Math Doesn't Add Up for a Democrat-Run Senate

[BigBadBrian]

Math Doesn't Add Up for a Democrat-Run Senate
The party needs to win seats in Bush territory for any realistic chance to retake the chamber.
By Ronald Brownstein
Times Staff Writer

May 31, 2005

WASHINGTON — Growing Republican dominance of Senate seats in states where George W. Bush has run best looms as the principal obstacle for Democrats hoping to retake the chamber in 2006 or beyond.

With the recent struggle over judicial nominations underscoring the stakes, the battle for Senate control could attract unprecedented levels of money and energy next year.

Democrats are optimistic about their chances of ousting GOP senators in Pennsylvania and Rhode Island, states that voted for Democratic presidential candidates John F. Kerry in 2004 and Al Gore in 2000. But the Democrats are unlikely to regain a Senate majority — in 2006 or soon thereafter — unless they can reverse the GOP consolidation of Senate seats in states that have supported Bush.

Since 2000, both parties have gained Senate seats in the states they typically carry in presidential campaigns. But this political partitioning provides a clear advantage for Republicans because so many more states backed Bush in his bids for the presidency.

If Democrats only gain in their part of the map, "it's like saying, 'We're going to win more home games but never worry about road games,' " said Matthew Dowd, a political advisor to the Republican National Committee and senior strategist for Bush's reelection campaign. "They could have a great home record but never win a majority."

Republicans control 55 Senate seats and Democrats 44, with Vermont independent James M. Jeffords holding the final spot. In next year's midterm election, Republicans will defend 15 seats and Democrats 17. And Vermont voters will choose a successor to Jeffords, who is retiring.

As the parties approach these contests, the political divide familiar from presidential campaigns figures ever more prominently in their calculations.

Twenty-nine states voted for Bush in 2000 and in 2004. Republicans now hold 44 of the 58 Senate seats in those so-called red states. That's a much higher percentage of in-party Senate seats than Presidents Reagan and Clinton were able to claim in states they carried twice.

More important, on the strength of those states alone, the GOP is on the brink of a majority in the 100-member Senate.

Democrats are just as strong in the states that voted for Kerry and Gore. But there are only 18 of those so-called blue states; Democrats hold 28 of those 36 Senate seats.

Republicans also hold four of the Senate seats in the three states that switched parties from 2000 to 2004 — New Mexico, New Hampshire and Iowa.

This distribution makes it virtually impossible for Democrats to regain a majority simply by defeating GOP senators from blue states, such as their two top targets for 2006 — Rick Santorum in Pennsylvania and Lincoln Chafee in Rhode Island.

Whatever happens in those races, the Democrats' ability to win Republican-held Senate seats next year in red states such as Montana, Tennessee and Missouri — and to defend their seats in red states such as Nebraska, Florida and North Dakota — may reveal more about their long-term prospects of regaining a Senate majority.

Democratic pollster Geoff Garin noted that in the last two elections, Democrats have come close to taking the White House, even though they've lost more states than they've won. That's because the high-population states they did win — such as New York and California — have large numbers of electoral college votes. But, regardless of population, each state has two Senate seats, so Democrats must compete on a broader map to realistically contend for a Senate majority.

"You can cobble together a viable electoral college strategy with a minority of states, but you simply can't cobble together a Senate majority that way," Garin said.

As recently as the 1980s, it was common for states to split their ballots in presidential and Senate contests.

But the sharpening partisan edge of modern politics has made it tougher for senators to survive — in effect, behind enemy lines — in states that consistently prefer the other party in presidential campaigns.

The result has been a decline in the Southern Democrats, who bucked the region's growing preference for GOP presidential candidates, and in the Northeastern Republicans, who overcame their area's Democratic tide in national campaigns.

Forty-four states supported Ronald Reagan for president in 1980 and 1984. But partly because of lingering Democratic strength in the South, Republicans after 1984 controlled only 48 of the 88 Senate seats in those states, about 55%.

The trend toward consolidation gained momentum in the 1990s. Bill Clinton won 29 states twice. After his second victory, Democrats held 35 of the 58 Senate seats in those states, or 60%.

In the elections of 2000, 2002 and 2004, Republicans gained a net of six Senate seats in the red states that Bush carried twice. Democrats added four Senate seats in the blue states that twice voted against Bush; Republicans lost another blue-state Senate seat when Jeffords quit the GOP in 2001.

Republicans now hold 76% of the red-state Senate seats; Democrats 78% of the blue-state Senate seats.

This division has reshaped the political landscape most profoundly in the South. Under Bush, the GOP has won the last nine open Southern Senate seats, including five seats vacated by retiring Democrats in 2004. In all, Republicans now control 18 of the 22 Senate seats in the 11 states of the old Confederacy, compared to just 10 of those seats after Reagan's 1984 landslide.

One of the losing 2004 Southern Democratic Senate candidates, who asked not to be identified while criticizing his party, said today's highly partisan atmosphere had undermined strategies that once let the region's Democrats survive even as GOP presidential candidates carried their states.

