Obama attacks McCain on Social Security?

[OzarkDem]

Obama told a group of seniors that McCain will privatize Social Security.

Yet Obama frequently refers to a non-existant Social Security "crisis" and has said that, because of this non-existent crisis, "all options should be on the table".

Obama's advisor on Social Security issues, Jeffrey Liebman, has consistently promoted Social Security privatization.




http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hLPqTxd4Fe7e5EymHU-kTUgweRDQD90O8VD80

So why is Obama out there lying to seniors about his own beliefs on Social Security? Is he afraid McCain is going to call him out on his dishonesty?

[Faygo Kid]

1. You're hysterically anti-Obama, but please at least tell the truth.

What "privatization?" You mean setting up private accounts IN ADDITION TO, NOT INSTEAD OF Social Security?

When you accuse our presumptive nominee of lying, you better back it up with something better than this crap.

[OzarkDem]

4. Yes, that's privatization

Because we already have 401 K and IRA plans.

"private accounts" in addition to Social Security is nothing more than a shell game used to steal money from Social Security and divert it to Wall Street investors.

"private accounts" already have been proven to be incredibly costly (over a trillion dollars to start), would completely destabilize the current system of Social Security AND has been resoundingly rejected by voters.

So why is he lying about his GOP bred Social Security plan saying its bad if McCain proposes it, but privately touts a similar plan.

Doesn't he owe it to seniors to tell them the truth, or do Obama supporters think its ok for him to lie to them.

[Faygo Kid]

13. Crap. You obviously don't know what you're talking about.

You never have and never will listen to reason here, so I will just say that Obama has never proposed diverting ANY funds from Social Security for private accounts.

You will say and do anything to defame Obama. Don't bother replying; I look forward to the day (soon) when you are posting elsewhere in an echo chamber.

[VolcanoJen]

It's hardly worth it.

She's not listening. You know this already, and made a gallant effort, but any minute now, Ozark's off to join the "McCain For America" camp.

[Faygo Kid]

30. Thank you. I don't normally respond to her or rodeodance under any circumstances.

Complete waste of time, but I happen to have a job that involves Social Security issues, and therefore am familiar with the issues. This kind of misrepresentation is just pathetic. Your reply brought my blood pressure down a couple points, and for that I am grateful.

[OzarkDem]

28. If you're an expert, refute my argument

Allowing "private Social Security savings accounts" will take an estimated $1 trillion out of the Social Security system now used to pay the costs of people currently retired and collecting Social Security.

There are already tax breaks available for people who want to invest their own money in 401 k's and IRA's.

So if you don't like 401 k's and IRA's, how do you propose to pay for the $1 trillion cost of allowing private accounts in Social Security.

The public discussed this issue a few years ago when Bush proposed it and it was hugely unpopular. If Obama's supporters want to push it - go for it.

[Faygo Kid]

35. Obama would take not even one dime from Social Security.

What's the difference? You listen to no one here except yourself and your echo chamber of supporters. How many times does it take to get even the tiniest modicum of understanding that he is not talking "privatization?"

It must be tough to go through life so hopelessly ignorant and incapable of critical thinking.

[OzarkDem]

56. He's taken both sides on this issue

That's a problem he has to deal with.

[Samantha]

60. Obama has specifically said he will raise the cap on which

taxes are paid to offset any future shortages. He is not talking about privatizing the overall Social Security program, just shoring it up if need be. Most of the experts say there is no current crisis with Social Security and won't be in 2042. The real problem is that the Federal Government is once again siphoning off the surplus that would be accruing by putting those monies in the general funds and spending it on the war, as well as other things. This practice was stopped the last two years of Clinton-Gore. Since the economy then was projecting huge deficits, Clinton said all of the years the Federal Government had been commingling the Social Security deficits with general revenue funds was simply wrong. Those funds, in reality should have all along been put in a separate account where it accrued interest. With the Bush* administration, once again the funds became commingled and we started hearing Social Security had to be been fixed.

