If only they would
I forgot where I read it (think it was a comment at some blog) but some Republican supporter stated essentially that now that the right had successfully taken back the White House, Congress and the Media, the next step was universities to get rid of liberal brainwashing. Some on the right seem to think they’ve won and the pax romana will endure. I don’t think I agree. If the Rs continue this big government trend, their run will be brief if there’s any party at all that can compete. The Democrats, currently, can’t do that. They’re too busy licking their wounds. The Ds were trounced in the last two elections cycles and it may be good for that party. Maybe they’ll distance themselves from the far left and I bet Michael Moore doesn’t get any more invites to their parties.
The Democrats are currently the obstruction party. They’re trying to stop Social Security reform, judges and other things. They haven’t really presented what they want to do other than to say we want to stop Republicans from their evil plan to kill puppies, starve old people, and ruin the environment. Well, that’s how their message comes across any way.
And, as I’ve said before, the Democrats are becoming a regional party.
Fûz, in addition to pointing out From the point of view of individual rights and the free market, the GOP may be second-rate firemen, but the Donks are first-rate arsonists, has a little game to play:
“The Democrats could be a resurgent political force in the United States if only they would,” [fill in the blank with your favorite killer policy prescription].
He lists a few ideas and notes that the Dems could embrace, like the second amendment and property rights. My suggestions:
Treat gun rights seriously
Stop catering to the loons (the right should do this too, by the way)
Value property rights
Value capitalism
Stop running candidates that suck
Realize that the people are taxed too much
Get serious about the war and actually develop, you know, a position
What are your thoughts?
February 11th, 2005 at 6:50 pm
[…]
If only they would – redux
|By SayUncle|
In a follow up to this, I’d venture to guess that if Republicans continue this big governmen […]
February 11th, 2005 at 10:25 am
My thoughts?
“Maybe they’ll distance themselves from the far left”
The coronation of Howard “I have a scream” Dean as head of the DNC seems to contradict this wish…
February 11th, 2005 at 10:29 am
Hate to be a link whore, but I had some thoughts on the branding of the Democrats yesterday. Read it as well as the column I linked to. Doesn’t address specific issues, but talks about the general problems they are facing.
February 11th, 2005 at 10:32 am
Dean turned in his run for presidency. He actually seemed OK prior to that.
February 11th, 2005 at 10:46 am
Some members of the democrats are licking their wounds and preparing for the next election (Clinton). Others think that the right is wrong and america was just tricked. As long as this division continues they will continue to lose national elections.
as to you suggestions, i think that if they did some of those things they would not be socialists anymore.
as to removing the liberals from the schools. I am not really for that, i am more for a balance of thought in universities. Let the kids listen to all the sides in school and make up their minds on what they belive when they get out of school.
February 11th, 2005 at 10:53 am
Thoughts? Ahha. Uhm, a few:
Michael Moore is not “far left”.
The Democrats are not obstructing social security reform, they are obstructing social security sabotage and dismantling. Social Security doesn’t need extensive reform.
This argument annoys me to no end. The Democrats aren’t in power, hence they are the opposition, whose primary political advantage is to be able to criticize with impunity. This is a role that every party in that position falls into. The Republicans spent 8 years hatin on Clinton. Newt Gingrich practically made a career out of prognosticating the collapse of the federal government because of Clinton’s tax policy.
February 11th, 2005 at 10:53 am
Also, the characterization of Howard Dean as “far left” is also pretty laughable.
February 11th, 2005 at 10:58 am
Chris,
I think moore is the far left. And even if he’s not, the perception is that he is.
I have seen no proposal to dismantle SS, though i’d like to.
I agree that they are the opposition party but they need to start acting like. They laid down and died over gonzales. If they should have stood up for one thing, that was it.
February 11th, 2005 at 12:08 pm
Hmmm…if the left should move right (to the center) and the right should move left (to the center), then there should be three parties: a center with two fringes. The Centicrats!
Just a thought…better hurry and post this before my Remote Desktop connection drops.
February 11th, 2005 at 12:13 pm
They laid down and died over gonzales
If memory serves, all but 6 D’s opposed Gonzales..I wouldn’t call it rolling over. They could have made more of a fuss about it.