In that era, the former candidate noted, Southern Democrats won by emphasizing independence and willingness to work across party lines. But today, the candidate said, many Southerners seem deeply reluctant to help Democrats regain Senate control and strengthen their hand against Bush.

"They were very worried about the Democrats having a majority," the candidate said.

Democratic strategists acknowledge that such partisan attitudes represent a huge problem for them in the Deep South. But they believe that in other red states, Senate races may turn more on local factors.

Democrats are most optimistic about contesting Republican-held seats in Tennessee, where Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr. is the likely Democratic nominee for the seat being vacated by retiring Majority Leader Bill Frist; in Montana, where Democratic State Auditor John Morrison has begun raising money to challenge Republican Conrad Burns around economic themes; and possibly in Missouri, where Democratic polls have shown some vulnerability for first-term Republican Jim Talent.

But Democrats also must defend five incumbents seeking reelection in red states, with Florida's Bill Nelson, Nebraska's Ben Nelson and North Dakota's Kent Conrad facing potentially difficult races in states Bush carried handily.

In all these races, Republicans are likely to portray the Democrats as obstructionists whose election would empower liberals to block Bush's agenda.

Against such attacks, the Democratic candidates must walk a tightrope, motivating their base with criticism of the GOP agenda while defending themselves against the Republican charges by promising to work across party lines.

In Montana, for instance, Morrison is opposing Bush's plan to carve out private investment accounts from Social Security, but also presenting himself as a common-sense, bipartisan problem-solver.

"Most of the worthwhile public policy gets done somewhere in the center," Morrison said.

In Pennsylvania, the Democratic success in recruiting socially conservative State Treasurer Robert P. Casey Jr., the son of the former governor, to challenge Santorum has made that race the early choice as the marquee Senate contest for 2006.

But the fate of red-state Democrats like Morrison should offer a better measure of whether the party can topple the Republican majority pressing its advantages so forcefully.


Link (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-senate31may31,1,4014136,print.story?coll=la-headlines-politics)

[Warham]

Liberals never were very good at math.

[FORD]

Math is irrelevant when Republicans have Diebold.

[Warham]

Diebold isn't going to get you 3,000,000 more votes.

Speaking of election fraud, what's going on in Washington with that Democratic governor who was elected on the backs of folks six feet under?

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
Liberals never were very good at math.

Yet we have higher median incomes, IQs, and educations than the "red states" [even if we let you throw out your high trailer park population]

:rolleyes:

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
Diebold isn't going to get you 3,000,000 more votes.

Speaking of election fraud, what's going on in Washington with that Democratic governor who was elected on the backs of folks six feet under?

See, there's more mediawhore spin. Truth is that out of any felons or dead people who voted, a whole hell of a lot of them voted for Sore Lossi Rossiman.

Republican officials testify in court that while there were minor problems in the election, there was no fraud. And then the Sore Lossi Rossiman lawyers accuse them of being "biased in favor of the Democrats"!

Mind you, this is a Republican employee of a Republican Secretary of State, being accused of being a "Democrat" by a neocon lawyer working for a lying piece of shit Bush puppet.

Fuck it. The State of Washington shouldn't be wasting time or money on mindless things like this which are grossly distorted witch hunts to begin with.

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by Warham
Diebold isn't going to get you 3,000,000 more votes.

Speaking of election fraud, what's going on in Washington with that Democratic governor who was elected on the backs of folks six feet under?

LOL @ Diebold. Yeah, that's why the Dems lost. :rolleyes:

As for Washington's election trial, what's happening is that the judge is bending over backwards to give both sides the opportunity to present evidence in support of their case. He wants a complete record for the appellate courts, where this contest is headed next. It's a virtual certainty at this point that the Republicans will lose and Gregoire will stay in office. They just don't have the level of proof that they need to show to prove "fraud." However, they have much more evidence than people like FORD have to support their Diebold fraud claims. It's a shame, really... I honestly believe that there was some underhanded shit going on here.

[FORD]

But you will admit that Dale Foreskin is a fucking sleazeball, right? ;)

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by FORD
But you will admit that Dale Foreskin is a fucking sleazeball, right? ;)

Don't know him. But I litigated a case against an associate in his office who was perhaps the worst lawyer I have ever come across. So, at the least, his hiring skills are lacking ;)

[steve]

When the citizens of the District of Columbia stand up for themselves and boycot paying Federal taxes in revolt (and gain their proper representation in congress (2 senate seats and 1 house seat)), the tables could turn.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Yet we have higher median incomes, IQs, and educations than the "red states" [even if we let you throw out your high trailer park population]

:rolleyes:


This type of attitude speaks volumes why "you people" can't win elections. :D

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
This type of attitude speaks volumes why "you people" can't win elections. :D

Right, we don't win elections:rolleyes:

Even your memory of history is biased:rolleyes:

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Right, we don't win elections:rolleyes:

Even your memory of history is biased:rolleyes:

Of most of the recent "biggies", including the 2002 midterms, the Democrats haven't done diddly. Sorry, but that's pretty much a fact.

