Once again Scott McClellan press secretary for BushCo is...

[whistle]

...doing a live WH press conference being shown on C-Span and is deflecting questions about the president's social security privatization plan. He keeps saying that the president is on the road "educating" the American public.

Just how much real education is the president providing and how much is feel good propaganda and placing of a wedge between the generations? Bush has been on the road in 14 states and has made numerous presentations, but what has he actually told his audiences? I have seen scattered reports on his "educational" presentations and from what I could tell, his language is short on details, filled with incomplete sentences and terminated phrases, highly opinionated and subjective, in many instances false and totally confusing as to what he really has to say about the state of social security and his plan to solve it.

No debate is allowed and questions that challenge the president on his facts and positions are not allowed. This is not education, but as I see a snow job on the American public. I just wish some journalists and/or democratic congress persons would get up and speak out before the president and his propaganda machine find that critical mass of sheeple out there who will believe whatever the president wants them to believe.

Any postings of input or reports on the contradictions and falsehoods about social security that Bush is spreading would be appreciated

[Career Prole]

1. If that's education I want my tuition refunded. n/t

[whistle]

2. Well, I think we passed drop/add, we'll just have to hammer...

...away at the flaws in the president's arguments and keep presenting the truth to the American public until our voices drown out the lies that Bush is spreading.

[Warpy]

3. If you're watching closely

Please watch out for anyone who prefaces his question with a right wing talking point and post his name and as much of the rant as you can remember.

Thanks.

[blm]

4. Is Bush using Dept. of Education tax $$$ to pay for his campaign events?

I wouldn't put it past them. He's using OUR tax dollars for his campaign trips that only his supporters are allowed to attend.

.

[whistle]

8. Good question, any way to find this out?

[smoogatz]

5. Bushco philosophy: If it ain't broke...

fuck it up beyond all recognition. Especially if the Democrats had anything to do with creating it (i.e., eight years of Clinton era peace and prosperity, the Clinton surplus, and now the New Deal).

[Roland99]

6. He's educating the sheep that were hand-picked

He knows he can preach to a truly receptive crowd because they're sales pitch is full of empty rhetoric.

[Felix Mala]

7. Bush told an Indiana audience that people don't lose $$ in the stock market

The transcript was on the White House web site. The "education" president said, "So when you hear people say, oh, if you put your money in the market you'll lose it all -- that's just not the way it works."

Heh, heh, heh, at least that's not the way it work with Bush family investments. So to save Social Security, have some family friend loan you $350,000 to invest in a baseball team, then, six years later, you can sell your "share" for $6 million. Or, how 'bout have your ne'er-do-well brother open a Savings&Loan, or, better still, a hedge fund, and then...

[whistle]

9. I'm looking for transcript quotes of things Bush is saying at...

...these campaign rallies that are just not correct, or that gloss over the Social Security privatization stand that Bush claims will save the program. For example, Bush's privatization program if implemented will immediately derive 40% of social security revenues from every worker who enrolls in the privatization. That factor along would put social security in immediate financial crisis which could only be bailed out by tax payers (increase in taxes) or reductions in benefits to everyone. That is a fatally flawed proposal that Bush has yet to answer for in his plan. He must be pressed to answer that charge with factual analysis, disclose what would really happen or be made to drop the suggestion from his rhetoric. Bush's lies about social security can be exposed with constant vigilance.

[librechik]

10. I am OUTRAGED that "education" is used instead of "propagandize"

And just why does this admittedly moronic man think he has the capacity to "educate" anyone????

How cynical and patronizing.

[whistle]

11. Here are some examples of Bush lies....

MONTGOMERY, Ala. <snip>

"I don't care what the TV ads say. I don't care what the pamphlets say," Bush said during a visit to Auburn University's Montgomery campus. "If you are retired or near retirement, the government will pay you what we said we'd pay you."

Just not true. If social security revenues are gutted by 20%, 30% 40% or more, ALL beneficiaries will take a hit. Bush can not control what future congresses elect to do, so he can not make such an false claim.

<link> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-na-bush11mar11,1,2170933.story?ctrack=2&cset=true

<snip>

A leading private account advocacy group, The Free Enterprise Fund, issued a memo Wednesday warning that Republicans were being "suckered into a debate" about shoring up the program's finances with unappealing benefit cuts and tax increases, rather than "a debate about personal ownership and control for young workers."