The Democrats are currently the obstruction party. They’re trying to stop Social Security reform, judges and other things
This is more marketing and being in opposition than anything else. The R’s also did stuff to stop judges when Clinton was in power (though it somehow got less attention..thanks liberal media). You may have your own opinions on social security that conflict with the D’s, but most people do want SS preserved. They could do a better job of marketing other solutions like a flat tax rather than regressive tax on wages, etc.
I have seen no proposal to dismantle SS, though i’d like to.
How do you propose that this will happen? Just tell senior citizens that they won’t be getting checks anymore? That’ll fly. Tell those near retirement not to expect anything? Even if we said that everyone under 65 as of today won’t get anything, we would still need to collect SS taxes, in order to keep paying those people who’ve retired. Again, not something thats likely.
February 11th, 2005 at 12:22 pm
“How do you propose that this will happen?”
I don’t. It never will. Such a thing would have to involve buying out everyone. In other words, your balance at this date is $X. Here’s a check for $X. Which is why it won’t happen.
February 11th, 2005 at 12:22 pm
“Also, the characterization of Howard Dean as “far left” is also pretty laughable.”
Yeah, pushing the theory that Bush “knew” about 9/11 beforehand and allowed it to happen is pretty fuckin’ mainstream, right?
:rollingeyes
February 11th, 2005 at 12:55 pm
“Social Security doesn’t need extensive reform.”
The “extensive” modifier gives you some wiggle room, but certainly lots of Democrats were looking to reform it prior to Bush’s plan. With payouts reduced to 70% in 2042, something’s gotta change.
And, yeah, Howard Dean is far left. So say these three people, none of whom is a crazed Republican. Remember, Dean is the guy who thinks everyone in the south drives a pickup truck with a confederate flag bumpersticker.
Does anyone have a link to a good collection of Dean quotes?
February 11th, 2005 at 12:59 pm
“but most people do want SS preserved.”
It depends if you talk to people who are 30 and younger, you might find out that they could care less about it, and wish that they could have kept the money that put into it.
You should say most old people who do not have any money want their checks.
As to the social disablity component in social security, that should be broken out and every single claim should be monitored (because i suspect there is a large amount of savings to be hand in that program.) anything that is permanent welfare needs to be monitoried closely.
February 11th, 2005 at 2:48 pm
Yeah, pushing the theory that Bush “knew” about 9/11 beforehand and allowed it to happen is pretty fuckin’ mainstream, right?
Howard Dean PUSHED the theory that Bush knew about 9/11? That’s news to me. I remember an out-of-context quote, but that was about it.
but certainly lots of Democrats were looking to reform it prior to Bush’s plan.
Even a Bush aide as admitted that privatization (or whatever they are calling it these days) isn’t going to solve SS’s problems. They are only going to exacerbate them.
And, yeah, Howard Dean is far left. So say these three people, none of whom is a crazed Republican
None of the three people said that he was far left. They only said that Dean had certain flaws as DNC chair. EVERY person would have flaws as the DNC chair. Every candidate is going to get criticized by people of their own party. There are lots of Republicans who criticize Bush and every other R president for that matter has their detractors in their own party. This is quite normal.
Remember, Dean is the guy who thinks everyone in the south drives a pickup truck with a confederate flag bumpersticker.
Can you show me where Dean said that EVERYONE in the south has a pickup truck with a confederate flag on it.
February 11th, 2005 at 2:51 pm
Manish, I think he meant Moore in reference to 9/11.
February 11th, 2005 at 3:13 pm
Jay,
“far left” is not the same as “out of the mainstream”. Leftism is a (poorly defined and overloaded) political conetxt. This has more, if you’re interested. I don’t know what Dean said about 9/11 and Bush, but it hardly has any bearing on his predilection for socialism or liberalism.
Uncle, the same goes for Moore. He’s at worst a provocateur. He’s often painted as an “extremist”, but I’ve rarely seen any quotes that demonstrate that fact particularly well.
Naturally, the proposal is not for the dismantling of SS, but rather (what details of it have emerged, at least) it is for benefit cuts and privatization, neither of which do anything to do anything to sustain the system as it is, and rather have the potential to destroy it.
Democrats were looking to reform the system to make it sustainable with minor fixes (usually, a mix of benefit cuts and tax increases). Josh Marshall has a very good article that addresses this. He highlights the difference between what Democrats tried to do on SS reform and what Bush wants to do now, stressing the difference between what he labels a “defined benefit” system and a “defined contribution” system.