:gulp:

[academic punk]

Originally posted by Warham
Liberals never were very good at math.


Gee, and when was the last time the country had a balanced budget?

And what's the deficit now?

If you're going to make inflammatory remarks, try not to display your complete ignorance while doing so, buddy.

[Warham]

Clinton managed the budget on the back on the military.

No wonder it was in the shitter when Bush took office.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by academic punk
Gee, and when was the last time the country had a balanced budget?

And what's the deficit now?

If you're going to make inflammatory remarks, try not to display your complete ignorance while doing so, buddy.



pinko-commie liberal :D

mega dittos:rolleyes:

[academic punk]

Originally posted by Warham
Clinton managed the budget on the back on the military.

No wonder it was in the shitter when Bush took office.

Uh, no. It was managed through RESPONSIBLE TAXES.

How much revenue is vanishing b/c of the abolishment of the inheritance tax? BILLIONS.

How many other tax breaks have the upper class received in a time when every member of this country should be called upon to sacrifice if not years of service to the military then at least a few more bucks to taxes?

And if you want to talk about the military and taxes, let's discuss the administration's decision to close bases across the country b/c it'll save the government money when, in reality, if those taxes existed, not all those bases would need to be considered for closing, and many other social programs would also still exist.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
Clinton managed the budget on the back on the military.

No wonder it was in the shitter when Bush took office.

Yeah, keep blaming Clinton for Poppy's defense cut program.

Didn't the BCE just cut the military AGAIN, despite their insistence that we are at "war"??

[Warham]

There's two things Clinton will be remembered for the most.

1. Monica Lewinsky

2. He made Jimmy Carter's foreign policy decisions look good.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
There's two things Clinton will be remembered for the most.

1. Monica Lewinsky

2. He made Jimmy Carter's foreign policy decisions look good.


The Shrub:

1. Invading Iraq under fales pretenses

2. Being a complete and utter dolt

3. Unable to get support needed to wreck SS

[Warham]

Social Security is wrecked because there's not enough workers putting money into the system. You can thank abortion for that.

Bush is just trying to get ideas on the table. Unfortunately, all the Democrats want to do is sit around on their duffs and wait until Hillary is in office, instead of working on a compromise.

[4moreyears]

Originally posted by academic punk
How much revenue is vanishing b/c of the abolishment of the inheritance tax? BILLIONS.

This is a joke anyway. The money was already taxed when it was originally earned. Why should it be taxed again. We should look at cutting social programs and teach people to be accountable for their own actions. It is funny I never see a liberal talking about reduction of the marriage penalty. This will also lower the tax revenue but they would not have the balls to complain about eveyday Joe. But they keep wanting to penalize people that use the system, and cry about the exception to the rule.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
Social Security is wrecked because there's not enough workers putting money into the system. You can thank abortion for that.

.

Thank you for posting what will probably go down in history as lamest argument yet.

Yes, all of those poor, unwed, uneducated mothers would have spawned kids making high 6 figures a year:rolleyes:

Just when I thought you couldn't POSSIBLY get any more ridiculous..............

:cool:


BTW, abortions are UP under your president's watch.

Care to spin that, or just blame it on Clinton too:rolleyes:

[4moreyears]

Originally posted by Warham
Social Security is wrecked because there's not enough workers putting money into the system. You can thank abortion for that.

Bush is just trying to get ideas on the table. Unfortunately, all the Democrats want to do is sit around on their duffs and wait until Hillary is in office, instead of working on a compromise.

Social Security was ruined before it started. People that rely on the Gov"t and decide not to be responsible for their own finances I have no sympathy for them. I do think special considerations should be made for those who are not able to tend to themselves.

JH

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by Warham
Social Security is wrecked because there's not enough workers putting money into the system. You can thank abortion for that.


LOL! OK, this thread has officially crossed over to "absurd" territory.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham


Bush is just trying to get ideas on the table. Unfortunately, all the Democrats want to do is sit around on their duffs and wait until Hillary is in office, instead of working on a compromise.


Speaking in Tampa, FL President Bush tried to explain how he will save Social Security:




President Bush: “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. Look, there’s a series of things that cause the—like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate—the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those—if that growth is affected, it will help on the red.”



“Okay, better? I’ll keep working on it.”


:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Guitar Shark]

Please tell me that's not an actual quote.

This is the leader of the free world?

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Thank you for posting what will probably go down in history as lamest argument yet.

Yes, all of those poor, unwed, uneducated mothers would have spawned kids making high 6 figures a year:rolleyes:

Just when I thought you couldn't POSSIBLY get any more ridiculous..............

:cool:


BTW, abortions are UP under your president's watch.

