I remember just after the ‘04 election and Bush was standing on his pulpit talking about spending all this “political capital” he now owned. And he was going to spend some of it on fixing Social Security. By fix, he meant privatize it, which would have destroyed it much like Bear Stearns got obliterated. The media man crush love for Bush was oozing out of most of the fish wraps and TV sets. MSNBC almost immediately hired Tucker Carlson to prove to Bush that they did indeed love him dearly.
Anyway, all the liberal blogs stuck together and said no way. The idiot media talking heads were screaming at the Democratic Party to come up with some ideas to fix Social Security or it would be bankrupt by 2018 or something. They stood fast and as Duncan points out, it was Nancy Pelosi that told them to shove it.
Dirty f*&king hippie bloggers knew how this game worked, that if the Democrats offered a plan they’d ensure that something would happen and that something would inevitably be pretty much what Bush wanted. Our plan was to not offer any plan, and in fact go nuclear on any Dem who did try to offer a plan.
As the spring of 2005 wore on, some pestered her every week, asking when they were going to release a rival plan. Never. Is never good enough for you?” Pelosi defiantly said to one member
Bush went on his Social Security tour and a funny thing happened. Americans loved Social Security more than Conservatives thought. It’s the most hated program from FDR’s new deal that Conservatives were trying to dismantle and they figured this would be their only chance to destroy it once and for all. The more Bush toured and shouted his lies about it to his hand picked loyalist crowds that gathered around him, the worse it did in the opinion polls. And that was that.
On the 78th day of a 60-day roadshow, the president’s nationwide Social Security tour, even to some of his own aides, has the feel of a past-its-prime Broadway production that has been held over while other, newer shows steal the spotlight.
No Trackbacks To “Let’s give Pelosi some credit on Social Security“
Do I HAVE to give her credit???
I never understood why SS was created?
Did u hear the BIG NEWS………. Obama has quit his church…… evidently it is to radical for his political career.
MSNBC isnt covering it…. they have another one of those prison reruns on instead.
MSNBC is reminding me of FAUX NEWS……. and not in a good way.
Thanks for Social Security, Nancy.
Now, will you tell Hillary Clinton that her campaign is over? Thanks. We need a Democrat in the White House next year.
Oh, and please stop letting any more Iraq funding through without dates attached for our soldiers to come home.
I hope Obama takes to heart this cautionary tale when McShrub tries to sell the same snake oil in the upcoming election campaign.
Roger from Ohio @ 2:
I don’t think it’s big news. It is news though. He should have done this along time ago.
No
mudshark @ 5:
It’s big news in that this in no way makes it go away, mudshark. It just brings all the unanswered questions to the forefront. But I do agree with you that he should’ve done it a long time ago- even though that wouldn’t have been easy for him to do, I’m sure.
Roger from Ohio @ 2:
MSNBC covered this about an hour and a half before you posted your comment. Sorry you missed it.
dennis @ 7:
The GOP were never going to stop throwing this at Obama. So the smart play was for him to distance himself from the church.
Now, If he would have done this immediately after the Rev’s comments. The GOP would have nothing to throw at him. But he hesitated , now he’s going to take some hits because of it. Because the repug’s will use this over and over and over.
[ Back on Topic Please.Site Monitor]
mudshark @ 5:
It will be news tomorrow no doubt. The Sunday Soaps, I mean Shows.
Sure, sure, Nancy Pelosi saved Social Security from the nimrods who want to let Wall Street play in the big money pile, but, but, but, what we really need to talk about is more bullsh*t about Obama and his church, ’cause that’s, like, real important.
I wrote in my latest blog entry: The Democratically controlled Congress has remained mum on investigating and prosecuting the Bush Administration over its plethora of crimes out of fear of “rocking the boat in an election year” for fear of hurting the Democrats chances in November. But what if McCain wins? It’s certainly not out of the realm of possibility with a divided Democratic Party. Will it of been worth it… passing up the opportunity to prosecute Bush, Cheney and the whole clan, only to end up with a Republican President anyway?”