There has been some discussion about allowing younger people to opt out of Social Security, forfeiting future benefits, is they preferred private investment accounts. This is a Republican solution which if voluntary would appease those younger people who do think Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. It would not impact those on benefits now or nearly there (so it is said). However, the lack of contributions from those who opt out would be felt by the program.

Paul O'Neill (not sure about that spelling, former Bush* Treasury Secretary) came up with a plan along with Greenspan in which they attempted to in all fairness to all involved ascertain the age at which such an opt-out plan would be available. Independently, they separated, crunched their own numbers and came back to meet to discuss their conclusions. That number was written by each on a piece of paper. When the papers were unfolded the number "32" appeared on both. So each decided if one were 32 or younger, if the opt out program were implemented, only those within that age group could participate. All above the age of 32 would not be eligible to participate. See The Price of Loyalty for more information. The Oval Office rejected that plan, and Paul O'Neill, as you might remember was dismissed by Bush* from his cabinet. O'Neill is not exactly a yes-type guy.

One could make the argument that over the long-haul, the motive behind this would be to dissolve Social Security. I would not argue with that assertion.

John McCain has openly said he wants to privatize Social Security. Since I was a child, I have heard the Wall Street guys would give anything to invest the money the government collected for Social Security. A few years ago, the transition cost for privatizing the entire program was three trillion dollars. I am sure it has at least doubled since then. While it was said the transition cost would not impact those benefits of those currently collecting Social Security, I simply do not believe that.

But there is no question Barack Obama is not in favor of privatizing the entire Social Security program, and it is one area where he can crucify John McCain the General Election in front of all those Florida seniors. He just has to roll out the video of John McCain saying this.

[Shakespeare]

22. Hillary supporter James Carville has suggested doing this very same thing.

He spends a chapter on it in his book "Had Enough?" You should bother actually reading up on the details of this as an ADDITIONAL social security program before you wig out about it and wrongly accuse Obama of lying.

[OzarkDem]

31. Clinton rejects it

Hillary and Bill both did, that's why he made Social Security solvent for many years to come.

Actions speak louder than words and the Clinton's actions already have spoken. They don't support privatization.

[Shakespeare]

38. It's NOT privatization. Stop LYING.

It's an entirely separate program that doesn't touch FICA. What part of that is so seemingly difficult for you to understand?

Hillary hasn't considered Carville's suggestion one way or the other, from what I can tell. Neither has Bill.

Perhaps you should read Mr. Carville's book--a little knowledge would suit you well.

[OzarkDem]

40. If it takes money away from the Social Security trust fund

then its not good.

If he's just proposing what we already have - 401 k and IRA accounts - why is he falsely referring to a "crisis" in Social Security?

[Shakespeare]

41. It doesn't take a PENNY away from the SS trust fund.

And there IS a crisis in SS. What he's proposing is quite different than private 401ks, which you would know if you took two seconds to bother reading the details. But you'd rather sit here and spout clueless bullshit simply because you don't like Obama. That is the very definition of intellectual dishonesty.

[OzarkDem]

45. There is no crisis in Social Security

It is fully funded through 2027,


http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/issuebriefs_ib177

"The latest release of the Social Security trustees' report (2002) shows-once again-that Social Security is safe for at least another generation, and that, despite the current recession, its future outlook is steadily improving. The trustees revised upward by three years, to 2041, the period over which Social Security is expected to pay full benefits. After this date, Social Security's income is still expected to pay for more than two-thirds of benefits. The projected shortfall can be covered by making small changes in the way the system is financed.

The alternative to small financing adjustments-dismantling Social Security through privatization-is not a workable solution because it would require large transfers from the government and substantial benefit cuts. Under the privatization options proposed by the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security, the trust fund would either be exhausted in 2027, or promised benefits for today's 35-year-olds would have to be cut by as much as 18%. Moreover, Social Security would still require $3-5 trillion, in today's dollars, to close anticipated financing gaps.