Care to spin that, or just blame it on Clinton too:rolleyes:

Summary



Politicians from Hillary Clinton and John Kerry to Howard Dean have recently contended that abortions have increased since George W. Bush took office in 2001.

This claim is false. It's based on an an opinion piece that used data from only 16 states. A study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute of 43 states found that abortions have actually decreased. Update, May 26: The author of the original claim now concedes that the Guttmacher study is "significantly better" than his own.


Analysis



A number of politicians and organizations have been circulating an interesting and surprising idea: that abortions have gone up under George W. Bush’s watch. The claim is repeated by supporters of abortion rights as evidence that Bush's anti-abortion policies have backfired, or at least been ineffective.

But the claim is untrue. In fact, according to the respected Alan Guttmacher Institute, a 20-year decline in abortion rates continued after Bush took office, as shown in this graph



Source: Alan Guttmacher Institute, "Trends in Abortion in the United States "



Here's the story of how a false idea took hold.

The Birth of a Bad Statistic

The claim that abortions are rising again can be traced back to an opinion piece by Glen Harold Stassen, an ethics professor at Fuller Theological Seminary. His article originally appeared in a web and e-mail publication of Sojourners, a Christian magazine, in October 2004. Several other outlets, including the Houston Chronicle, also ran a similar piece co-authored by Stassen and journalist Gary Krane. The articles generated a good deal of discussion on a number of both liberal and conservative blogs.

Describing himself as “consistently pro-life,” Stassen reported that he “analyzed the data on abortion during the Bush presidency” and reached some “disturbing” conclusions. "Under President Bush, the decade-long trend of declining abortion rates appears to have reversed," he said. "Given the trends of the 1990s, 52,000 more abortions occurred in the United States in 2002 than would have been expected before this change of direction."

Stassen's broad conclusion wasn't justified by the sketchy information he cited, however. Furthermore, a primary organization he cited specifically as a source for historical data now contradicts him, saying abortions have continued to decline since Bush took office. More about that later.

Hillary Clinton Uses It

Stassen offered his article as evidence that Bush's economic policies were driving pregnant women to abortion. And although he opposes abortion, his claim was soon picked up and repeated uncritically by the other side – supporters of abortion rights. In a speech to family-planning providers in New York on January 24, 2005 , Sen. Hillary Clinton recounted decreases in the abortion rate that occurred in her husband's administration, then lamented that the situation had changed. She repeated exactly some of the figures that Stassen had given in his Houston Chronicle article.

Clinton : But unfortunately, in the last few years, while we are engaged in an ideological debate instead of one that uses facts and evidence and common sense, the rate of abortion is on the rise in some states . In the three years since President Bush took office, 8 states saw an increase in abortion rates (14.6% average increase), and four saw a decrease (4.3% average), so we have a lot of work still ahead of us.

Clinton was careful not to state flatly that abortions were increasing nationally . She spoke only of "some states" in which the rate had increased. But she invited her listeners to conclude that the national trend to fewer abortions had reversed itself since Bush took office.

And in fact a few days later, in an interview on NBC’s Meet the Press on January 30, 2005 , Sen. John Kerry claimed that abortions were up, period:

Kerry: And do you know that in fact abortion has gone up in these last few years with the draconian policies that Republicans have….

A Kerry spokesman confirmed at the time to FactCheck.org that Kerry was relying on the Stassen article for his information.

Finally, as recently as May 24, 2005 , Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean also asserted on NBC News' Meet the Press:

Dean:You know that abortions have gone up 25 percent since George Bush was President ?

Dean's "statistic" went unchallenged by moderator Tim Russert, so millions of viewers probably got the impression that Dean's very specific 25 percent figure was correct. But Dean was wrong -- and by a wide margin.

We asked the Democratic National Committee repeatedly where Dean got his 25 percent figure, but we got no response. Even if Stassen's estimate of 52,000 additional abortions were correct, that would figure to an increase of less than 4 percent. And in any case the rate is going down, not up, according to the most authoritative figures available.

Cherrypicking Data

A close reading of Stassen's article makes clear that he didn't even pretend to have comprehensive national data on abortion rates. He said he looked at data from 16 states only -- and didn't even name most of them.

Stassen said that in the four states that had already posted statistics for three full years of Bush’s first term, he found that abortion was up. Twelve more states had posted statistics for two years of Bush's term – 2001 and 2002 – and here the picture was mixed. According to Stassen, "Eight states saw an increase in abortion rates (14.6 percent average increase), and five saw a decrease (4.3 percent average)." A version of the piece in the Houston Chronicle reported instead that four saw a decrease with a 4.3 percent average.

So Stassen was projecting findings onto the entire country from 12 states that he said had showed an increase and 5 (or maybe 4) that he said had shown a decrease. That leaves a total of 34 other states for which Stassen had no data whatsoever.

