SocSec PR-usual mass repetition/same phrases/ fear&greed via business GOP

[papau]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7797-2005Jan13.html

Campaign's Tactics Will Drive Appeal

President Bush plans to reactivate his reelection campaign's network of donors and activists to build pressure on lawmakers to allow workers to invest part of their Social Security taxes in the stock market, according to Republican strategists.

White House allies are launching a market-research project to figure out how to sell the plan in the most comprehensible and appealing way, and Republican marketing and public-relations gurus are building teams of consultants to promote it, the strategists said.

The campaign will use Bush's campaign-honed techniques of mass repetition, never deviating from the script and using the politics of fear to build support -- contending that a Social Security financial crisis is imminent when even Republican figures show it is decades away.

Bush aides said that in addition to mobilizing the Republican faithful and tapping the power of business, they plan to target minority voters who have not been able to afford to save and might be open to the argument that the president's plan would turn them into investors. The campaign will also court younger voters, including many Democrats, who would potentially benefit the most from the change.<snip>

[Demit]

1. oh god. It's snake oil. Hopefully minorities & young people will have

their bullshit detectors up. *'s plan is to take the security out of Social Security. It couldn't be more simple.

[Helga Scow Stern]

2. This is disturbing. Superficially it sounds appealling--a chance

to get ahead.

But what is the reality of what is being proposed? Just that the security will be gone, and replacing it will be speculation in an uncertain economy at best?

How is it that the current milkers of the public stand to benefit--by being able to gut the SS funds? And of course the pork associated with implementing a new plan.

Can someone tell me simply? I can see a lot of explaining I am going to have to do.

[PA Democrat]

3. Younger voters in some ways have the most to lose

They will bear the burden of funding their own "private" accounts, as well as have to pay extra taxes to cover the $2 trillion deficit caused by the private accounts. And if they cut benefits to traditional SS recipients too much, a lot of the younger voters may find their parents moving in with them and/ or dependent upon them for financial assistance.

[snippy]

5. Those are two very good points. n/t

[snippy]

4. This article perfectly illustrates two things.

The first is the difference in the level of strategic planning and tactical organization between the two major parties. The GOP has done extensive strategic planning on manipulating public opinion concerning Bush's Social Security plan and has set in place even more exrensive organizational tactics. Meanwhile, the democratic party is in the position of

"scrambling to organize in the face of a multimillion-dollar juggernaut, have yet to settle on any particular counterargument but said they believe Bush's rollout of the idea has been rocky and new details will give them more ammunition."

The republican party has this type of advantage on every issue and during every election. The democratic party needs to learn to understand the competitive advantages of strategic planning and tactical organization.

The second thing illustrated by this article is the incredible arrogance republicans are developing. They now are describing to the media how they intend to deceive and manipulate the public. In the past they would not reveal their intentions to lie and twist the truth in advance and would deny it after the fact.

[PA Democrat]

6. And the media is playing right along with the GOP scheme

Earlier this week Good Morning America did a piece on the Social Security "crisis". The segment featured someone from the Cato Institute as their expert. GMA did not question any of the claims that the Cato guy made, nor did they reveal that the Cato Institute is hardly an impartial source, and in fact has had destroying Social Security as one of its goals for YEARS.

It was one of the most irresponsible and unethical pieces of "reporting" that I have ever witnessed. I wrote a letter to ABC, but I feel it was a waste of time. Where is my party, and why aren't they SCREAMING about media corruption?