The "Don't mention Hitler!" crowd make me empathize with * re: Social Sec

[Atman]

Okay, that may be a shocker in and of its own right, but bear with me. We just went through a long thread last week, wherein I said I didn't like that Springer and Stewart were trying to take Hitler comparisons off the table for informed discussion regarding BushCo. It really pisses me off, as sometimes there IS a direct comparison to be made, especially to the leaders' early political years. But if we're unable to even MENTION those comparisons, how can we have an honest discussion?

Which brings me to the Bush/Social Security mess. Bush says he wants the issue of private accounts to be part of the discussion. "We" say, NO. No way. But Bush feels he has something to say about them. Now, first, I'm not going soft on Bush. I feel he is a total POS, at the very least in regard to the Social Security issue. But this Hitler discussion made me realize, the guy has a point. He has something he feels is important, and would like the opportunity to at least discuss WHY he feels so, as part of the overall debate. "We" are telling him we simply don't care what he thinks. We are shutting down an avenue of discussion before the discussion even begins. This is why I am upset about the "Don't Mention Hitler" crowd. Why the hell not? It is the best apt comparison. If people think the comparison is over the top, THAT becomes a part of the discussion. But to simply say "You are not allowed to even mention subject X, or we leave the table," is a form of intellectual extortion.

Personally, I Bush has something serious to say about private accounts, and can demonstrate how they will work, and how they will help, and how they will reduce the strain on the system, then by all means, allow him his time at the podium. If his terms and conditions are not workable, then they won't succeed. Similarly, if there are simply no apt comparisons of Bush to Hitler, what is the difficulty in discussing said comparisons? If you can "win" the argument with reasoned, intellectual discourse, then you've made your point. But, simply to say "I disagree with your entire premise, therefore I refuse to even allow you to discuss it" seems to smack outright hypocrisy.

[Demit]

1. Allow him his time at the podium?? His 60-stop tour isn't enough???

[Atman]

10. His grand tour is laughable, but it was not part of the discussion

He is trying to lobby the American people with that tour, not the US Congress. He is failing miserably. Therefore, even better that he be allowed to bring it to the table, where the real negotiators and lawmakers can beat him senseless with the reaction he's received from the American people, and tell him once and for all why his idea is bad for America. But if it can't even be discussed, there is nothing to discuss.

[tavalon]

2. That's a nice democratic stance

but no. Thanks for playing, though.

He gets plenty of time to spout off about his SS ideas at his town halls. He doesn't deserve any more time to discuss it. I'm sick of his bully pulpit.

[papau]

3. The avenue- Fed payroll deduction "private Accounts"- was opened in 1998

Clinton wanted add on private accounts - ala everyone gets a 401k and he added a small match from the SS annual payroll surplus.

The GOP shot it down

The Bush variation is kill the "add on", and replace with "carve them out" from current SS payroll taxes - or the SS Trust Fund - so as to kill Social Security.

If Bush had the guts to try to sell "kill social security" we could talk. I see no need to talk about a con job and to thereby give Bush's issue framing a leg up.

[LisaLynne]

4. IMO, he's been at the podium.

He has the attention of a subservient media. He's recognized as the President. He has endless opportunities to spell out his plan. In fact, I've been waiting to hear exactly how he has been told this is going to work and help. The point is, beyond the phrase "private accounts" he doesn't seem to have anything to say.

I agree with you that shutting down the dialog is not a good thing. Especially with * and his -- the more they talk, the more, I think, you can see that they in some cases just don't have a plan, don't know what they're doing, or just plain ol' don't have our (the American People's) interests at heart. So, please, keep talkin' guys.

However, in this case, I think * has had a ton of opportunities to make his case and he hasn't. In fact, there's a lot of arguments as to why this would be a very, very bad idea.

[Inland]

5. selfdelete

[KG]

6. * isn't hitler

he's mussolini.

i'm so glad you feel the chimp desrves a fair shake on the SS issue, you know he only has the best intereste of the american people at heart. :eyes:

[Atman]

12. I didn't say Chimp deserves a fair shake, did I?

PLEASE, people, please read what I said. Don't be like freepers, jumping on keywords without reading the substance.

I don't think Bush "deserves" another moment to talk about SS. That is entirely NOT THE POINT of my post. I merely said I empathize with his stance, that it isn't right that he cannot bring whatever he wants to the bargaining table. If he has something credible, it will stand on its own merits. If not, it will fail. But, to say he is not allowed to talk about it at all -- do not cofuse Congress with his bullshit tour of America! -- is just like saying we are not allowed to mention Hitler when discussing Bush.

If that were the case, there would have been no forum pointing out that Bush is better compared to Mussolini instead of Hitler, would there? There would be no opportunity to educate people with truth; you force them to stew in their own pre-conceived beliefs, without offering them the benefits of the facts. Again, it is of the utmost importance that you not confuse Bush's song and dance charade with a formal negotiation with Congress. They are mutually exclusive conceits.

[in_cog_ni_to]

7. NO. Give that asshole an inch

and he takes a mile and will DESTROY the system. THAT is his goal. He doesn't want to fix shit. His grandfather hated "The New Deal" and he's hellbent on getting rid of it. He's had his time to talk about it. He has made his SS tour around the country and His WH talking heads have had the propaganda networks to spew their "privitization" plan and the PEOPLE don't want it. There's not a damn thing wrong with SS that can't be fixed. I say, FUCK NO...do NOT give that man ANYTHING. He doesn't deserve jack-SHIT from us. :grr:

DO NOT OPEN THE DOOR ON THE SS DISCUSSION BECAUSE HE WILL DRIVE A MACK TRUCK THROUGH IT AND DISMANTLE THE PROGRAM.