[Shakespeare]

48. You think 2027 is as far ahead as we need to plan? Less than 20 years?

1. Take five minutes to look at the demographics related to this.

2. Buy a bucking clue.

[OzarkDem]

52. Measures needed to secure it longer are not difficult

and privatization will only make it worse.

Good luck trying to convince voters otherwise.

[Shakespeare]

64. For the millionth time, HE'S NOT OFFERING A PRIVATIZAITON PROGRAM.

You're either dumber than a box of hammers, or you're a deliberate liar. Neither speaks well of you.

[ruby slippers]

27. it isn't the seniors that need the truth, it is you juniors....we already

have our Social Security coming in and we also have our pension plans, not the IRA's and the 401K's. We don't need the explanations, it is you younger people who the IRA's and the 401K's are giving money back to the government. Case in point....My hubby is getting his pension Aug. 1 and one portion of three has already been taxed way back in the 60's and is free and clear money. He will lose 20 percent to the other 2/3 that has not been taxed but has been put in by him (aka 401K style). But, he will get the rest in a monthly pension from the company along with Social Security, none of which he has put into nor will come in a lump sum to be taxed all at once. The nice thing is we opted to take it at 100 percent for him for his lifetime (he is 62 and can get it at 100 percent as he worked 29 years for the same company---a rarity today--- and 100 percent for me for the rest of my lifetime in spousal benefits should I survive him. Needless to say, I am only 56 so we should get it for quite awhile as I don't plan on going anywhere anytime soon and am in good health. Then, he will have a second pension from his second job of 10 years which will also come in an annuity plan.

So, the best thing is to talk to you younger people. We are already set in our money.

Oh, and by the way, did I mention that the pension plan he will get is from an "oil company"!!!!

[jefferson_dem]

2. You're either intentionally misleading or displaying willful ignorance.

Which is it?

Obama has long been sounding the alarm about the coming challenge of the SS shortfall. In fact, Krugman and other so-called progressives have criticized him for playing into the "crisis-mongering". His prescriptions outlined today mirror those that he has already recommended, including his opposition to privatization.

http://www.issues2000.org/Economic/Barack_Obama_Social_Security.htm

Again, which is it - intentional mislead or willful ignorance on your part?

[OzarkDem]

5. His phony crisis talk is dishonest

and yes, he's been called out on it and proven wrong many times. So why is he still lying to seniors?

See post above where one of your fellow Obama supporters tries to defend Obama's privatization game of 3 card Monte.

[jefferson_dem]

11. Ok. So you are intentionally misrepresenting his position.

Below you will find his policy statement from today. Note how he IS NOT recommending privatization and never has. Don't lie. If you have trouble reading, click on the video I posted in the Video Forum.

...

Now we already know what the Republicans will be running on. John McCain has already said that he supports private accounts for Social Security – in his words, “along the lines that President Bush proposed.” Let me be clear: privatizing Social Security was a bad idea when George W. Bush proposed it. It’s a bad idea today. It would cost a trillion dollars to implement at the front end, and would put the retirement plans of millions of Americans at risk on a volatile Wall Street. That’s why I stood up against this plan in the Senate, and that’s why I won’t stand for it as President.

But Senator McCain’s campaign went even further a few weeks ago, suggesting that the best answer to the growing pressures on Social Security might be to cut cost-of-living adjustments or to raise the retirement age. I think there is another option that is fairer to working men and women. We have to protect Social Security for future generations without pushing the burden on to seniors who have earned the right to retire in dignity.

Here’s my plan. Right now, the Social Security payroll tax only applies to the first $102,000 a worker makes. I think the best way forward is to adjust the cap on the payroll tax so that people like me pay a little bit more and people in need are protected. That way we can extend the promise of Social Security without shifting the burden on to seniors. And we should include what’s called a “donut hole” to make sure that this change doesn’t ensnare any middle class Americans.