Furthermore, Stassen is contradicted by one of the very organizations whose data he cites. The only primary source of data that Stassen cites specifically in the article is the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit organization that conducts a periodic survey of all known abortion providers, which numbered nearly 2,000 at last count. Guttmacher's statistics are widely used and respected by all sides in the abortion debate. It is the only organization to compile and publish national abortion-rate data other than the federal Center for Disease Control. CDC's official statistics, however, run only through 2001, so they shed no light on what has happened since Bush took office.

And Guttmacher – as we shall see – now says abortion rates have decreased since Bush took office. And that's based on data from 43 states, not just 16.

De-bunking the statistic

Stassen’s numbers, and the widespread acceptance they seemed to be getting, prompted the Guttmacher Institute to conduct a special analysis to update its comprehensive census of abortion providers for the year 2000. The increases that Stassen reported “would be a significant change in a long-standing trend in the US ,” Leila Darabi of the institute explained to Factcheck.

Besides the fact that Stassen claimed to have data only from 16 states, the Guttmacher Institute said it is likely that many of the states Stassen picked have higher abortion rates historically, have a higher concentration of population subgroups that tend to have more abortions, and see abortion rates rise more quickly when they do go up. Stassen himself named only Kentucky, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Colorado among the 16 states he says he studied, but his co-author on the Houston Chronicle article listed each state in a separate article posted on the Internet.

The Guttmacher Institute found that two of the states Stassen used had unreliable reporting systems. In Colorado , for instance, where Stassen claimed that rates “skyrocketed 111 percent,” the reporting procedure had been recently changed in order to compensate for historic underreporting. Guttmacher also found Arizona had an inconsistent reporting system.

The Facts

The Guttmacher Institute announced its findings May 19. Guttmacher analyzed available government data "as an interim measure until another provider census can be conducted” according to a news release. The interim study analyzed data from 43 states determined to have reliable state reporting systems.

What it found was that the number of abortions decreased nationwide – by 0.8% in 2001 and by another 0.8% in 2002. The abortion rate , which is the number of women having abortions relative to the total population, also decreased 1% in 2001 and 0.9% in 2002. That's not as rapid a decrease as had been seen in earlier years, but it is a decrease nonetheless.

We give much weight to Guttmacher's analysis. Their figures are widely used and accepted by both anti-abortion groups and abortion-rights advocates. Their surveys of abortion providers go back to 1973, and Stassen cites them himself as the source for the number of abortions in 2000.

Guttmacher has little motive to make Bush and his anti-abortion policies look good. The institute was founded in 1968 in honor of a former president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and describes its mission as being" to protect the reproductive choice of all women and men in the United States and throughout the world.” Had Stassen’s numbers proven accurate, the Institute “would have reported and widely publicized a rise in abortion rates,” said Darabi. But facts are facts.

Update, May 26: Even Stassen now concedes that he can't substantiate his original claim. In a memo dated May 25, which he sent to FactCheck.org just as we were posting our article, he praises the Guttmacher study and says it is "significantly better" than his own earlier effort:

Stassen, May 25: I based my estimates in October on the sixteen states whose data I could find then. Now, seven months later, and with their extensive data-gathering ability, AGI (Alan Guttmacher Institute) bases their results on 44 states. They say their results are only estimates, projections, but I believe their results are significantly better than what I could have obtained seven months ago. I affirm their methods and their study, and am grateful for their effort.

Nevertheless, Stassen still argues that the small rate of decline that Guttmacher reports still constitutes a "stall" in what had earlier been a more rapid decline. He also continues to criticize the Bush administration for economic policies that he says bring hardship on low-income women. "It is clear to me that undermining the financial support for mothers, undermining the availability of medical insurance, and increasing the jobless rate for prospective mates so that they are less likely to marry, has a bad influence on abortion rates and infant mortality rates."

For the full text of Stassen's response see "supporting documents" at right.


Correction: Our original article stated that Sen. Clinton had omitted to mention states in which abortions had decreased. In fact, as was obvious from the full quote we gave, she did state that abortions had decreased in four states. This updated article corrects our error.

http://factcheck.org/article330.html

[Warham]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
LOL! OK, this thread has officially crossed over to "absurd" territory.

Actually, it's not. When you have as many payers as payees, there's no problem. There's more baby boomers in this country than any other generation. Why is that, do you think? Do you think 30,000,000 babies not being born since 1973 might have something to do with it?

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Speaking in Tampa, FL President Bush tried to explain how he will save Social Security:




President Bush: “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. Look, there’s a series of things that cause the—like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate—the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those—if that growth is affected, it will help on the red.”



“Okay, better? I’ll keep working on it.”


:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I wonder what Bill Clinton did to try and fix Social Security?

::crickets chirping::

[Warham]

Here's a graph for you Lounge. I know you rock-types like flashy shows:

http://factcheck.asc.upenn.edu/imagefiles/Abortion%20Rate.jpg

[LoungeMachine]

Here's a thought.

Raise the cap from 90K a year, to 120K a year.

Makes SS solvent an additional 40 years or so.