As for 70% reduced payouts, as far as I’m concerned the only relevant factoid is that the cost to fix the problem is less than the cost of Bush’s tax cuts. It’s glaring contradictions like this that are the reason the republicans are on the losing side of any high-minded, objective debate on the sustainability of social security.
I realize there’s like some subconscious conflation of the two ideas here, but not liking someone or thinking they are crazy is not the same as being ‘Far left”.
And I don’t recall him saying that everyone in the south drives pickup trucks and waves confederate flags. I believe his quote was to the effect that he wanted the Democratic party to be inclusive of the people that do, which is a contentious statement in and of itself, but that’s a debate for another day.
I don’t have any numbers that speak to that specific demographic, but there have been polls in the past that show overwhelming support for preserving social security over increasing tax cuts. For example, this one.
But, your comment highlights the most tragic element of this debate. Social security’s arrangement is a social contract of the highest order. The bottom line is that there’s nothing that affects its sustainability beyond our own willingness as a society to sustain it. Period. The opposition to social security, however, has waged a decades-long marketing campaign against social security, using words like “crisis” and “bankrupt”. And it has worked. Rare is it that anyone these days brings up social security without making a joke about how “I’ll never see a penny of that money”.
Social contracts don’t work so well if people lose faith, and it’s a lot easier to dismantle a social program if people already think it’s broken.
The problem is that it’s not broken, and there’s no crisis. It’s a manufactured panic and it’s a disingenuous attempt to starve a program that they can’t eliminate by honestly proposing it to the American people.
February 11th, 2005 at 4:32 pm
Manish and Chris: these quotes from the articles I linked is what I mean when I say that those authors think Dean is far left, even if they don’t conveniently use that exact phrase:
February 11th, 2005 at 5:40 pm
Les..both of the quotes that you note both talk about an “image” of being “far left” or “out of touch” or whatever, not that he is necessarily “far left”. Its a bit of a misnomer as even the most ardent conservative is probably “far left” on some issue or other. I know hard core Republicans who are pro-gay marriage (apparently a position of the far-left), anti-death penalty (again far-left), pro-choice (seems to be slowly turning into a far-left position), anti-war (again far-left). It all kind of depends on what you mean by “far left”.
If you look at Dean as a whole, he is far from being far-left. For instance, balancing budgets, which he did every year as governor, isn’t considered “far-left”..actually come to think of it, its only the “far-left” that seems concerned about deficits and the “mainstream right” who are unconcerned with the deficit growing. O.k. never mind.
February 11th, 2005 at 6:38 pm
Chris,
The problem with SS isn’t that it’s a social contract that people are losing faith in – the problem with it is that it’s a socialist program. It benefited the few at the expense of the many but most didn’t consider it to be too burdensome. Now & in the future the burden on the contributor will either have to increase or the benefits will have to be scaled back. The practical problems with it are a choice between higher taxes or decreased pay outs.
The ethical problems with it are too numerous to mention in a comment. But to sum it up it (like all forms of income taxation) are theft in the name of a semi-good cause. The gov is stealing my money to give it to someone else it feels is more worthy of it. That’s a basic principle of marxism (each according to his ability, etc) & most people outside acedemia, the press & government aren’t enamored with it in principal. But even if marxism enjoyed popular support (which when disguised as a national retirement program it usually does) it’d still be wrong as hell.
The main problem with our economy is that we’ve got one foot in a marxisit theology (SS, Medicare, etc) & the other in free market economics. Some might argue that combining the two is acceptable but in the long run I think it’ll prove unsustainable. It’s either got to be one or the other & I pity us if we chose marxism (which it seems we’re likely to do).
But to answer Uncle’s question one of the things the Dems should do to bolster their standing is stop pretending that theft for marxists causes is acceptable, or that the socialized programs fed by such theft aren’t troubled in fact as well as principle. (To be fair the repubs should do the same thing.)
Not that I’m gonna hold my breath for either party.
February 11th, 2005 at 7:40 pm
Jay G:
Umm, are you implying that Dean was “far left?” Since when do balanced budgets and an “A” rating from the NRA qualify someone for the “far left?”
February 11th, 2005 at 8:45 pm
Tgirsch,
An “A” rating form the NRA doesn’t mean a thing except the NRA sees some advantage in giving that person a good grade. GOA has a more accurate rating of pro v. anti gun candidates & politicians.