But Social Security is not enough. More and more seniors are struggling with the cost of everything from gas to groceries, and we know that rising costs are hardest for folks on fixed incomes. That’s why I’ll make retirement more secure by eliminating income taxes for any retiree making less than $50,000 per year. This would completely eliminate income taxes for 7 million seniors, providing a savings of $1,400 per person each year.

And it’s time to end the outrage of CEOs cashing out while workers lose their pensions. Right now, bankruptcy laws are more focused on protecting banks than protecting pensions. That’s not fair. That’s not the America that I believe in. It’s time to stop cutting back the safety net for working people while we protect golden parachutes for the well-off. If you work hard and play by the rules, then you’ve earned your pension. If a company goes bankrupt, then workers need to be our top priority – not an afterthought.

I fought against a bankruptcy bill in the Senate that did more to protect credit card companies and banks than help working people. And as President, I’ll limit circumstances when retirement benefits can be cut, and increase the wages and benefits that workers can claim in bankruptcy court. We’ll require companies to disclose their pension fund investments. We’ll put an end to the outrage of executives getting bonuses while workers watch pensions disappear. And we’ll make sure that no American goes bankrupt just because they get sick.

Finally, we’re not going to help folks reach retirement unless we encourage savings. But today, personal savings is at an all-time low as Americans are dealing with higher costs and a credit crunch. Meanwhile, 75 million working Americans don’t have employer-based retirement plans.

That’s why I’ve proposed automatic workplace pensions. There will be no red tape or complicated forms – employers will provide a direct deposit of a small percentage of each paycheck into your account. You can add to it, or you can opt out at any time. And employers will have an easy opportunity to match employee savings. If you switch jobs, your savings will roll over into your new employer’s system. If you become self-employed, you will control your account. Studies show that about 80 percent of Americans will enroll if given the option to pursue my plan. This will put a secure retirement within reach for millions of working families.

Since the New Deal, we’ve had that basic understanding in America. If you work hard and pay into the system, you’ve earned the right to a secure retirement. That’s the promise that was kept for my grandparents and Michelle’s parents, and for so many families here in Oregon and across the country. But in George Bush and John McCain’s Washington, the message to the middle class is: “you’re on your own.”

Well I’m running for because we must be the country where we say that we’re all in this together. We can do this. We can come together to keep America’s promise – not just for this generation of seniors, but for our children and our grandchildren. That’s a principle worth fighting for. And with your help, that’s what I will do every day when I am President of the United States of America.

http://thepage.time.com/full-transcript-of-obamas-remarks-in-gresham-oregon/

[OzarkDem]

42. As I already stated

He's talking out of both sides of his mouth. He's putting up a phony plan on his web site, just as he revamped it to take out the "globalization" language he loves so much when he wanted to pick up blue collar voters in Ohio.

Its no secret that he supports plans that "privatize" SS. He's talked about it for years. The fact that he does an about face on his web site just to pick up votes doesn't impress me.

[democrattotheend]

17. Obama plans to privatize Social Security?

Got a link? I hadn't heard that one before.

[OzarkDem]

43. Google it

He and his advisors Goolsbee and Liebman have been talking about it for years. Like his love of globalization, he clammed up when he decided to go after voters who he knew wouldn't agree with him.

[cali]

3. stop misrepresenting what Obama has said.

It's contemptible and you do it in post after post. Your over the top hate is ridiculous.

[ej510]

7. Ozarkdem will have to be put into Bellview mental hospital after Clinton concedes.

[OzarkDem]

9. So you support Obama's plan to privatize Social Security?

You're ok with him lying to senior citizens about it?

Or are you only capable of acting like a 3rd grader?

Its ok, if that's the only level of political discussion you're comfortable with. We grownups will just ignore you and send you out to play.

[sfaprog]

20. "Acting like a third grader"? That's rich from someone repeating a proven lie

:eyes:

[OzarkDem]

44. Sorry, but Obama has a long history

of supporting privatization plans, as do his advisors.

A last minute conversion to get votes doesn't fool those who know that.

[shraby]

25. Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

It appears to me that you do...or enjoy misleading people.

