Negotiating away Social Security
White House spokesmen keep assuring us that preznit is just getting started on his Rolling Bullshit Revue, but the reviews from the early shows aren't so hot.
And as I suspected, the poll indicates that older folks don't like Bush's routine, not because they're afraid their checks will stop, but because they know the program works and shouldn't be replaced by Wishful Thinking.
But, of course, it's all the fault of The Party of No.
"[M]aking compromise seem like collaborating with Satan?"
First of all, the pressure that has really mattered to "moderates" has been coming from their constituents; the same is true for "conservatives" who also haven't yet signed on to the Good Ship Privatization. But if there's been a "relentless pressure campaign on moderates" it's because we "militants, bloggers and polemicists" have watched Democrats in Congress get taken by this president and the relentlessly partisan House leadership. Support for the president's insane tax cuts, the war in Iraq, etc., have not earned any "political capital" for Democrats in the House and Senate. So we will "relentlessly" remind Democrats of that unpleasant little fact, and offer up a suggestion for when to compromise and negotiate and when not: If you're selling your 1997 Ferrari F50 with only 11,000 kilometers on it, and you're asking $599,166.76 for it, but some drunken frat boy comes along and says he'll give you $100. You don't respond, "That's a little low, don't you think? Why don't we split the difference?" That would be stupid.
And when that same frat boy comes along and says he wants to negotiate in good faith, despite the fact that he fully intends to kill off Social Security, you likewise don't respond with, "Hey, why don't we meet him half way?"
No, you don't. You say to said frat boy, How much you give me for the Ferrari?" And when he says 100 bucks, you say, "Hmmm, I was thinking more in the 1 million range; how 'bout giving it another try?"
But Brook has received his talking points: Democrats are the Party of No.
And here's my favorite bit from Davey's column this morning:
Please. First of all, private accounts are all about benefit cuts. You will lose benefits in proportion to how much you've squirreled away in your magnificent gift to the financial services industry. If you're lucky, your investments will make an amount equal to or even better than what's been cut. But that still is a significant benefit cut, and if you were to retire in the economic equivalent of a year like, say, 2001, you'd be pretty well screwed.
And, again, the notion that the elderly have been frightened by Democratic demagogues (Are there any out there? Christ, we could use one or two.) is patently absurd.
More about the need for Democrats to "negotiate" and "compromise" or "pay a political price," here and here.
And Jesse over at Panda-gon shows us the joys of debating with Democratic "centrists." One of the commenters further illustrates my negotiating example:
Moreover, 58 percent of those polled this time said the more they hear about Bush's plan, the less they like it. The latest polling, combined with detailed interviews last week, shows that Bush's drive to significantly alter the 70-year-old national insurance program has run into significant hurdles with every age cohort.
And as I suspected, the poll indicates that older folks don't like Bush's routine, not because they're afraid their checks will stop, but because they know the program works and shouldn't be replaced by Wishful Thinking.
But, of course, it's all the fault of The Party of No.
When Social Security reform was broached, the party leaders went to the F.D.R. Memorial, as if the glory days of the 1930's were the guideposts for the 21st century. Meanwhile, the party base has grown militant with rage. The Howard Dean hotheads declare that they hate the evil Republicans, making compromise seem like collaborating with Satan. The militants, bloggers and polemicists have waged a relentless pressure campaign on any moderates who might even be thinking of offering constructive ideas.
"[M]aking compromise seem like collaborating with Satan?"
First of all, the pressure that has really mattered to "moderates" has been coming from their constituents; the same is true for "conservatives" who also haven't yet signed on to the Good Ship Privatization. But if there's been a "relentless pressure campaign on moderates" it's because we "militants, bloggers and polemicists" have watched Democrats in Congress get taken by this president and the relentlessly partisan House leadership. Support for the president's insane tax cuts, the war in Iraq, etc., have not earned any "political capital" for Democrats in the House and Senate. So we will "relentlessly" remind Democrats of that unpleasant little fact, and offer up a suggestion for when to compromise and negotiate and when not: If you're selling your 1997 Ferrari F50 with only 11,000 kilometers on it, and you're asking $599,166.76 for it, but some drunken frat boy comes along and says he'll give you $100. You don't respond, "That's a little low, don't you think? Why don't we split the difference?" That would be stupid.
And when that same frat boy comes along and says he wants to negotiate in good faith, despite the fact that he fully intends to kill off Social Security, you likewise don't respond with, "Hey, why don't we meet him half way?"
No, you don't. You say to said frat boy, How much you give me for the Ferrari?" And when he says 100 bucks, you say, "Hmmm, I was thinking more in the 1 million range; how 'bout giving it another try?"
But Brook has received his talking points: Democrats are the Party of No.
And here's my favorite bit from Davey's column this morning:
Instead, many made demagogic speeches about Republican benefit cuts, as if it is possible to fix the system without benefit cuts. Many ginned up the familiar scare tactics designed to frighten the elderly.
Please. First of all, private accounts are all about benefit cuts. You will lose benefits in proportion to how much you've squirreled away in your magnificent gift to the financial services industry. If you're lucky, your investments will make an amount equal to or even better than what's been cut. But that still is a significant benefit cut, and if you were to retire in the economic equivalent of a year like, say, 2001, you'd be pretty well screwed.
And, again, the notion that the elderly have been frightened by Democratic demagogues (Are there any out there? Christ, we could use one or two.) is patently absurd.
More about the need for Democrats to "negotiate" and "compromise" or "pay a political price," here and here.
And Jesse over at Panda-gon shows us the joys of debating with Democratic "centrists." One of the commenters further illustrates my negotiating example:
"Wingnut: 2+2=10
Liberal: 2+2=4
Centrist: Let's compromise, 2+2=7!"
-Sarcasto
To continue your dialogue:
Centrist: 2+2=7
Wingnut: No, be reasonable, 2+2=9
Centrist: Let's be fair 2+2=8
Wingnut: Deal! (Delay fixes bill in conference to 2+2=10)
Posted by: Col Bat Guano at March 15, 2005 03:22 PM
posted by John at 5:07 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home