ELECT A BUSH MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE
DEFEAT DASCHLE/CLINTON/GEPHARDT DEMOCRATS!
Posted on 10/05/2002 8:25:25 PM PDT by PhiKapMom
THOSE DESPERATE DEMS: NEITHER SCARING SENIORS WITH LIES NOR RUNNING CHILDISH ADS WILL SAVE SOCIAL SECURITY!
The Democrats’ Fundraising Cartoon Is Reprehensible. If They Want To Talk About Social Security, They Might Want To Get Their Facts Straight. Offering Up A Plan To Save The System Wouldn’t Hurt Either.
__________________________________________________________________
DNC SPOKESWOMAN SHRUGS IT OFF: “If they are objecting to the artwork and not the substance, that’s a problem . . . . It’s a cartoon. Please.”
(Maria Cardona As Quoted In Adam Nagourney, “Democrats’ Ad Has Bush Mistreating Elderly,” The New York Times, October 4, 2002)
ABC NEWS’ “THE NOTE” SEES A PROBLEM: “In the ‘movie,’ a cartoon figure with a pasted-on Bush head shot pushes a future retiree – who has dark skin, incidentally – down a set of ‘stairs’ . . . . Images of the NAACP’s 2000 James Byrd ad . . . flashed through our minds as we watched this.”
(“The Note,” ABCNews.com, October 4, 2002)
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS REPORTS: “Click on a Democratic National Committee Web site and watch an animated image of President Bush pushing a wheelchair-bound individual off a cliff. Not once, but twice.”
(David Espo, “Congress Campaigning With Cartoons,” The Associated Press, October 4, 2002)
DNC SPOKESMAN LAUGHS: “A spokesman for the Democratic National Committee, Bill Buck, called the cartoon a ‘humorous take on a serious issue.’”
(David Espo, “Congress Campaigning With Cartoons,” The Associated Press, October 4, 2002)
THEY DID IT ALL FOR THE MONEY: “The video is on the official Web site of the Democratic National Committee . . . and was put up within the last 24 hours, a party official said, as a way of drawing contributions to the party.”
(Adam Nagourney, “Democrats’ Ad Has Bush Mistreating Elderly,” The New York Times, October 4, 2002)
THE DESPERATE DEMOCRATS’ SOCIAL SECURITY WEB “MOVIE” IS FULL OF LIES.
IT’S JUST DEAD WRONG.
ABC News’ “The Note” Notes The Democrats Cannot Even Find A Reliable Source To Back Up Their Claims. “The narration makes it clear that Democrats think the Bush Social Security plan would crush the nest eggs harbored by seniors. Citing an, um, ‘nonpartisan’ source (that’d be the American Prospect magazine) . . . .”
(“The Note,” ABCNews.com, October 4, 2002)
DESPERATE DEMOCRAT LIE NUMBER ONE
DEMOCRATS SCARING SENIORS: THEY CLAIM THE PRESIDENT WANTS TO INVEST SOCIAL SECURITY IN THE STOCK MARKET, BUT HE DOESN’T
Democrat Lie. “Ever think about your retirement? George W. Bush has. He’s been pushing a plan to put your Social Security savings in the stock market.”
(Social Security Animated Cartoon, Democratic National Committee Website, www.democrats.org, Accessed October 4, 2002)
THE TRUTH: REPUBLICANS SAVING SOCIAL SECURITY
President Bush Has Never Called For The Government To Invest Social Security Funds In The Stock Market. In fact, under President Bush’s executive order, which carries the force of law, his Social Security Commission could not even consider such an option.
(Exec. Order No. 13,210, 66 Fed. Reg. 22,895 [2001]; “Strengthening Social Security And Creating Personal Wealth For All Americans,” The President’s Commission On Strengthening Social Security, December 21, 2001)
Vice President Gore Supported Clinton’s Proposal To Invest The Social Security Surplus In The Stock Market. In 1999, “President Clinton proposed . . . transferring 62 percent of projected budget surpluses to Social Security, to put more than $2.7 billion into the system over the next 15 years. He said about $700 billion of it should be invested in the stock market for increased returns. Gore support[ed] the administration plan.”
(Walter R. Mears, "No Avoiding The High-Voltage Issue In This Campaign," The Associated Press, November 27, 1999)
DESPERATE DEMOCRAT LIE NUMBER TWO
DEMOCRATS SCARING SENIORS: THEY CLAIM THE PRESIDENT’S PLAN WOULD WIPE OUT “GUARANTEED BENEFITS,” BUT IT WOULDN’T
Democrat Lie. “[I]nstead of guaranteed benefits, your retirement would be tied to stock market returns.”
(Social Security Animated Cartoon, Democratic National Committee Website, www.democrats.org, Accessed October 4, 2002)
THE TRUTH: REPUBLICANS SAVING SOCIAL SECURITY
None Of The President’s Commission’s Proposals Affect The Social Security Benefits Of Retirees Or Near-Retirees (55 Years And Older) At All. In fact, President Bush signed an executive order forbidding the Commission from even considering the option.
(Exec. Order No. 13,210, 66 Fed. Reg. 22,895 [2001]; “Strengthening Social Security And Creating Personal Wealth For All Americans,” The President’s Commission On Strengthening Social Security, December 21, 2001)
The President’s Plan Does Not Require Individuals To Invest Their Personal Account Funds In The Stock Market. The Accounts Are Voluntary And Supplementary. Those Who Do Not Opt For Personal Accounts Will Receive Traditional Benefits “At Least As High As Those Received By Today’s Retirees.” “Workers demanding absolute security can, through personal accounts, have risk substantially below that of the current system simply by choosing to invest in government bonds.” Government bonds would not only provide a higher return than the current Social Security system, they are also quite stable and risk-averse. In addition, none of the Commission’s proposals allow individuals to place their entire Social Security savings in the stock market.