[FrenchieCat]

6. Yeah....sure

That's why the most progressive members of congress have endorsed him; cause he's a stealth social security privatizer. :sarcasm:


What-E-ver....

someone ought to break the news to these deluted suckers!
Robert Wexler
Bob Conyers
Henry Waxman
Barbara Lee
Kent Conrad
Chris Dodd
Byron Dorgan
Richard Durbin
Ted Kennedy
John Kerry
Amy Klobuchar
Patrick J. Leahy
Claire McCaskill

etc, etc, etc...... :eyes:

[BlooInBloo]

8. Thanks for the lie. Now let's examine the TRUTH:

http://www.issues2000.org/Economic/Barack_Obama_Social_Security.htm

"No privatization; but consider earning cap over $97,500"

"Stock market risk is ok, but not for Social Security"

[OzarkDem]

15. Sorry, but his real words and actions betray him

He knows his ideas on privatization are very, very unpopular. Do you really think he would put them on his web site? :rofl: I've got some swampland in Florida if you're interested in buying...

Is he still using Goolsberg & Liebman as advisors? If so, he's still supporting privatization.


He routinely uses the word crisis when referring to Social Security, the traditional dodge used by privatization enthusiasts. "Dog whistle politics" at its worst. Social Security is not in crisis an in fact is solvent for many, many years to come.

So why is he lying about it?

[MattBaggins]

36. Just thought I'd help you out with word choice

"Crisis" is not a dog whistle word. It is just the opposite in fact.

[HockeyMom]

10. I had the option of either a Pension OR a 401K

No brainer. I choose the Pension. Unless you have a lot of money to burn, take the Pension.

This is the same mindset as private medical accounts. You health/retirement is only as good as what you can afford to put into.

[OzarkDem]

19. Social Security is solvent through 2036 thanks to Bill Clinton

Its only the "privatization" hacks who falsely claim its in crisis, as Obama has done on numerous occasions. He's been called out many, many times by economists on this issue.

[dems_rightnow]

26. It is solvent

Personally, I'd like to see them raise the cap so it's solvent long BEYOND 2036, and I suppose they will when a democrat is President. The SS website says they're solvent to 2041, and also has this:

"Under this scenario, benefits would be reduced 22 percent at the point of trust fund exhaustion in 2041, with reductions reaching 25 percent in 2082".

Hint- any projection going thru 2082 isn't worth beans.

[Terri S]

12. Already joined the McCain campaign have you?

Pretty sad.

[hiroyuyu2009]

14. ha

why are hillary supporters defending a bush clone neocon warmonger repuke position


when did du become bipartisan

[NotThisTime]

16. delusional IMHO...

Really, just go join the McCain camp, you really do belong there.

[OzarkDem]

24. Social Security privatization is wrong whether Obama or McCain is proposing it

So sad you feel like playing games with a critical social program just to defend Obama.

Keep it up and you'll be dumpster diving for Obama in your senior years.

[VolcanoJen]

33. "dumpster diving for Obama in your senior years."

Good Gawd, Ozark. Even for you, that's just over-the-top hyperbole. :eyes:

[OzarkDem]

46. Link

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/issuebriefs_ib177

"The latest release of the Social Security trustees' report shows-once again-that Social Security is safe for at least another generation, and that, despite the current recession, its future outlook is steadily improving. The trustees revised upward by three years, to 2041, the period over which Social Security is expected to pay full benefits. After this date, Social Security's income is still expected to pay for more than two-thirds of benefits. The projected shortfall can be covered by making small changes in the way the system is financed.

The alternative to small financing adjustments-dismantling Social Security through privatization-is not a workable solution because it would require large transfers from the government and substantial benefit cuts. Under the privatization options proposed by the President's Commission to Strengthen Social Security, the trust fund would either be exhausted in 2027, or promised benefits for today's 35-year-olds would have to be cut by as much as 18%. Moreover, Social Security would still require $3-5 trillion, in today's dollars, to close anticipated financing gaps."