Then the revelations from Scottie came out. In 1999, the GOP wasn’t worried about “the next election” when they impeached Bill Clinton. If anything, it helped them in November. Congress should not allow the Bushies to escape prosecution simply because they are affraid of affecting the November outcome. November shouldn’t factor into the equation at all.
It’s as though Nancy likes nothing on the table.
…makes it easier to clean I suppose.
Obama and his church can be on another thread.
THANKS, John, for giving Pelosi credit where it is due.
I was mad as hell at Pelosi till I read John Deans latest book,Broken Government.In it he talks about how the whole process of government was shredded,and Pelosi rather than go for impeachment went to take on the job of rebuilding the process;the way things work in the House,rather than getting revenge for the damage Bush and the Rs had done to it.In order to do this she had to take impeachment off the table and to get to work repairing the damage.Time will tell,and I`m still pissed that Bush and the criminals are still trying their best to ruin this country while making a ton of money.
Yes,we do have Nancy and some others in the Dems party to thank for Social Security,and we have Bush to thank for the mess that Homeland Security is as well as nearly every other dept. of our government.Whether they`ll be held accountable or not remains to be seen.But I think we have to be thankful to Nancy for keeping us out of the impeachment game because we never would have won with the game rigged as it is.If we had a more reliable majority in both House and Senate, yeah,go for it,but we didn`t. I`m glad she didn`t fall into that trap. Thanks Nancy.
Until impeachment is on the table Pelosi deserves no credit! Neither do any of the other spineless democrats!
At the height of Bush’s push to privatize Social Security, the then-congressman in my district, arch-Republican J. D. Hayworth had a poll on his web site, asking his voters which of four paths they wanted him to take to fix Social Security. Of course, this was a “push” poll, worded so most people would be steered to the “right” answer of privatization. Except that the voters weren’t cooperating. Of the four bad choices offered in his poll, the choice that was winning was “do nothing”. So the poll was removed from the site!
I would rather she devoted her time to setting up the impeachment table. There is plenty of time to take care of Social Security after Chimp leaves office and there’s no threat of his veto crayon.
Mugsy @ 12:
After reading Mugsy`s blog I tend to agree with him that the Dems should continue tokeep the heat on the Bush cabel.I still favor putting impeachment back on the table,but it will be very tricky.This is why I`m not in politics.
Amato:
Biting and acerbic attack on “news”papers.
I like it!
Anyway, it amazes me, too, that Bush’s by-the-nose-hair win was considered a “mandate” by the press, giving him the political “capital” to abolish Social Security. Perhaps the media that the press uses is indeed more important than the words printed on them — to wrap fish, perhaps use as a source for cellulosic Ethanol, use for insulation materials…
Too bad we can’t provide some utility out of the t.v. news broadcasts.
Ruthless People @ 17:
This is why I like Obama’s plan. Restore the constitution and dismantle the Shrub junta before enacting progressive legislation.
I’ve always thought Pelosi to be quite shrewd. She is usually aware of what is possible in politics and, in this case, adopted the strategy of letting the republicans fashion their own noose. Sometimes doing nothing is the best thing to do.
Peter G @ 21:
I think that doing nothing is a terrible choice. Will they do nothing if bush decides to attack Iran? The American people want action taken against these traitorous thugs in the bush crime family!
So…. what is the credit for? SS is still broken. SS private accounts would probably not have had the option to invest in morgage backed securities and so wouldn’t have imploded with bear stearns. Specifically, since Bear Stearns imploded because too many people made margin calls (asked for their money) on the fear that the bank was facing a liquidity crisis (didn’t have any money), the private accounts would NEVER have been in that situation.
So. Congratulations for doing nothing and getting us closer to the point when SS is a REAL, looming crisis and the options to deal with it are more painful.
