-Caveat Lector- I didn't know all that - did you?
Q. Which party took Social Security from an independent fund and put it in the general fund so that Congress could spend it? A. It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratic-controlled House and Senate. Q. Which party put a tax on Social Security? A. The Democratic party. Q. Which party increased the tax on Social Security? A. The Democratic Party with Al Gore throwing the deciding vote. Q. Which party decided to give money to immigrants? That's right, an immigrant moves to this country at 65 and gets SSI Social Security. A. The Democratic Party gave that to them although they never paid any money into it. Then after doing all this, they turn around and tell you the Republicans want to take your Social Security. And the worst part about it is, you might believe it! The voting for Congressional seats is coming up in just a few short weeks. Think about how you want to vote! >-Caveat Lector- > > > ><A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> >DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER >========== >CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic >screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are >sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- >directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with >major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. >That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and >always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no >credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. > >Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. >======================================================================== >Archives Available at: >http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html > <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of >[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> > >http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ > <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> >======================================================================== >To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: >SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: >SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Om > >Subject: Bush STILL Trying to Plunder Social Security >Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2002 00:33:23 EDT >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >-Caveat Lector- > >Got to get those billions for the Iraqi invasion from somewhere ... > >"Even IF [Social Security] is partially privatized, law-makers will have to >consider raising taxes to ensure there is enough money for baby boomers to >retire on." > > >Bush's Plan For Social Security Loses Favor >Some GOP Candidates Resist Partial Privatization > >By Jim VandeHei and Juliet Eilperin >Washington Post Staff Writers > >Tuesday, August 13, 2002; Page A01 > >President Bush's campaign to allow Americans to invest a portion of their >Social Security taxes in the stock market is losing support among Republican >congressional candidates, as Wall Street's sinking prices reinforce concerns >about the proposal. >Amid sharp attacks by the Democratic Party, several GOP incumbents and >challengers are coming out against Bush's plan to privatize partially the >popular, taxpayer-funded retirement program. Fueling the shift is the stock >market's recent plunge, which has reminded voters of the risks of investing >in stocks, rather than in other financial instruments that guarantee safe but >modest returns. >The president continues to call for giving workers the right to direct a >portion of their Social Security payroll taxes to stocks or other investments >by creating personal savings accounts. Bush first extolled the plan near the >peak of the last decade's remarkable bull market; he says Wall Street's >frequently impressive returns should boost Social Security as well as >nongovernment retirement programs. >In some cases, GOP lawmakers such as Reps. George W. Gekas (Pa.) and Charles >W. "Chip" Pickering Jr. (Miss.) are opposing Bush's proposal after praising >it in the past. At least three Republican congressional challengers -- Rick >Clayburgh (N.D.), William J. Janklow (S.D.) and Jon Porter (Nev.) -- have >disavowed the idea of private accounts. Many other Republicans are playing >down previous endorsements of privatizing all or part of Social Security as a >way to bolster the system before it goes broke. >This retreat complicates Bush's campaign to revamp Social Security in the >next Congress, which was a formidable challenge from the start. It also >provides the latest example of how corporate scandals and the recent stock >market swoon are altering public policy debates. If this signals the start of >a broader defection, it could put pressure on congressional Republicans in >the years ahead to articulate a new strategy for change. >Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.), author of a bipartisan bill to create individual >savings accounts, said some colleagues are "running for cover," making it >more difficult for Congress to enact meaningful reforms. >"Politics always gets in the way of serious policy, and there are few issues >where this is more true than Social Security," Kolbe said. "I think it's a >mistake not to stick with the president's position." >White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, rattling off a list of Republican >candidates supporting the Bush plan, played down the defections. "While not >everyone will agree on how to fix Social Security," she said, "we are pleased >the president's proposals enjoy broad bipartisan support." >Even if the system is partially privatized, experts say, lawmakers will >likely have to consider raising the eligibility age, cutting benefits for >wealthy recipients or raising taxes to ensure there is enough money for baby >boomers approaching retirement. >Most politicians are reluctant to endorse any of these solutions for the very >reason some Republicans are backing away from Bush's private accounts: It's >often tantamount to political suicide. As Democrats are proving once again, >Social Security is perhaps the most lethal weapon in contemporary politics. >The reason is simple: Senior citizens, many of whom rely on the retirement >program to pay rent and buy food, vote in large numbers. >Although corporate accountability was the hot topic in Washington in July, >Democratic rhetoric on Social Security is often even hotter on the campaign >trail in August, according to lawmakers and strategists in numerous races >across the country. With many 401(k) retirement plans losing value because of >their faltering