& balanced budgets are good but not indicative of a lean one way or the other. If someone proposes balancing a budget by increasing taxation by a few percentage points more than the increase in spending they want, then I’d be hard pressed to say that they’re conservative or even center right. Then again the center right has been adopting many leftist ideas so the latter may an incorrect assesment.
February 12th, 2005 at 12:52 pm
An A rating does mean something, but so does where you come from. Vermont is generally a far left state overall, but a pro-gun one nevertheless. What NRA ratings did Gov. Dean’s Republican opponents have?
February 13th, 2005 at 1:51 am
I’m certainly not going to get into a debate about the ethics of marxism at this point, but how exactly does social security “benefit the few at the expense of the many”?
February 13th, 2005 at 8:11 am
Oh sweet bloody Jesus. Seriously? Do you even know the Second Amendment? Do you? Here’s a tip: A sentence starts AT THE BEGINNING, with a capital letter. NOT after a comma, with a lower case letter.
The REAL Second Amendment:
http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html
Are you currently part of a MILITIA that is ABSOLUTELY NEEDED to protect the freedom of your State? Then guess what! You have NO RIGHT to bear arms according to your own bloody Amendment. If you actually took the time to understand – or at the very least READ – your own Constitution, you’d be AGAINST the freakin’ thing.
Meaning? Glad you asked: There would be NO PROBLEM AT ALL if gun control laws were established. If anything, you should be AGAINST the Second Amendment, because the Second Amendment DOES NOT give you the “right to bear arms”, it actually has the power to TAKE THEM AWAY. ZOMG!
Yay for reading!
http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_reports/1994/01/nra.sidebar.html
February 13th, 2005 at 10:03 am
Robin, you are not only wrong but quoting Mother Jones yields a big snore.
“The words ‘A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,’. . , constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying ‘militia,’ which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject ‘the right’, verb ‘shall’). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia. ”
For more, ou can go here:
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.html
As for the militia bit:
US Code: Title 10
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and,
except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United
States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are –
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
February 13th, 2005 at 6:25 pm
Chris,
a minority of th epopulace recieve social security benefits while a majority of th epopulace pays into the system. Hence the few benefit from the many.
Xrlq,
If you’ll re-read I listed an exception to the claim that the NRA’s rating system means nothing. My point was that it’s not typically an indicator of anything excpet that the NRA sees some political advantage in assigning it.
Robin,
I think Uncle did a fair job but I have to point something out – Where exactly in U.S. v. Miller does it say there is no individual Right acknowledged by the 2nd amendment? & if that’s the case then why wasn’t Miller remanded based on a lack of standing rather than a discussion of the merits of the case?
February 13th, 2005 at 7:00 pm
That would be a good point and grounds for a parallel to marxist/socialist thought .. if it were true. Too bad it’s not. Social security is not welfare. More than 90 percent of those over age 65 receive Social Security benefits. For 33% of those, it’s 90-100% of their income. For 32%, it’s 50-90% of their income. For 35%, it’s 50% or less of their income.
February 14th, 2005 at 12:32 am
Robin:
“Oh sweet bloody Jesus. Seriously? Do you even know the Second Amendment?”
And you cited *MILLER*?
February 14th, 2005 at 10:43 am
Chris,
Are you saying that those over 65 constitute a majority in this country? Now I admit my math may be a little fuzzy, but for social security to function at all it has to have more people paying in than receiving benefits. If you’re implying there are more people over 65 than under 65 then I’d not only be mistaken in my statement that you quoted but SS would be in dire, immediete trouble.
So unless my idea of population percentage by age is off I’d still say that SS is something that benefits the few (those over 65 & those under w/ certain qualifying conditions) at the expense of the many (damn near everyone who earns money is taxed for the SS system – even a good portion of those who receive benefits).
February 14th, 2005 at 12:01 pm
Publicola,
Social security is an inter-generational social contract. What you pay in you receive back in benefits when you retire.
There’s a good explanation of how social security works here, on Wikipedia. Maybe that will help clear up some confusion.
February 14th, 2005 at 3:09 pm
What a load of crap. I never signed any “social contract,” and neither did anyone else who can credibly claim to speak for my generation. If it were a contract, how bad does it have to get before I can hold the government in breach and repudiate it?