I’ll give her credit for taking impeachment off the table like a spineless coward. Everything else she does falls under that black shadow.
Roger from Ohio @ 2:
I’m sure he’s quite happy with his church. The problem is America, One sound bite and you all come unhinged, running for the exits, like a fire has broken out in the theatre. He knows he can’t carry that into the GE. Don’t blame him, blame the stupid voters.
Nancy Pelosi is not only a great Speaker of the House but an extremely wise strategist. As much as I would have loved to have Bush and Cheney impeached and jailed for crimes against humanity it was/is not the time. Besides, it was quite enjoyable watching Bush beat his chops on SS. He claimed all of this momentum from a (stolen) election. And he was looking like a damned fool with all those selected ass kissers. “Gee, Mr. President-why are you so wonderful?”
Impeach cheney and bush @ 26:
An “extremely wise strategist”? If I took my company’s public approval ratings into the teens, I would not be considered an extremely wise strategist. I would be considered to be an extremely unemployed dufus.
I always figured the plan for privatizing social security, and everyone opening their own private investment accounts, was for the bankers, etc.. I now see they would have (most likely) sold you bundled sub-prime mortgage loans, as you retirement investment. If they went belly up, that would be fair market capitalism. I bet that was the plan all along. Then they’d blame you for poor investment choices, when you had nothing to live on in old age. Reads like a Republican wet dream, …don’t it?
Take HUGE profits up-front and socialize the losses.
Edwin Hussein @ 28:
I always figured that if I thought up other peoples’ proposals in my make-believe world and then assumed that the make-believe was real, my arguments would work! So because you assume that republicans would do things that you hadn’t even heard of 4 years ago, that means they would do it? I’m not saying they are angels. Any SS private accounts plan would have screwed over poorer citizens even if the republicans were perfect gentlemen (because of the fact that high income earners could not longs subsidize low income earners in retirement) and I’m sure that REAL republicans would have done worse, but come on now. Let’s be real.
Republicans are not in this business for sheer malevolence. I’m sure that malevolence (or at least misanthropy) is part of it, but it isn’t all of it. either way, assuming that republican motives are 100% foul means that little actually gets done to fix what is dreadfully wrong about social security. We will continue to push debt onto our children until it becomes a complete disaster. or we could compromise a bit and fix the system (FYI private accounts alone won’t fix it, nor are they required in a fix, they just change a few problems with the system in the eyes of republicans).
Chris F. @ 22:
Oh I think we all agree that that would have been a nice option but it simply wasn’t on the table. Given the slim majorities in both the house and particularly the senate it just wasn’t realistic. Can you imagine Lieberman supporting an impeachment never mind any of the republicans? No, any action taken against any member of the Bush administration would have to take place in the future when it will no doubt be regarded as moot.
You are correct about all of this. She did a fine job on this issue.
But it doesn’t make me feel any better about her being a war criminal. She was briefed in 2002 about the use of waterboarding, along with other members of congress, and she said nothing.
By all accounts SOMEONE in the room asked if we were going far enough in the harsh treatment of these prisoners. No one suggested we stop the illegal torture.
By my reckoning, that makes every one of them war criminals. I believe both American and International laws will back up that reckoning.
Adam Hyland @ 29:
I was completely aware of sub-prime mortgages 4 years ago. I just didn’t have a name to put on them. Every time I turned on the computer, I could borrow $360,000 for only $875 a month, “just click”. I did say, “I now see, and (most likely)”. You really don’t get how “this Republican majority” works, do you?
Edwin Hussein @ 32:
I know exactly how it works. I knew what the k-street project was back when it was just seen as a revolving door for lobbyists and Jack Abramhoff’s name wasn’t out there. I know that the 2002-2006 congresses were the most partisan in recent history and the 2006-2008 R. minority the most obstructionist in history (true story). I know that both legislative favors and government positions were held as quid pro quo for partisan support. I know all about the republicans.