Besides, the REAL "crisis" is Medicare anyway.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
Here's a graph for you Lounge. I know you rock-types like flashy shows:

http://factcheck.asc.upenn.edu/imagefiles/Abortion%20Rate.jpg

wow.

that looks so real.

I'm sold:rolleyes:

[Warham]

Well, you cut and paste so much, you don't look up the facts...

[Warham]

Here's what Bush really said in Tampa...

We have a duty to make sure there's a retirement system for our children, too. And that's what I want to talk about. (Applause.) First of all, it's pretty interesting we're talking about Social Security, isn't it? It used to be called the third rail of American politics -- if you touched it, you would be shocked. (Laughter.) Sometimes shocked out of politics. (Laughter.) I campaigned on the issue because I thought it was important to do so. I also believe the role of a President is to confront problems -- not to pass them on to a future President, future Congress, or a future generation. (Applause.)

So the question you ask is, do we have a problem. Well, here it is. When Social Security was designed, the life expectancy was about 60 years old. In other words, you were expected to live that long. Today, life expectancy is 77 years old. In other words, people are living longer.

Secondly, there is a group of folks fixing to retire -- a big bulge of us. We're called the baby boomers. So not only are people living longer, but there's a whole bunch of people who are going to be living longer that are eligible for Social Security.

Thirdly, benefits are going up dramatically. So you've got a lot of people living longer, getting greater -- with greater benefits promised. And what this chart will show you here is that you got fewer people paying in. In 1950, 16 workers were paying to the system to support on beneficiary. That obviously makes a system more affordable than one in which only 3.3 people are paying per beneficiary. Fewer workers putting in money to pay for more workers who are living longer and getting more benefits -- that is a problem. And it's a problem defined by that chart which shows that in 2018, the Social Security system goes negative, more money going out to beneficiaries than coming in through payroll taxes. That's a fact. And every year thereafter, the gap grows wider.

So, to give you an example, in 2027, the system will be $200 billion short. In other words, they collect X amount of payroll taxes, but because baby boomers like me are living longer and have been promised greater benefits, we're $200 billion short that year -- that year. And the next year is bigger than $200 billion. In 3037 [sic}, it's like $300 billion. And finally in -- 2037, it's $300 billion. In 2042, it's bust. Those are the facts.

So, I see a problem. And I think it's time to address it square on. That's why I spent a great deal of time in the State of the Union. Now, this is not a problem for people who have retired or near retired. This is not a problem for people who are now on Social Security who were born before 1950. It is not a problem. I don't care what they tell you; I don't care what the brochures say. The Social Security trust is sound and solvent for people who are counting on the checks today and people are going to be counting on the checks who are near retired. It's just the way it is.

The problem exists for younger folks. The problem is younger folks are going to be coming up in a world where either you got to raise taxes dramatically, borrow significant amounts of money, slash government programs, slash benefits in order to make that red in that chart go away. And that's the dilemma we have right now. That's the problem those of us who are in Washington, D.C. must confront, because every year you wait, the problem becomes worse for our kids.

I think now is the time to take on the issue. And that's exactly what I intend to do. That's why I have been to five states since the State of the Union, and that's why I'm going to continue traveling our country, saying to the American people, here's the problem. We'll have somebody else describe it, as well. And the reason I believe that's important to do is because I think the American people actually have a lot to do with how Congress responds. You may not think that, but having been up there long enough to tell you how it works, you can make a difference in how people respond.

Once people recognize there's a little bit of denial in Washington -- they'll say there's not a problem. There's a fair number of people who say, it isn't a problem. If that's the prevailing view, nothing is going to happen, I fully recognize that. So step one is to say, we have a problem. And step two is to start coming up with a solution. And I have a responsibility to be involved with that, as well. It's one thing for a fellow to say, you've got a problem, you all go figure it out. That's not my style. My style is to say, we've got a problem, and we're going to figure it out. (Applause.)

All ideas are on the table except running up the payroll tax. And I don't care whether it's a Democrat idea, Republican idea, independent idea, I'm interested in ideas. And so I'm going to say, like I have been saying before to the United States Congress, bring them up. Let's see what you think we ought to do to solve the problem, and I'll work with you. This is not one of these moments where we're trying to gain political advantage. I think this has got to be a moment where people from both parties come together and say, here is a problem. For generations -- it's not a problem for just Republican youngsters, it's not a problem just for Democrat youngsters. It's a problem for every youngster coming up in America. And therefore, I want to work with members of the Congress. And so I said in my speech the other day, other people have had some good ideas; they're on the table. And if you want to lay one out, I promise you there won't be political retribution for having done so.

Now, I've got some of my own ideas. And I want to share one idea with you, and we've got some panelists here that think it's pretty good idea, too, and they're going to give you a different perspective, perhaps, than the one I give you.