"This is precisely the debate the Democrats want to lure the GOP into," wrote the group's Stephen Moore and Larry Hunter, who said recent polling has Republicans fast chilling on the idea of personal accounts. They suggested instead tapping a theme that members from both parties say most angers their constituents -- spending by Congress of surplus revenue from Social Security payroll taxes.

"We would suggest a plan with the slogan: 'Stop the raid; start the accounts,' " Moore and Hunter wrote.

<link> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/03/10/MNGHOBN6LR1.DTL


<snip>

PRESIDENT BUSH EXPLAINS IT ALL: Confused about how President Bush's Social Security privatization proposal works? Here is his explanation: "Because the – all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those – changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be – or closer delivered to what has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled."

<link> http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=316921


Also look at: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/

[whistle]

12. Here is Bush's social security privitization proposal in a...

...nutshell:

<snip>
SOCIAL SECURITY
Hot Air in Motown

President Bush heads to Detroit, MI, today as part of his aggressive marketing campaign to sell his deeply flawed – and very expensive – Social Security plan. Don't hold your breath waiting for the president to flesh out more details, however; the Detroit Free Press reports "the traditional question and answer period after the speech has been dropped for Bush's visit." (There may be good reason for this: as the New York Times wrote this weekend, when it comes to the Bush plan, "The more we learn, the worse it gets.") Don't believe his hype. Here are the basics to keep in mind when listening to his sales pitch. <snips>

IT'S A BENEFIT CUT:

IT'S A TAX HIKE:

IT INCREASES THE DEBT:

THE MONEY'S NOT REALLY YOURS:

And Bush explains it all at this link>

http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=316921

[whistle]

13. Facts, facts and more facts proving the Bush lies regarding his .....

...proposal to privatize social security:

<snip>

George W. Bush and his advisors have come up with some attractive, focus group-tested sound bites to sell Social Security privatization. In speeches, Bush talks about the impending “financial collapse” of the system, with its deficits in “the trillions of dollars.” To “save Social Security,” Bush would establish individual accounts that would improve on the “dismal returns” of the current system. He talks about workers “building wealth” that can be “passed onto their children.” These arguments, while well packaged, are misleading or outright false.

According to the pessimistic projections of the Social Security Trustees, the system may face a proportionately small deficit in 37 years. The program is assuredly not on the verge of financial collapse. Moreover, contrary to the dire warnings, “saving” Social Security would not require a major overhaul – simply lifting the cap on taxable income, for example, would immediately eliminate the entire projected shortfall.

Bush’s cure would in reality be much worse than the cold. While he suggests that returns on Social Security are dismal, independent analyses by respected economists indicate that once we take transition and administrative costs into account, returns on his individual accounts would be significantly lower than those guaranteed under current law. If we incorporate realistic estimates of returns on equities into the equation, Bush’s proposal looks even worse. While Bush touts the possibility of making bequests, many workers would choose to buy annuities, thus precluding them from passing assets on to heirs. His plan, moreover, entails significant market risk and would potentially hang millions of disabled workers, survivors, low-income workers, and women out to dry.

In discussing dismantling a system that for 65 years has served as the foundation of economic security for working Americans and their families, we must get beyond George W. Bush’s small talk. A serious conversation must include an honest appraisal of the current state of the system and a discussion of transition costs, administrative costs, market risk, annuities, and the potential impact of individual accounts on the disabled, survivors of workers and their families.

<more>
<link> http://www.econop.org/SS-BushRhetoric.htm

[whistle]

14. Where was the MSM on this discussion in the U.S. senate floor

...on March 9, 2005 by Richard Durbin asking the president to take privatization of Social Security off the table with all valid reasons why?

<snip>

The United States Senate

Mar 9, 2005

Section 11

Official Record
Thomas (see section 11)Sen. Richard Durbin : Mr. President, the President of the United States is on the road today. He is taking his case for privatization of Social Security around the United States. It is an interesting debate. It is a good debate because it gets down to the heart of the question.

I joined with some Democratic Senate leadership--HARRY REID, BYRON DORGAN, and several other colleagues--and we went on the road last week to New York, Philadelphia, Phoenix, and Las Vegas to talk about this issue. We are engaging the American people because we believe it is an important debate.

