Will democrats cave on Social Security?

"President George W. Bush said Americans are ``expecting bipartisan effort and results'' on changing Social Security, the tax code and other issues from his victorious campaign against Senator John Kerry."

What do you think? I hate to say it, but I vote yes.

it will pass without them; that's the tragedy.

nt

really mad old people beating down their doors with their canes and walkers. I will be leading them.

the disabled running them over with scooters and wheelchairs!!

I don't recall that he put out any substantive plans on the table for during the campaign.

except terror, terror, terror. Politics of fear, not plans for the future. Rest assured, he will push this through. And if dems are smart they will take this fight to the people, and make it their wedge issue.

:mad:

around the filibuster rule. I would not be surprised to see five democratic Senators vote with Bush on his Social Security plan.

Somewhat as an aside, I expect a lot of Reich Wingers to be really pissed at Bush when the details of his plan for Social Security come out. Like all republican welfare queens, they think that they are going to get something for nothing, and they won't like the truth.

I'm all for holding the dems accountable, but here on DU people sometimes tend to keep moving the bar.

Like with Bush's judicial appointments, even when the dems kept fighting (and remember, Daschle probably lost his job over the filibusters, which not many people predicted the dems would do) people kept on bashing them.

So, before the action starts on Social Security, what exactly are your demands?

There is no way to do it without engendering yet more debt, and it will certainly bankrupt the system for current beneficiaries sooner.

to dismantle ..once and for all..FDR's Programs for the Country!

To any lurking freepers..EAT SHIT!

if that's what you mean, it's a good question. There's a certain Southern senator that would certainly have voted with Bush, but fortunately he's retiring.

I think only a very small number of dems will vote with Bush.

A better question might be, since they have the majority, which republicans will hang with Bush, and which will defect?

which we know is a joke -- the election was a fraud.

When Republicans really screw up, they always site that bi-partisan support to avoid accountability. "Congressional Democrats saw the same intellegence", "They voted to autohorize military force", how many times do we need to stick our fingers in that light socket? They get nothing but smear campaigns for their generosity.

The Republicans think they have the votes to touch the third rail, we don't need to attach jumper cables to our party.

Do you know how many Democrats there are? Do you know how many of them do not want their mothers or -- heaven forfend -- their mothers-in-law -- living in their houses? Even the GOP rank and file is in agreement with us on this, they just don't know it yet.

There is a point beyond which if our leaders do not lead, then we are in actual danger of violent revolution. Middle class people will not stand by idly and be pushed back into households ruled by witchy MILs.

Seriously, people...

Social Security is the most successful government program in American history and the proud legacy of Democrat FDR.

They are not going to let it go quietly.

From something I've posted a couple of times today.

Our ads should be single issue ads. No more shotgun (multiple issue) ads. They should tell a story--note these can be archetypes and use actors. . . . Mary and Phil whose marriage is strained because Phil's mom is asking if she can come and live with them because she doesn't think she'll have enough social security to live on when she retires in a few years

The point is to draw the viewer in to a story, an emotional vignettes he or she can identify with. The protagonist should not talk to the viewer (well, maybe a quick one or two lines). The ads should be a slice of life, a mini soap opera. These ads do not change our message but they bring our values to life. It is not abandoning our principles but repackaging them and making them vivid.

There is benefit from analyzing what went wrong (picking over the bones), but I had the uncomfortable feeling that the campaign was too cerebral, too rationale. I didn't see the danger because that approach resonated with me. But even if I had I didn't/don't know anyone of influence to suggest this idea to. Finally, the fault lay in not analyzing Republican success and co-opting it.

35 senators are up in 2006. Chimpy only thinks he has a mandate. Santorum is up and if he goes against the will of PA, he goes.