(“Strengthening Social Security And Creating Personal Wealth For All Americans,” The President’s Commission On Strengthening Social Security, December 21, 2001; “Six Myths About Strengthening Social Security,” The White House, August 14, 2002)
Personal Accounts Would Operate Just Like Federal Employees’ Thrift Savings Plan, Which Does Not Allow Direct Investment In Individual Stocks. “[W]e modeled these personal accounts very closely on the federal government employee’s Thrift Savings Plan. I emphasize that the TSP is not a ‘privatized’ system, but an effective and safe means of saving and investing that has benefited countless federal employees. In these personal accounts, individuals would have the opportunity to invest in broadly diversified funds – an inflation-indexed Treasury bond fund, a stock fund, and others. There would be no ‘day trading’ or ‘stock picking.’”
(Dr. Olivia S. Mitchell, Senate Finance Committee, Testimony, October 3, 2002, p. 4)
Former Senator Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) Isn’t Confused By The Dem Attacks. “The same Social Security provisions that are in existence today will continue. We will add a provision that is the same – almost identical to that which federal employees, including the three of us [Senators Moynihan, John McCain (R-AZ), and Bob Kerrey (D-NE)], now have.”
(Senator Patrick Moynihan, Press Conference, May 4, 2000)
DESPERATE DEMOCRAT LIE NUMBER THREE
DEMOCRATS SCARING SENIORS: THEY CLAIM THE PRESIDENT IS PUSHING “PRIVATIZATION,” BUT HE IS NOT
Democrat Lie. “Bush and the Republicans still want to push their privatization plan through Congress.”
(Social Security Animated Cartoon, Democratic National Committee Website, www.democrats.org, Accessed October 4, 2002)
THE TRUTH: REPUBLICANS SAVING SOCIAL SECURITY
The Democrats’ Demonization Of The President’s Reform Plan As “Privatization” Is Not Accurate. “The latest election-year battle over Social Security reform has Democrats demonizing the term ‘privatization’ and applying it to Republican proposals to let workers invest part of their Social Security taxes in voluntary personal accounts. . . . In fact, actual reform proposals such as those from the President’s Commission to Strengthen Social Security entail almost none of the laissez-faire, dog-eat-dog, sink-or-swim capitalism the word ‘privatization’ conjures. The Cambridge International Dictionary defines ‘private’ as ‘not connected with, controlled by, or paid for by the government.’ Would a reformed Social Security program remain ‘connected with, controlled by, or paid for by the government’? For better or worse, the answer is yes.”
(Andrew G. Biggs, Op-Ed, “Just Who Is Afraid Of Privatization?” The San Diego Union-Tribune, May 30, 2002)
Former Senator Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) Said The Commission’s Plan Was Not “Privatization.” “This is not privatization. . . . I want to say [that is] not a proper characterization. That’s a scare word.”
(Senator Patrick Moynihan, Press Conference, May 4, 2000)
Representative Charles Stenholm (D-TX) Called His Fellow Democrats’ Attacks “Less Than Honest.” “I happen to be an individual very supportive of personal accounts. To those that continue to use the word privatization, that’s less than honest a description of what we’re talking about.”
(Representative Charles Stenholm, House Ways And Means Subcommittee On Social Security, Hearing, March 6, 2002)
DESPERATE DEMOCRAT LIE NUMBER FOUR
DEMOCRATS SCARING SENIORS: THEY CLAIM THE PRESIDENT’S PLAN IS “RISKY,” BUT IT IS NOT
Democrat Lie. President Bush Impersonator: “It’s a risky plan, but, but trust me.”
(Social Security Animated Cartoon, Democratic National Committee Website, www.democrats.org, Accessed October 4, 2002)
THE TRUTH: REPUBLICANS SAVING SOCIAL SECURITY
The Greatest Risk Is Not Personal Accounts – It Is Leaving The Existing System In Place. “The fact is that the existing system places future beneficiaries at greatest risk because Social Security does not have enough money to pay scheduled benefits without a substantial tax increase. Giving workers the opportunity, but not the obligation, to invest a small fraction of their contributions into a personal account provides an important element of diversification – the key to minimizing overall risk to an individual’s retirement security.”
(“Six Myths About Strengthening Social Security,” The White House, August 14, 2002)
Former Senators Bob Kerrey (D-NE) And Warren Rudman (R-NH) Agree. “Not acting is itself a choice – one that has grim consequences for today’s midlife adults and even bigger ones for their children. Politicians of both parties should get behind specific reform plans or be held accountable for supporting the consequences of the Do Nothing Plan.”
(Former Senators Bob Kerrey And Warren Rudman, Op-Ed, “Social Security Shell Game,” The Washington Post, August 12, 2002)
Still, Even A Risk-Averse Portfolio Would Earn Significantly More Than Current Social Security Benefits Provide. “An average-income, 30-year-old two-earner couple earns only the equivalent of about 1.23 percent (after inflation) on their Social Security retirement taxes. The same couple could earn a 5 percent rate of return by investing their taxes in a conservative portfolio of 50 percent super-safe U.S. Treasury bonds and 50 percent stock index funds. This is four times higher than the rate of return they currently receive . . . .”
(David C. John, “Social Security: Improving Retirement Income,” Issues 2002, The Heritage Foundation, 2002, p. 81)
.
.
bump
Cartoons to explain policy matters to their constituencies?
What's next? A large box of crayons (for diversity it should include every color) in every Democratic precinct for their voting booths.
What's that old saying: Little things amuse little minds.
There seems to be a correlation here.
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.