February 14th, 2005 at 3:36 pm
You’re a citizen of the United States, whose elected representatives legislated the social contract with the support of the people.You can vote for representatives to represent your desire to not have this legislation, as a citizen, or you can go hardcore libertarian and go live in a cave, or something, I don’t know. Alternatively, you can support the Republicans, who instead of honestly proposing dismantling an otherwise healthy system, are lying about its viability in order to “fix” it.
Well, I’d imagine the government would be in breach whenever it failed to deliver on its end of the social contract, which you’ll note has never happened. It could happen if revenues (taxes, our end of the bargain) and expenditures (benefits, their end) aren’t shored up, which, as currently predicted, would result in a drop in benefits paid to around 70%. This however is easily fixed. As I’ve noted before, the cost to do this is less than Bush’s tax cuts. Funny though how he never talks about the “solvency crisis” of the government at large because of his reckless financial policy.
February 14th, 2005 at 3:47 pm
“Social security is an inter-generational social contract. What you pay in you receive back in benefits when you retire.”
Chris:
1) Don’t believe everything you read on Wikipedia. I don’t consider it to be canonical for anything, unless I know who wrote the entries.
2) Bull.
3) It’s a Ponzi scheme as it’s currently set up. Wikipedia reference for you
There’s no contract and certainly no guarantee that anyone will get back the money they “paid in”, much less any additional.
Going back to your earlier:
“That would be a good point and grounds for a parallel to marxist/socialist thought .. if it were true. Too bad it’s not. Social security is not welfare.”
It is true. There are more required to pay in than take out. It redistributes money from workers to non-workers. (I don’t know how you’re redefining welfare, but it doesn’t matter). There are currently 4 contributors for every recipient – and that ratio is dropping with birth rates, increased longevity, etc.
February 14th, 2005 at 3:52 pm
“It could happen if revenues (taxes, our end of the bargain) and expenditures (benefits, their end) aren’t shored up”
Chris:
You really don’t know how SS *works*… Do you? You’re just repeating talking points.
If not, please inform us as to the difference between SS taxes, and payroll taxes. And where is the “SS lockbox”.
“who instead of honestly proposing dismantling an otherwise healthy system, are lying about its viability in order to “fix” it”
How old are you? SS goes red in 2018. Bankrupt in 2042. Presuming that nothing else changes, we don’t find ways to live longer in the meantime (which is a bad bet).
And you might note, 6 years ago, the Democrats and Clinton were very worried about it’s longevity – and actively working on fixing what you describe as a “healthy” system… Funny.. that’s not what they said then.
February 14th, 2005 at 4:07 pm
Anybody who talks about a “social contract” is only interested in repeating talking points, not in serious discussion. There is nothing remotely “contractual” about tax law, or for that matter, most other laws.
February 14th, 2005 at 4:23 pm
Wikipedia is a pretty good reference for basic common knowledge, such as how social security works. I find its model pretty interesting, but that’s a debate for another day.
I’d suggest you read your own URL, particularly the part where they discuss how state pension systems differ from ponzi schemes.
There is a guarantee in the law that governs the program. The faith and viability behind that guarantee are debatable, naturally, but simply saying it doesn’t make it so.
The non-workers are not getting something for nothing. They worked until retirement and also paid taxes that paid for SS benefits for the previous generation. See above re: inter-generational social contract.
This is because of fluctuations in generational size — we are currently on the cusp of the retirement of the baby boomers, as I’m sure you know. It’s the reason we’ve been running surpluses since the early 80s and the reason that the commission header by Greenspan recommended raising taxes and provisioning the trust fund to accomodate the predicted deficits to come. As far as whether or not it qualifies as “welfare” or not is inconsequential to me. What I am concerned with is whether or not it works. However the design of social security was specifically crafted to avoid any such perception in order to make it politically viable. This NYT Magazine article discusses this at length. It’s an interesting read.
Do you have an example of how I don’t understand how social security works? Diving into the ad-hominem arsenal a little early, aren’t we?
Are you asking me because you don’t know or because you’re trying to make a point? If the latter, I’m not exactly sure what it is. The “SS lockbox” doesn’t exist, insofar as the trust fund money is still being used to fund non-SS expenditures as it always has been. Republicans have proposed the “lockbox” at various times in the past, and Al Gore was mocked in the 2000 election for proposing it. What of it?
25.
SS starts running deficits, yes. An event we’ve known about for several decades, raised taxes in anticipation of, and built up a trust fund to support.
