Posted on 05/02/2005 9:54:14 AM PDT by West Coast Conservative
President Bush has proven to be one of the more adept and agile politicians of the modern era. Time and again, he and his political team have shown the ability to turn potential political vulnerabilities — think 9/11 — into weapons deftly applied to opponents. Democrats would do well to remember that as they gloat over two of the larger political stories out here — the fight over Social Security reform and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's ethics controversies.
Friday in Falls Church, Va., the president not only condemned opponents — presumably Democrats — for fighting his Social Security proposal, he promised they will be punished.
"I have a duty to put ideas on the table, and I'm putting them on the table," he said. "Those who block meaningful reform are going to be held to account in the polls."
President Bush is embracing what some call "progressive indexing" — the lowest income recipients will see their Social Security benefits preserved, but future benefits for middle income earners and the wealthy will be reduced. By doing so, the president will be able to make the case, even if his plan fails, that he tried to address the fact that Social Security is not sustainable through the next few generations, and something needs to change.
Could voters come to see this as courage, especially if Democrats are offering no serious alternative solutions?
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Could voters come to see this as courage, especially if Democrats are offering no serious alternative solutions?
Yes. Simple question, simple answer.
He has been misunderestimated before.
Nevah feah, Peetah's heah.
As long as Jennings and co. have anything to do with it, they won't.
Could this be one of those 'please don't throw me into the briar patch' moments?
Snowe. McCain. Specter. Ect...
So now holding politicians accountable at the polls is "punishing" them.
More times than we can count.
I've never found it a good idea to bash Bush because he doesn't do everything we want.
So far, he has been sound on most of the main issues. The only thing I find making me angry, time and again, is that he doesn't act fast enough. I've learned to give him the benefit of the doubt on that issue, because he uses the time well to set the Dems up for defeat. He has done that again and again: let the Dems dig their own pit and fall into it.
Notice that ABC doesn't have anything definite. They are just wondering. Has Bush snookered them again?
GWB is very good at using his CEO skills as president. He is a leader that gets things done.
Translation: With ALL of our sights focused against him, President Bush is getting less tarnished than Reagan (the "teflon president") or Clinton (the "comeback kid", who was shielded from scandal by the same press now in attack dog mode).
So let me get this right. The guy who saves nothing gets taken care of. The guys who saved more get penalized.
But.... the plan is to let the penalized guys pull some of their money out of the system and hopefully make up the difference that they were penalized.
Therefore, the money out of the system is replaced by the lower receipts for those taking money out.
Hmmmmmmm.....my calculator is telling me that the math could work, if the amounts of benefits no longer paid out = the amount of payments no longer paid in.
Well in the first place, there have been no setbacks. This is all just another Media lie.
It may take two or three election cycles to change the trend back towards freedom and responsibility.
But if wealthier retirees see their checks reduced, won't this mean that their SS payments have been cut?
I thought that the left opposed cutting Social Security benefits. So confusing. Do democrats support or oppose this?
Candidate Jerry Springer already made such a proposal (he also wanted to eliminate the SS contributions from low income workers, giving them a free ride altogether).
And the left says that there is nothing wrong with Social Security? That it is not a giant pyramid sceme?
And the tv viewing audience still can be swayed by AARP ads against the President?
Hooo boy.
Yes, the wealthier retirees get less SS benefits, BUT they get to have ISSA's (Individual Social Security Account) and their Individual SS Accounts make up the difference in their lower SS payments.
Yeah! And by more than one basher on this forum!
Under Candidate Springer's plan (which could always be picked up by democrats who were elected), higher income earners would pay more into the system to make up for those lower income earners who were exempted from making payments.
The only way the President scores so low on these polls is because the questions are so slanted. It is the non-political season, and nobody is bothering to read the extracts. The polls are being done to advance the MSM line.
Remember the ABCNews poll on Pope Benedict XVI? Something on the order of 80% of the Catholic respondents said they strongly supported the new Pope, but only 30% of them said they were "enthusiastic" about all of the positions he had taken as Cardinal over the years. Instead of the headline being "80% of Catholics support new Pope" it was "70% of Catholics disagree with new Pope".
But the mass of people know what they think on these matters. This story represents the first move toward ABCNews accepting objective reality.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.