The way the system works is that you write a check -- you don't write a check -- they take it out of your check, a payroll tax, and it immediately goes to pay somebody's benefit. That's the way it works. It's a pay-as-you-go system, and we'll discuss that in a minute. What I think you ought to do is be able to take some of the money you're paying in and set up what's called a personal retirement account. First of all, there's the -- there's a simple principle, and it's -- actually, it's your money that's going into the Social Security trust. You're working and you're paying the payroll taxes, and I think some of that money ought to go into a retirement account.

And why that is important is because with a conservative mix of stocks and bonds, you will be able to get -- your money will be able to get a better rate of return than the money inside the Social Security trust. And by getting a better rate of return inside the Social Security trust, your nest egg will grow big enough to help you when it comes time to retire. Not fully take care of all your retirement obligations, because you'll still have money in the Social Security trust, which you'll be able to receive at the appropriate time, but it will help complement the money. And that's important. And that's an important aspect of making sure that the promises made to the younger workers are more likely, or more closely to be delivered.

Secondly, I like the idea of promoting an ownership society. I think it makes sense to have people feel a stake in the future by owning something. I like the concept of people getting a quarterly statement about how their stocks and bonds are doing in their own personal account.

Thirdly, I like the idea of somebody being able to say, my money has grown to X; I'm not going to necessarily need it to retire, and I want to leave it to whomever I choose to leave it to. In other words, you're asset, your decision as to who ends up with the money that you have saved.

See, I think all these concepts are an important part of helping to strengthen Social Security for generations to come, the most important aspect of which, is that the money will earn a greater rate of return than that which is now being earned in the Social Security trust. So a dollar will be a lot bigger when it comes time to retire than a dollar that had been kept in the trust. That's called the compounding rate of interest.

Now, some of you are beginning to glaze over -- I understand. (Laughter.) Think about private property in an account that you can pass on to who you want, that earns a better return than the current system, and you'll end up with more money.

Now, there's some rules, and it's important for you to know the rules. One, you can't take your money that you set aside in the personal account and go to the race track. (Applause.) Or take it to the lottery. You can't do that. There will be a prescribed mix of conservative stocks and bonds into which you can invest, similar to the employee thrift plan at the federal government level. See, this already exists, by the way. I haven't invented this. Federal employees now get to do that. They get to take a portion of their money and put it in a conservative mix of stocks and bonds, five different programs they get to choose from, so they get a better rate and more money.

Secondly, you can't pull it all out when it comes time to your -- you can't take it all and then go to the track. (Laughter.) You're not allowed to do that. You can take it out -- withdraw it in an orderly fashion so as it complements your Social Security check. And those are important things for people to understand.

Thirdly, there are ways to make sure that you can invest in very safe certificates as you head into retirement. People are going to say, well, what happens if the stock market goes down the year I'm going to retire? Well, first of all, you've had your money in the market over an extended period of time. But if you're worried about that, there are ways to invest the money prior to retirement to help kind of shield from a cyclical market. What I'm telling you is these investment vehicles will be safe. There's all kinds of rhetoric about, well, you're not going to let people gamble their money. Well, if things are done in a conservative fashion, you will be able to achieve the objective of getting a better rate of return on your money and have more money available for you on retirement than if it had sat in the Social Security trust. In other words, that money will grow better.

It's very important for people to understand that there's going to be some tough decisions we have to make. And the purpose of personal accounts is not only more freedom, but it's to try to get your retirement nest egg close to that which has been promised. That's what we're talking about.

Now, that's one idea. And I'm willing to debate it, and campaign on it, and talk to people about it. And I expect the Congress to take it seriously, just like I'll take every idea that they put out seriously. This is going to require a joint effort to get the job done. And I'm looking forward to working with these members. I've got -- there's some sympathetic ears here, which I appreciate. Other members are watching very carefully. They're listening carefully. If you've got a concern about Social Security, you tell your people about it. Just let me remind you, if you're a senior, nothing changes. And if you're a youngster, I'd be knocking on the members of the Congress and the Senate's door to say, what are you going to do about that chart to make sure I can grow up in a -- (applause.)

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by academic punk


How much revenue is vanishing b/c of the abolishment of the inheritance tax? BILLIONS.

How many other tax breaks have the upper class received in a time when every member of this country should be called upon to sacrifice if not years of service to the military then at least a few more bucks to taxes?



Well said...for a Socialist.

:gulp:

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by FORD
Yeah, keep blaming Clinton for Poppy's defense cut program.

Didn't the BCE just cut the military AGAIN, despite their insistence that we are at "war"??

Clinton took a moderate defense cut and made it a MASSIVE one. That's a damned fact....a fact you continually overlook.

:gulp:

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Guitar Shark
Please tell me that's not an actual quote.

This is the leader of the free world?

It is.

I've heard the audio

:rolleyes:

[hollywood5150]

Vote republican.........

does a little history check...........

you'll find alot of contradictions with the clintons..........

at least Bush sticks to his guns.......

GO GOP

after all isn't DAVE REPUBLICAN?????

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
Here's what Bush really said in Tampa...