stock holdings, Social Security checks are more important >than ever to retirees and older workers. The idea of investing part of that >money in the stock market, which looked so attractive when Wall Street was >booming, appears foolish to many seniors -- and politicians. >Democrats have launched another broad campaign to convince seniors that >Republican policies are jeopardizing Social Security. In response, GOP >incumbents and challengers are calibrating their positions to inoculate >themselves against such attacks. >Before leaving town for the August recess, Republican lawmakers received a >detailed dossier from their leaders warning them against talking about >privatization. It instructed them to avoid staking out specific solutions to >shore up Social Security. And despite Bush's campaign to win support for his >proposal, it did not encourage GOP lawmakers to endorse the push for private >accounts. >"Simply put, [older Americans] do not want the rules of the game to change," >the dossier said. >Pickering, who faces Rep. Ronnie Shows (D-Miss.) in a redrawn district on >Nov. 5, was one of 117 lawmakers to sign a letter last year saying Social >Security reform must offer young workers the opportunity to improve their >rates of return through personal retirement accounts. Now he says that's "not >an option." >Shows accused Pickering of undergoing an election-year conversion. "He's >flipped, he's flopped," Shows said. "Just as soon as he gets reelected, he's >going to jump back on the bandwagon with the president." >In Minnesota's 6th District, Rep. Mark Kennedy, a GOP freshman locked in a >tough reelection fight, has tempered his support for creating private >accounts. Although he signed the same letter as Pickering, he is campaigning >feverishly to convince voters he has not switched his position. >After initially denying to local reporters that he signed the letter, Kennedy >now will only say: "I support exploring ways of strengthening Social >Security. I don't know what those ways are." >In Pennsylvania's 17th District, Gekas -- forced by redistricting to run >against Democratic Rep. Tim Holden -- has come out strongly against Bush's >plan. Gekas said Bush's inability to articulate how Americans would be >protected against precipitous drops in stock values has forced him to oppose >the plan. >"There's no place for it in the current debate," he said. >Two years ago, in a column to his constituents, Gekas praised personal >retirement accounts. "[Social Security] money is yours and you should be able >to determine how to make it work for you," he wrote in July 2000. >Gekas concedes there was some hyperbole in the column but insists he never >explicitly endorsed the Bush plan. To emphasize the point, Gekas unexpectedly >showed up at a political event hosted by Holden to put in writing his pledge >to oppose privatization. >Republicans charge that Democrats are trying to scare seniors by >misrepresenting Gekas's position (he has never voted to privatize Social >Security) and exaggerating the voting records of other Republicans. >In several races, Democrats are accusing Republicans of supporting >privatization because they voted to fund a bipartisan Social Security >Commission, whose recommendations were expected to include partial >privatization. >"To say that's a vote to privatize Social Security is just beyond the pale. >It's concocted out of thin air," said Steve Schmidt, spokesman for the >National Republican Congressional Committee. >Not only incumbents are running away from Bush's plan. Janklow, the South >Dakota governor now seeking his state's only House seat, on Friday put his >opposition to private accounts in writing, too. Janklow joined Gekas as the >only Republicans who have signed an anti-privatization petition circulated by >the Campaign for America's Future, a liberal advocacy group. >In Nevada's new 3rd District, Republican state Sen. Jon Porter says he is >"adamantly opposed" to private accounts after entertaining the idea in his >campaign two years ago. "The more I look and the more I research, the more >convinced I am that there should be one focus: to preserve and protect Social >Security," he said. >And, in a new twist, some Republicans -- such as Clayburgh and Rep. John >Thune (S.D.), who is running for Senate -- are attacking opponents for >supporting privatization. Clayburgh, who hopes to unseat Rep. Earl Pomeroy >(D-N.D.), has questioned why Pomeroy once backed President Bill Clinton's >proposal to let the government invest some Social Security funds on Wall >Street. >Pomeroy said in an interview that he would no longer push for such a plan, >and would instead focus on shoring up Social Security by paying down the debt. >Thune will not say whether he supports the president's plan, but he has run >advertisements attacking Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) for suggesting in the >1990s that the government invest some of the funds in the stock market. >Johnson has said he no longer supports such a move, and has called the ads >"an outrage" because they imply he still holds that position. > > >© 2002 The Washington Post Company > > > ><A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> >DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER >========== >CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic >screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are >sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- >directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with >major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. >That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and >always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no >credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. > >Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. >======================================================================== >Archives Available at: >http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html > <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of >[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> > >http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ > <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> >======================================================================== >To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: >SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: >SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Om > -- Ed Raymond __________________________________________________________________ Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/ Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/ <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