I think we should start the debate by agreeing on some very basic points, and the first point on which we should agree is that at the end of the debate, Social Security will still be there, it will survive, and we are all committed to it. Any proposal that comes from anyone of either political party that weakens Social Security and lessens the likelihood that it will be there as a safety net for America should be summarily rejected. That is why we on the Democratic side have said we want to sit down with President Bush and the Republican leadership to make Social Security strong, but first we have to take privatization of Social Security off the table because privatization of Social Security, as the President is proposing, will weaken Social Security, it will not strengthen it. It takes trillions of dollars out of the Social Security trust fund, a trust fund that has already been raided by politicians for years. It would be devastated by taking out this much money.

<more>
<link> http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20050309-11&bill=s109-256

Still, George Bush continues his 60 stop tour around the country spreading misinformation and trying to sell this boondoggle for Wall Street to gullible Americans

[whistle]

15. Then there is the Angry Liberal's take on Bush's privatization...

...proposal of social security:

<snip>

My friends, the current Social Security battle is the most important domestic issue facing us. And in their traditional style, the Democrats are missing the real issue. During the last campaign, John Kerry criticized the Iraq War, not because it is illegal, immoral, and unnecessary, but because Bush isn't executing it properly. I understand that Democrats are floating a resolution that would criticize our detention personnel in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay for serving instant coffee to detainees. And not offering decaf at all. Oh, the humanity.

In case the Democrats would like a real talking point on Social Security, allow me to offer the following: George W. Bush's assault on Social Security has nothing to do with the solvency of the system. It has nothing to do with his concern with the quality of life for retirees or the disabled. The true motivation for forcing the Social Security program into private hands was apparently inspired by National Lampoon magazine.

<snip>

An old Smith Barney ad used to use this slogan: "We make money the old-fashioned way: We earn it." If Bush and the Republicans are allowed to force retired Americans to depend on corporate profits for their very survival, making money by earning it will seem old-fashioned, indeed.

3/14/05
<more>
<link> http://www.theangryliberal.com/comoftheday.htm

[whistle]

16. More news that the MSM has glossedright over about Bush's...

...cross-country campaign to sell privatiztion of social security:

<snip>

Bush's Social Security mess
President Bush is smearing lipstick on his Social Security pig, but the public still isn't buying it. Now it's time for Democrats to step up with their own plan.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
By Joe Conason

March 5, 2005 |

The Bush administration’s historic assault on Social Security is stalling, as voters learn more about the costs of the president’s privatization proposal and the drastic benefit cuts that would inevitably accompany such a radical change. Republicans in the Senate and House are openly skeptical of passing any legislation that resembles the President’s scheme, while Democrats have remained unusually united in opposition.

The findings of the latest national opinion surveys are unanimously and stunningly negative regarding the Bush plan. Worse still, from the president’s perspective, is that the more people learn about his plan, the more inclined they are to reject it.

<more>
<link> http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2005/03/05/social_security/index_np.html

[whistle]

17. Again, more on the resistance to Bush's proposed.....

...privatization of social security:

<snip>

Dems, GOP focus on Social Security
Saturday, March 12, 2005 Posted: 8:59 PM EST (0159 GMT)


WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush and Democrats took their differences over Social Security to the airwaves on Saturday, with Bush complaining about "scare ads" against his plan and Democrats denouncing his proposal as a "risky privatization scheme."

"Postponing reform will leave our children with drastic and unpleasant choices: huge tax increases that will kill jobs, massive new borrowing or sudden, painful cuts in Social Security benefits or other programs," Bush said in his weekly radio address.

In the Democratic broadcast an hour later, James Roosevelt Jr. -- a grandson of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and former Social Security official -- accused Bush of breaking a long tradition of bipartisan support for the retirement program.

"In 1935, my grandfather signed the Social Security Act into law, ensuring that Americans retired with financial security," Roosevelt said. "And since that time, Democrats and Republicans have worked together to protect and strengthen Social Security. Like most Americans, I agree with the guiding principle that America's workers deserve a secure retirement."

<more>
<link> http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/03/12/saturday.radio.ap/

[Supersedeas]

18. an education short on details sums it up nicely