No, that's what he READ from the screen WRITTEN by his handlers.

The quote I posted was his "response" to a real question from a real taxpayer.

Ever notice how DUMB he sounds when NOT getting his answers FED to him?

Of course you've never noticed.:rolleyes:

[FORD]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Clinton took a moderate defense cut and made it a MASSIVE one. That's a damned fact....a fact you continually overlook.

:gulp:

The cuts Clinton made were mandated by the plan that Poppy Bush's administration laid out. And with the Soviet Union not existing, and no need for a huge military presence, with no threats against this country, the cuts were logical.

Of course Clinton didn't know that the BCE was creating America's next "enemy" behind his back.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Speaking in Tampa, FL President Bush tried to explain how he will save Social Security:




President Bush: “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. Look, there’s a series of things that cause the—like, for example, benefits are calculated based upon the increase of wages, as opposed to the increase of prices. Some have suggested that we calculate—the benefits will rise based upon inflation, as opposed to wage increases. There is a reform that would help solve the red if that were put into effect. In other words, how fast benefits grow, how fast the promised benefits grow, if those—if that growth is affected, it will help on the red.”



“Okay, better? I’ll keep working on it.”


:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Whassamatta Warham? Don't like your president's answer to the question?

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by FORD
The cuts Clinton made were mandated by the plan that Poppy Bush's administration laid out. And with the Soviet Union not existing, and no need for a huge military presence, with no threats against this country, the cuts were logical.

Of course Clinton didn't know that the BCE was creating America's next "enemy" behind his back.

Logic. What a concept.

[Warham]

I'm still waiting for you to recant your abortion claims.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Logic. What a concept.

Except that it makes no damned sense. Mandate my ass. :rolleyes:

[academic punk]

S.S. is not half the problem that Bush wants to make it out to be. Need proof? A healthy portion of his own party aren't getting behind his program.

As for abortions causing the problem, that'...well, it almost sounds like a Jon Stewart joke. Whatever you're being fed or smoking, WARHAM, for the sake of your family, stop. It can't possibly be doing you any favors.

Plus, WARHAM, the crisis is the fact that there ARE so many baby boomers!!! We've had a population explosion even WITH abortion!!! So when the BBs start retiring in the next couple of years, it's them who are going to be draining the system! So if there were even more of them, that would've solcved NOTHING!!! in fact, it would have INCREASED the problem!!!

So I suggest we not only keep abortions legal, but actually INCREASE the amount of time the parent has to elect for an abortion. I say, from four months of insemination, to, oh, the first eighteen years of the brats life. If it turns out you just don't like the little tyke, heck, before the worries of paying tuition kick in, you can still rid yourself and the world of another person who will someday contribute to continuing the drainage of the social security funds, but also may very well vote democrat.

[Warham]

I don't think people paying into the system is increasing the problem, Punk.

I'm not sure you understood my point.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Clinton managed the budget on the back on the military.

No wonder it was in the shitter when Bush took office.

Oh really? The US military was in the shitter? I find that to be pretty offensive WARHAM!

See! NEO CON's hate AMERICA and want to destroy it in foreign wars so they can justify massive federal spending.:rolleyes:

Tell me again why we managed to retaliate (with mixed-success after we largely abandoned it) in AFGHANISTAN, and rolled over the IRAQI Army in a matter of days with our "shitter" based military that the CLINTON Pentagon was largely responsible for?

Do I have to show you how shocking it is that we spend more on defense then our next-six potential adversaries COMBINED!?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by 4moreyears
Social Security was ruined before it started. People that rely on the Gov"t and decide not to be responsible for their own finances I have no sympathy for them. I do think special considerations should be made for those who are not able to tend to themselves.

JH

Exactly! All you need to do is get a good job in the airline industry or energy industry or something, and you are guaranteed a good pension!:p

[Warham]

If Social Security was ruined before it started, I guess it really wasn't a success of the Democratic party after all. Liberalism failed again.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
I'm still waiting for you to recant your abortion claims.

wait all you want :rolleyes:

Cut and Paste ONE source and call it TRUTH?

That sounds like the intel that got us into Iraq [chalabi]

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
If Social Security was ruined before it started, I guess it really wasn't a success of the Democratic party after all. Liberalism failed again.

Actually it's considered to be the most successful gov't program ever.

BTW, what is the BUSH Administration, and the REPUBLICAN's, doing about all of the corporations overvaluing their pension plans?

[academic punk]

Originally posted by Warham
If Social Security was ruined before it started, I guess it really wasn't a success of the Democratic party after all. Liberalism failed again.

tell it to your parents who I'm certain are very happy it's there.

(or at the least accepting the checks when they come in)

[Warham]

My parents are about ten to fifteen years from collecting.

They think it needs fixed as well. Both Bush voters.

[academic punk]

Well, they won't see any difference. Folks 55 years and older won't get any changes in their entitlements.

What are your feelings twoards the estate tax?