But I’m suggesting that foaming, irrational contempt from SS private accounts is not founded in any evidence or reason that I can think of. Right now the SS trust fund is allowed to invest in one thing, government (federal) bonds. Presumably, were SS to be split into private accounts, new deposits would be allowed to invest in those same government bonds. I would also assume that like civilian government pension plans (take the DoD’s Thrift Savings Plan or TSP as an example) would provide a model for other options. The choices would probably be something like: A. Government bonds. B. A mix of low risk investment grade bonds from state governments and corporations. C. A mix of equity indices and mutual funds or D. A mix of the three.
How nefarious does that sound? Where (aside from the prospect of Sub-prime backed bonds being granted AAA rating, which isn’t really a partisian issue/decision) does the specter of sub-prime loans fit in?
Here are the real problems:
1. Deciding how the money gets invested would be a HUGE problem. this is a solvable problem, but the people in the SSA right now would have to come up with a pretty good way to solve it.
2. While we transition to private accounts, millions of people have been promised a set SS payment for their contributions, and that has to be honored. In the mean time (about 35 years), people turning 20 right now would have to “pay double” for current retirees and their own future (in a private account).
3. It stops redistribution from rich to poor. For democrats, this is a problem. For republicans it is a benefit. either way, it is not a death knell.
4. It doesn’t ACTUALLY solve SS insolvency. We would have to solve that another way (by reducing payments, raising FICA or other solutions).
So please don’t demagouge. It makes us (democrats) look bad.
I voted in 2006 for Pelosi and other dems to IMPEACH BUSH. Then she claimed we elected her to end the war.
Now its because she defeated the paper tiger of ending social security?
Screw Pelosi and the constantly shifting sands of the democratic party.
Some of you far-lefties are too hard on Pelosi and Reid. Let’s vote in a large number of other liberals and then judge them. They are working with slim majorities (or Lieberman in the Senate) and that that “Reagan Democrat” bullshit, and are having a tough time as a result.
we are past impeachment! They need to face prosecution for crimes against humanity, if they can’t be prosecuted for thousands of iraqis deaths then for 4000+ soldiers dead. Vote Cindy Sheehan!
Shag @ 35:
Wow- you make it sound as if they tried and failed. I’d have been happy if they’d done that.
Social Security can never go bankrupt as long as payroll taxes are being collected.
In the early 1980s, Reagan signed a bill that increased payroll tax collections, thus creating a surplus. In the next ten to fifteen years, this surplus will finally be tapped into, but it will take another thirty to forty years to use up this surplus, finally arriving at a point where payroll tax collections equal Social Security outlays. After this point is reached fifty some odd years from now, Social Security outlays may decrease relative to how much in payroll taxes is being collected, but Social Security will still be working as it was intended to work, just not at 100 percent efficiency.
So, contrast this faux crisis over Social Security and the Republicans ramping up the right-wing rhetoric, making a mountain out of a mole hill, demanding that something be done immediately about Social Security, even though Social Security is very, very healthy, and will remain so for decades to come, with only minor legislative tweaks maybe being necessary a decade or so from now…to the Republicans turning a blind eye to the real, actual, global warming crisis happening right now, in an attempt to make a mole hill out of a looming, global mountain, putting off any desperately-needed action right now.
Why are the Republicans, and conservatives around the world in general, so self-destructive and democracy-destructive? Is it that they have a secret death-wish for themselves and their own children, as well as all others?
Because if global warming continues unchecked at the increasing pace that scientists keep reporting, then the viability of Social Security will be the least of our concerns in the near future, as global warming generates a collapse of one civilized nation after another around the world, with the people who survive resorting to primal survival instincts, with highly successful cooperative programs like Social Security being replaced by a tribal mentally in which territories are established and maintained as people just try to survive until the next day.
Bleak outlook, isn’t it? But just look at what the insane Bush invasion of Iraq has plunged Iraq i