Incorrect. The trust fund runs out while we are still running deficits. Meaning we are faced with two options: benefit reductions (30% or so reductions) or tax increases. Which, as I’ve noted before, and again, would cost less than the total cost of Bush’s tax cuts.
They are choices to be made, and the choices made reflect priorities. Bush has decided that tax cuts are a priority over social security (or the general financial solvency of the government at large).
There are many differences between what the Democrats were proposing then and what the Republicans are proposing now. In any event, the Democrats then were and are not blameless, as the Clinton administration participated in the decades-long pillaging of the SS trust fund that is contributing to the problems we are currently facing. (For example, the first year Clinton announced a budget surplus, we were technically still in a deficit — it was the SS surplus that pushed us into the black.) Of course, Clinton followed through and paid down the deficit and actually did run real budget surpluses, something that is clearly beyond any Republican administration of the last few decades.
February 15th, 2005 at 1:27 am
“I’d suggest you read your own URL, particularly the part where they discuss how state pension systems differ from ponzi schemes.”
Chris:
I read it. That’s what you call a “set-up”. If you’d read it, instead of trying for the snark, you’d have seen where the best they can do is say that “some people say…” and end up admitting that, gee, in the end…. basically, yes, they’re Ponzi schemes – unless you have a continous increase in payers.
But in short, X has it right – you just want to repeat talking points. (If nothing else, the concept that Clinton “paid down the deficit” is so factually-challenged as to require far more space to explain to you – and you don’t really want to listen. (If you want to argue it, first, explain where the “surplus” was calculated (and by whom), and what time period it projected))
February 15th, 2005 at 10:30 am
Uncle:
To get back to your original point… I really don’t know what the Democrats can do – their current party structure is a almagation of special interests. It’s almost like a parlimentary system, where you get a lot of interests together, to make a ruling coalition (as I understand how that works).
As a result, doing anything to alienate any portion of that coalition leads to a smaller party.
For example. Dean is considered to be by many on the left to be very right on guns. Do you believe the DNC is about to stop the “gun show loophole” hysteria? “Assault weapon”? I certainly don’t.
Property rights (to use some more of what you suggested) are off limits, because that will let people do what they want – not what the Democrats KNOW they should.
Same goes for taxes. Look at Chris here, complaining he doesn’t pay enough in taxes now. Actually, what he means is *we* don’t – and he wants us to pay more.
The whole refrain against the tax cuts is case in point. Democrats could argue for a more efficient government (but they don’t). They support unions, and unfirable, unaccountable, powerful bureacrats (unless they do something they don’t like, in which case, who gave them the power, and why can’t we fire them!!!!?). They could agree that government revenue is up since the tax cuts, which is a good thing.
But they don’t *do* any of these. The few who talk any sense at all, Miller, and heck, even Lieberman! (who never met any of the Bill of Rights he didn’t want to outlaw) are cast out, and ignored.
February 15th, 2005 at 10:35 am
….
And things like “Social Security” are untouchable.
Now, I don’t see why it would be impossible to build a better SS program – the current one was planned to be a stopgap (and Roosevelt planned for -gasp- personal donations as it progressed (Knowing that it was a ponzi plan as constituted). But mention that to a Democrat – and look at the result, exhibited by Chris here. (Thanks for the example).
The Democratic party, in order to fix things, has to discover some core principles – and make them a central priority. Currently, the closest that they have is that Bush is the antiChrist, but for the fact that the only religion that is OK to demonize is Christianity, so he’s the anti-something.
So as a result, they have no plans, no alternative, no options. They’ve painted themselves into a corner, and there’s no easy way to get out – to get out now requires that they break down the party further, before they can grow – and that’s something anybody is loath to do. Getting worse before it gets better is not anything anybody wants to hear.
February 15th, 2005 at 1:19 pm
Roosevelt was quite clear in his intentions in instituting the “ponzi scheme”. From the NYT article I’ve referenced earlier:
The system’s design, and the trust fund itself, were designed specifically to address anticipated deficits (70 years ago! and yet it’s a “crisis” now?) and to avoid comparisons to straight welfare handouts, as it was funded from its own taxbase.
February 15th, 2005 at 1:22 pm
I am not sure what you are saying. Are you actually claiming Clinton never ran budget surpluses? Are you confusing deficits with debt, or maybe the more contentious issue of the projected surpluses at the time?