[VolcanoJen]

47. You went all the way back to 2002 to find a link that backs up your hyperbole?

Are you actually being serious here????

[OzarkDem]

49. 2002 was the last report on SS solvency

it was also the last time the voting public let its views be known that it vehemently opposes privatization, since the report shows there is no crisis.

Social Security is in a trust fund, it doesn't go into crisis at the drop of a hat.

[VolcanoJen]

51. You are really, really reaching here, trying to connect this with Obama.

Obama. Is. Not. Advocating. Social. Security. Privitazation. Ozark. Dem.

:eyes:

[OzarkDem]

55. He hasn't convinced older voters

They're less likely to fall for this kind of 180 on an important policy.

[VolcanoJen]

61. So, they'll just erase all doubt and go with McCain, then.

You stopped making sense about 250 posts ago. :shrug:

[OzarkDem]

68. More grade school taunts

Don't Obama supporters have anything better than ad hominem attacks? Doesn't say much about you or your candidate.

[PM7nj]

34. Obama is NOT proposing SS privatization!

Get it through your head. No matter how hard you wish it to be true, it just ain't.

[sfaprog]

18. He should attack McCain on SS - Lord knows Hillary doesn't have a plan of her own to attack with

He quite clearly laid out in the ABC debate what his proposed plan for SS was, it did NOT include privitization. Remember? And then Hillary couldn't come up with any plan at all, instead mumbling something about a vague future committee that "will look into it" (doesn't sound like she'd be ready on day 1 with a SS plan, does it?)

Take these lies back to HillaryIs44

[OzarkDem]

58. No plan is necessary for SS right now, its doing fine

She has other proposals for retirement security, but none of them include privatization because she knows its a bad idea.

Here's a link to her plan for improving 401k and other plans

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=3632

[sfaprog]

62. It's doing fine???

Wow- haven't heard that one yet. Total denial of the problem itself. Even republicans at least admit the problem, they're the ones who want to privatize it.I don't think that line of thought is very much in line with the "ready on day one" theme.

[OzarkDem]

65. Yes, Social Security is doing fine

The links I've posted in this thread refer to the report that showed it is. The money is in a trust fund and its fine til 2024. Minor changes in the system can secure it even longer.

[The Ghost]

21. OzarkDem, enough with the sour grapes and support our candidate.

[ej510]

29. A picture of OzarkDem being dragged off the scene.

[OzarkDem]

54. Welcome to DU

are you new to politics?

[OzarkDem]

53. Your candidate doesn't support women

or women's issues. He's also a very weak contender against McCain and hasn't "won" anything yet.

[anonymous171]

57. Absolutely no proof whatsoever for your accusations.

[anonymous171]

23. McCain 08: Because I hate democrats who aren't Hillary Clinton

Disgusting :puke:

[ej510]

37. OzarkDem and JacksonDem are the same person.

[anonymous171]

39. Ozarkdem is J_dem with a feminist bent.

[OzarkDem]

50. Funny

:rofl:

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## DON'T DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our second quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Whatever you do, do not click the link below!

[barack the house]

59. Sen Obama has regularly said seniors must be respected inclusive of his own grandmother...

He has regularly said that seniors will be taken care of. Veterans and the elderly are 2 groups he strongly defends.

[wishlist]

63. Obama has absolutely ruled out privatization of Social Security

He has acknowledged the possibility of a looming shortfall due to Boomers retiring in large numbers and suggests raising the wage cap for Social Security taxes as a possible fix to shore up future trust funds. He is opposed to privatization of Social Security but wants measures to encourage workers to save more such as through payroll deductions into IRA's.

[OzarkDem]

66. His top advisers say otherwise

and so has Obama, until he found he had to change his tune to lure voters.

Which Obama should we believe? The one for privatization or the one opposed to it?

[apocalypsehow]

67. That's right, go to bat for McCain. I'm loving it - your true colors are really starting to show.

:thumbsdown: