, but it's tough to argue with his reasoning on why those rights are desirable.  Check it out on Amazon:

    The Second Bill of Rights

  •  Shameless Bastards !! (none)
    What else is there to say about those bastards?

    They have no shame.  No conscience.  No sense of duty and no frame of reference.  To use FDR in that context is the lowest of the lowest.  

    I am honestly beginning to believe more and more that Bush is being blackmailed by someone about something very shameful (to him) in his past.  

    I think Grover Nordquist has pictures.  Of what?  My mind runs wild thinking about the possibilities . . . .

    And, speaking of shameful, Bush has already fucked AARP once.  Will they allow it again?

  •  We're all on the same page here. (none)
    Stop wringing our hands over them stealing a march on us. We know what we need to do, and it needs to be done now. We need to stop talking & start doing. We have more good ad ideas than we could use in a century. Where do we send the $$?

    As long as I count the votes, what are you going to do about it? - William Marcy Tweed

    by sidnora on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 08:15:15 PM PST

  •  Jon Stewart (none)
    Now Bush is pushing this African-Americans live shorter than everyone else. I thought Coburn was crazy for saying shit like that during the Oklahoma debates with Carson. What is wrong with this. This is nearly overt use of race to political ends.

    "You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it." -Malcolm X

    by PsiFighter37 on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 08:17:59 PM PST

    •  for white consumption only (none)
      Africsn-Americans hate Bush and aren't listening to him .

      That rhetoric is designed to make the white upper-middle class feel less guilty about gutting the program. Call it the Clarence Thomas effect.

  •  Social Security = Insurance from elderly poverty, (none)
    especially elderly women, and minimal protection for the average Joe and Jane Doe from the risks associated with free market economies and globalization.

    The GOP wants to kick grandma to the curb and strip away any minimal protection keeping you from ending up on the curb due to their holy free market economy.  

    Look, if we as a nation want free markets fine, but there has to be a safety net to give people a bit of dignity and protection in their old age if they ended up a casualty of the our free market economy.

    Remember, the Ken Lay's of the GOP destroyed the retirement funds of thousands upon thousands of workers through their corruption...

    Remember that many companies no longer offer pensions...

    Remember that of the pension plans that do still exist many are underfunded and Congress is allowing them to remain underfunded (which will lead to a pension bailout that rivals the S&L bailout that the Bush family is oh so familiar with via Neil "Hookers and Gin" Bush )...

    It is immoral to deep-six Social Security.  The GOP is playing with people's lives and they think it is all a f-ing game.  

    As for the ads attacking the GOP's stupidity and callousness, just show pictures of the Depression, maybe find a few people who actually remember it, and show that we have SS to prevent the poverty that occurred as a result of the depression.

    If people need fear to motivate them, then make them fear that if they allow BushCo to get away with this bullshit they will be relegated to eating Friskies in their old age while fat cat Repubs dine on caviar and prime rib at their expense.

    Only those who dare to fail greatly can ever achieve greatly. -- Robert F. Kennedy

    by LionelEHutz on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 09:05:21 PM PST

  •  OK, liberals, draw a line, stop bitching, and... (none)
    do something about it.

    To be frank, I got into this because I felt, like Howard Dean said, we could make a difference.  No one seems to be willing to really make even a simple change like a cigarette brand - and I did, way back in November - because then they might have nothing to complain about.

    Is $8 million in Inaugural 05 Contributions meaningless??

    Is $17.8 million in executive contributions meaningless?

    $59 million in PAC contributions??

    Soneone please post this *** info to the front page of Kos because I am getting the impression all people want is to debate - or worse, complain - when the answer is quite bleeping simple.

    Did that $80 million materialize from thin air?  No.  YOU, yes YOU, the progressive voter, contributed to it.

    All you need do is drive to the Costco instead of the Wal-Mart. Buy Quest smokes instead of Marlboro Lights.  Buy Kellogg's cereal, not General Mills.  Maybe we're making a massive influence here - but no one is reporting it if so.  If you feel personally offended here because you are, I apologize - but we get very little indication of it.

    It is time for us to play the Republican's game.  Kick their asses at it.

    Yes, this might seem to be a flame-out but it's getting there.  I started the List - the first one of its kind - because I thought it would make a Difference.  Maybe Howard Dean was wrong.

    Prove me right.

    Here's who gave to Progress for America - posted earlier with zero responses.  It's probably incomplete since it was just a quick scan.  Just look at and you will see some of the same red companies bankrolling the coronation, though.

    American Assets, Inc, El Camino, CA. (direct: $500)
    American Financial Group: (exec: $1,250,000)
    Ameriquest: (Executive: $4,000,000)
    Amway: (Executive: $2,000,000)
    API Group: (Executive: $1,000)
    BP Capital: (Boone Pickens, I do not think this is related to BP) $2,500,000
    Charles Schwab: (Executive: $50,000)
    Compatico: (Direct: $10,000)
    Davey Tree Expert Company (executive: $705)
    Hubbard Broadcasting: (executive: $15,000)
    Oracle: (Executive: $100,000)
    Perry Homes (Houston, TX): (executive/owner: $3,000,000)
    Pilgrim's Pride: (executive: $100,000)
    TRT Holdings (Gold's Gym, Omni Hotels): (direct: $1,000,000, executive: $1,000,000)
    Trammell Crow: (executive: $100,000)


    Treason hides in your grocery store. Details here

    by zgw on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 09:24:35 PM PST

    •  From that list, I would conclude (none)
      it's all the companies who'd like to get their grubby little hands on SS funds: financial service firms and "greed is good"-types like Larry Ellison of Oracle.

      I notice that you can't find out who is behind it on the website. In my line of work that would be called a totally untrustworthy website.

      "You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

      by Glinda on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 11:11:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Information on the scammer's propaganda site (none)
    Here's what I got on the info on another Bush propaganda website that hosted the nazi ad.

    Sullivan & Mitchell, PLLC (PROGRESSFORAMERICA2-DOM)
       1100 CONNECTICUT AVE NW STE 330
       WASHINGTON, DC 20036-4154


       Administrative Contact:
          Sullivan & Mitchell, PLLC  (C13480-OR)
          1100 CONNECTICUT AVE NW STE 330
          WASHINGTON, DC 20036-4154
          202 861-5900 fax: 202 861-6065

       Technical Contact:
          Stock, Tom  (TS6530)
          TSE Enterprises, L.L.C
          3101 E Shea Bvld Ste 201
          PHOENIX, AZ 85028
          602-992-5408 fax: 602-992-5468

       Record expires on 12-Feb-2006.
       Record created on 12-Feb-2001.
       Database last updated on 13-Jan-2005 01:43:15 EST.

       Domain servers in listed order:


    •  The administrative contact e-mail (none)
      belongs (belonged) to Cleta Mitchell. Googling her comes up with some very interesting information, including testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee about the 1st Amendment rights of Tax Exempt Organizations:
      Those cases involve guaranteed First Amendment rights of citizens to do the following:
      • voluntarily associate with other like-minded persons in private organizations without having to disclose that association to the government
      • anonymously disseminate their views on political issues, including issues at election time
      • know in advance what speech is going to be subject to government regulation and which speech is not subject to government regulation
      The right to voluntarily associate with other like-minded persons in private organizations without having to disclose that association to the government.

      Isn't this yet another example of conflating individual 1st amendment rights with the more controversial and tenuous concept of corporate 1st amendment rights.

      However, in my mind it is far worse ethically that this site is soliciting contributions without properly disclosing who is behind it and specifically how the contributions will be used. To my way of thinking they are not much above the scammers who seek to steal people's identity and credit card information.

      Well at least they state:

      PFA is an issue advocacy/grassroots organization committed to keeping the issue record straight and serves as a conservative ?Issue Truth Squad.? It is the only such organization in the country!

      [the question marks are theirs and apt!}

      Gee I thought the Swifties were supposed to be a conservative "Truth Squad".

      "You don't lead by pointing and telling people some place to go. You lead by going to that place and making a case." - Ken Kesey

      by Glinda on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 11:46:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Where's Tony? (none)
    This is where we need Tony Blair. I bet he's had a lot to say about Social Security, now that it's a hot issue in Britain.

    Maybe we could put up one of the MPs to put it to him during questions: "Mister Speaker, would the honorable Prime Minister care to tell us how we are going to bail out the troubled privatization of retirements that was foisted on us by the conservative government of Margaret Thatcher?"

    Liberal Thinking

    Think, liberally.

    by Liberal Thinking on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 12:29:31 AM PST

  •  Bush IS Scrooge (none)
    Are there no prisons?  Are there no work houses?  Bah humbug to W!
  •  3 workers per retiree and it's in surplus (none)
    Why can't one of our so-called leaders point out this obvious factoid: It doesn't matter that once 16 workers were supporting one retiree. Today, three workers are supporting one retiree and the program is running a surplus.
  •  Sounds like a Miller High Life commercial (none)
    Is it me or does the narrator for this commercial sound like the Miller High Life voice?

    Odd choice of voice talent.

    "Risk the future with private accounts -- that's the high life."

  •  Car Insurance Analogy (4.00)
    I just made this comment in a diary, but I was afraid no one would see it:

    Last night I asked a friend if he had written letters to his Senators and Congressman yet? He had and he told me the analogy he used in his letters. He compared private SS accounts to car insurance. He said it would be like deciding to cancel your car insurance and investing the premiums in a savings account. Then, if you are in a car accident, you could use the savings account to pay for the damages, possibly a large sum if you injured or killed someone. He said to me that most people would think, hell no, that is a terrible idea (cancelling your car insurance). I thought he had a great analogy, and I think the key is that it highlights that SS is INSURANCE, not an investment like Bush is saying.

    •  Excellent analogy. (none)
      I said much the same thing to my husband the other night.

      "It's not supposed to be enough to buy a Hatteras and island hop for your retirement.  It's supposed to be there so if you lose everything you saved for retirement you don't have to eat dog food or live in a cardboard box."

  •  Brainwashed? (none)
    This is pure propaganda!

    Karl Rove so despised FDR, because his social security program brought more votes to the Democratic party.

    Bob Novak thinks that Bush's new program will bring more votes to the Republicans.

    This is just pure political propaganda. No different than the false claims about WMD.

    They have their facts wrong on this one.

    People vote for sunshine, not for gloom and doom!

    by missliberties on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 09:01:42 AM PST

  •  Social Security "not being there" (none)
    Young people should be afraid that SS won't be around for them, but not for the reasons the Republicans use.

    As those of us on this site know, SS will remain solvent for another 50 years even if nothing whatsoever is done, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

    But how long do you think that surplus is going to last if this country defaults on its debts, and essentially goes bankrupt? That surplus - which, theoretically is supposed to be in a "lockbox" - will be the first thing to go.

    Likewise, if trillions of dollars are diverted away from the trustfund via "privatization," how long is that trustfund going to last?

    I said it upthread, but I'll say it again: trying to "save" Social Security by "privatizing" it is like trying to repair your leaky, collapsing roof by remodeling the kitchen.

    my weblog and my website - they're, uh, in progress, OK?

    by snookybeh on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 09:43:57 AM PST

  •  For the White House suggestion box (none)
    Using the rationale for SS overhaul in the ad (then:16
     working to each retiree, now: 2 working for each retiree),
    why wouldn't the obvious solution to President's "crisis" be MORE people with JOBS, now and in the future?

    Keeps the focus on the immediate problem of his wacky economic policies.

  •  FDR's... (none)
    ...grandson, Del Roosevelt, used to be my city councilman (in Long Beach, California)...

    I wonder how he would feel about the use of his grandfather's image to destroy SS? Then again, Del is a Republican...

    "The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State, because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government" - Teddy Roosevelt

    by mrboma on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 11:01:03 AM PST

  •  Commercial Idea (none)
    Here's a couple of ideas I had for a set of counter-commercials.  I'm not sure if anyone's posted anything similar, as I didn't have time to read all of the comments.

    Commercial Series (Various renditions of the same theme): (a) A couple is sitting in a restaurant awaiting their meals.  The waiter comes out of the kitchen and dumps chunks of random food detritus with fragments of broken plates jammed therein onto the table in front of each of them.

    MAN (baffled): What did... this is, um... you, uh... this doesn't look like filet mignon.

    WAITER: Why, sure it is.

    MAN: No it's not.

    WAITER: I assure you, sir, that is the filet mignon.

    MAN: What did you do to it?

    WAITER: We decided to, uh, "reform" it.

    WOMAN (looking down at blob of equally unidentifiable food and ceramic shards): I can't eat this.

    Fade to black, with slightly-greyer-than-white letters on the screen, and a deep-voiced narration of the same words: "Reform isn't necessarily a good thing.  Some things are fine just the way they are."  (Or, alternatively, something similar with the same message.)


    (b) A little girl comes home from school to find that all of the furniture in the house, and all of her toys, have been melted, burned down, sawed in half, welded together, and broken in other miscellaneous ways.  She wanders in bafflement through the house for a bit until she stumbles across her father, who is wearing a welding mask and blowtorching a Barbie doll.

    GIRL: Dad!  My doll!

    DAD: Do you like it?

    GIRL: No, you RUINED it!  What did you do to the house?

    DAD: I felt like doing a little reforming.  Do you like how I reformed the furniture?  (gets an excited look on his face)  Ooh!  Wait'll you see your doll house!  (Or, for a bit of darker humor, replace "your doll house" with "the dog".)

    Cut back to the girl, with a really terrified look on her face.  Fade to black, and aforementioned ending.


    The rest of the commercials would be variations on this theme.

    (Obligatory signature plug for which I beg your forgiveness | Enter the Jabberwock Dot Com)

    by Jabberwock on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 01:17:19 PM PST

  •  FDR and Bush (none)
    Let's get  FDRs grandson on TV and let him explain this!  We must not take this crap!  People see the commercial and think that FDR supports Bush.
  •  Using (none)
    FDR in this ad is equivalent to a pro-choice group using Reagan and having him appear to want to strengthen pro-choice protections.

    Or the ACLU splicing images of Nixon talking about rescueing civil liberties.

    Or, Reagan again, being used by the Sierra Club
    What's next, conservatives running ads with JFK and MLK attacking basic civil rights legislation?

  •  I wish I could remember (none)
    who said this, and the exact quote; it would be a bombshell in an ad, tho - some Club for Growth type slime who recently said that "this was their best opportunity with Social Security in 60 years! 60 years ago the only thing Repugs ever tried to do to SS was kill it. Not "fix"it.

    Can anyone get me  the source of this quote?

    As long as I count the votes, what are you going to do about it? - William Marcy Tweed

    by sidnora on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 05:43:55 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site