The PEOPLE have already spoken on this....THEY DON'T WANT SS CHANGED! Polls show 70% against it. That is good enough for me.

[Atman]

13. Then when Bush brings it up to lawmakers...

let him explain why he likes them.

Then, they ask "How have the American people taken to your idea?"

He'll lie and tapdance. At which point, the lawmakers take out the real data, beat him over the head with it, and point out to him -- ON RECORD -- why this is not the will of the people he is supposed to be governing. It simply is a non-starter. But we thank you for the opportunity to hear your views, Mr. President.

Next witness.

Why is that impossible?

Likewise, if Hitler is not an apt comparison to Bush, explain to me WHY, don't tell me I'm not allowed to say "Hitler." That is unAmerican and undemocratic.

[reality based]

8. He's had his time and has failed miserably

He's got the biggest bully pulpit in the world and has yet to articulate how his proposal "saves" Social Security. He can't even prove it needs "saving" at this point.

I agree with you on the Hitler or, more appropriately, the Nazi comparisons. The only way to stop fascism is to slam it hard before it gets to the concentration camp stage. It would be a serious error to think that it can't happen here or that its victims are only those who suffered under the holocaust. The fascist impulse lies deep in the human heart, not just in those of a few dead Germans. We must be ever vigilant to expose it not only when we see it in others but when it appears within or among us.

[MadHound]

9. I agree with your premise that we should let Bush speak on this matter

However, he has had his chance. A sixty city tour, televised speeches and press conferences, a compliant media shilling for his program, how much more should we listen to him concerning this matter before we start pointing out the flaws in his proposal?

Bush has had ample opportunity to make his case, and despite all of the rhetoric that Bush has unleashed, most people in this country realize that this is a bad deal for them, and don't want a change in SS, and especially don't want private accounts.

You might be starting to fall for the Bushco spin, which is that if there are other voices speaking out against the matter, then there is an unfair monopolization of the discussion by Bushco's opponents. It is another tactic of this maladministration in order to monpolize the discussion.

Besides, Bushco has achieved a great deal of his real agenda. He has taken a situation, Social Security, that was relatively stable and well off, and convinced many, if not most Americans that SS has a huge problem. This simply isn't so, but the perception is now otherwise. Bush reached out and managed to touch the third rail of politics without injury. Now he is getting bold, and wants to transfer that huge amount of taxpayer money into the hands of his corporate masters. Don't fall for it.

[Just Me]

11. One problem: he seeks to destroy SocSec via privatization.

You ought to know by now how this cabal operates: conceal motivations/plans via manipulative deceit.

This cabal are not interested in improving SocSec, they seek to destroy it and are perfectly willing to lie about that. They are 21st Century robber barons. Should we give these deceptive robber barons an inch? I say, absolutely NOT! Smack them down by pointing out their betrayal and defrauding of the American people.

[Atman]

14. AGAIN...so if we know his game, we have the advantage!

You ought to know by now how this cabal operates: conceal motivations/plans via manipulative deceit.

And since we know this, we won't be cowed, correct? So let the man bring to the table anything he damned well pleases. He has that right. You seem to be saying that he shouldn't be allowed to speak, because we might be hypnotized into believing him or something! We KNOW he is lying, and that the American people don't like or want his plan. So, what is the harm in allowing it to come to the table, where it can be ridiculed on the public record, and we can find out which of our democratic leaders are spineless shills unwilling to stand up to the wannabe dictator? (The line starts behind Joe Biden and Joe Leiberman, fellas).

[Just Me]

16. Let the predators out?

They've already been out there. They've had their time to defraud Americans (on our dime btw). They have still concealed their plan to destroy SocSec from everyone and will continue to do so until the midnight hour prior to the morning they lay a 1600 page piece of legislation to be passed, immediately.

No. I don't think so. Why allow them to pull that shit, again?

[Bridget Burke]

15. Bush has "spoken out" but revealed no actual details of his "plan"

And he's gotten plenty of media coverage. In what way have we refused his rights? Bush hasn't expressed any "serious" thoughts about how his plan--private counts carved out of Social Security--will really work. He's just offered slogans in front of highly selected crowds.

[Atman]

17. Is the media the Congress? Are "we" the committees?

Are you all forgetting the entire lawmaking process? Bush can strip naked and swing from a trapeze with "PRIVITIZE SS!" painted on his ass, but that has nothing to do with offering legislation to the Congress for consideration.

Contextually, Bush's tour is meaningless to the lawmaking process. However, what it DID prove was that America does not want what he is selling. So, that certainly seems to provide a valid, winning response to his efforts should he ever actually present SS legislation to Congress, which he has yet to do.

But, I think the point of the thread has been entirely lost.

You cannot claim you want an honest discourse on ANY subject if at first you must pre-qualify what you consider to be valid points of discussion. If Hitler is not an apt comparison for Bush, you should be able to point out why, to educate the person making the charge. But to say "You're not allowed to say Hitler here because we find it offensive" as Stewart and Springer are doing, seems totally incongruous to the idea of intelligent, informed discussion.

[quiet.american]

18. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Bush doesn't have a clue what "his" big Social Security reform plan is -- and our lawmakers know it. If Bush wants to have an honest-to-goodness conversation about his plan, his minions need to stop terrorizing average citizen Democrats who peaceably come to hear what he has to say only to find themselves manhandled, roughed-up, escorted out and sometimes even arrested just for showing up.