PDA

View Full Version : Elections Another Obama Lie


HonestChieffan
09-21-2008, 06:15 PM
Obama's Social Security Whopper
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_social_security_whopper.html

September 20, 2008


He tells Social Security recipients their money would now be in the stock market under McCain's plan. False.


Summary
In Daytona Beach, Obama said that "if my opponent had his way, the millions of Floridians who rely on it would've had their Social Security tied up in the stock market this week." He referred to "elderly women" at risk of poverty, and said families would be scrambling to support "grandmothers and grandfathers."

That's not true. The plan proposed by President Bush and supported by McCain in 2005 would not have allowed anyone born before 1950 to invest any part of their Social Security taxes in private accounts. All current retirees would be covered by the same benefits they are now.

Obama would have been correct to say that many workers under age 58 would have had some portion of their Social Security benefits affected by the current market turmoil – if they had chosen to participate. And market drops would be a worry for those who retire in future decades. But current retirees would not have been affected.

Analysis
In our "Scaring Seniors" article posted Sept. 19 we took apart a claim in an Obama-Biden ad that McCain somehow supported a 50 percent cut in Social Security benefits, which is simply false. Then, on Saturday Sept. 20, Sen. Barack Obama personally fed senior citizens another whopper, this one a highly distorted claim about the private Social Security accounts that McCain supports.


What Obama Said


In Daytona Beach, Florida, Obama said in prepared remarks released by the campaign:

Obama, Sept. 20: And I'll protect Social Security, while John McCain wants to privatize it. Without Social Security half of elderly women would be living in poverty - half. But if my opponent had his way, the millions of Floridians who rely on it would've had their Social Security tied up in the stock market this week. Millions would've watched as the market tumbled and their nest egg disappeared before their eyes. Millions of families would've been scrambling to figure out how to give their mothers and fathers, their grandmothers and grandfathers, the secure retirement that every American deserves. So I know Senator McCain is talking about a "casino culture" on Wall Street - but the fact is, he's the one who wants to gamble with your life savings.

That's untrue. All current retirees would be covered by exactly the same Social Security benefits they are now under what the Obama campaign likes to call the "Bush-McCain privatization plan," which Bush pushed for unsuccessfully in 2005.


Who Would Have Been Affected


As the White House spelled out at the time, on page 5 of the document titled "Strengthening Social Security for the 21st Century," released in February 2005:

Bush Plan: Personal retirement accounts would be phased in. To ease the transition to a personal retirement account system, participation would be phased in according to the age of the worker. In the first year of implementation, workers currently between age 40 and 54 (born 1950 through 1965 inclusive) would have the option of establishing personal retirement accounts. In the second year, workers currently between age 26 and 54 (born 1950 through 1978 inclusive) would be given the option and by the end of the third year, all workers born in 1950 or later who want to participate in personal retirement accounts would be able to do so.

Nobody born before Jan. 1, 1950 could have participated, and anyone born on that date would be 58 years old now. The earliest possible age for receiving Social Security retirement benefits is 62, for early retirement at reduced benefits. Full retirement age is currently 66, and scheduled to go up to age 67 in coming years.

It is certainly true that the stock market carries risks, as recent events remind us. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is down nearly 17 percent for this year, for example, and despite gains in other years it is still barely above where it was at the start of 2000. But historically there have also been rewards for those who make diversified investments and hold for long periods. When Obama spoke, the Dow Jones average still stood 305 percent higher than it had at the start of the 1990's.


Disappearing nest eggs?


Also worth noting here:

The private accounts would have been voluntary. Anybody fearful of the stock market's risk could simply stay in the current system.


Obama's reference to "casino culture," disappearing "nest eggs" and gambling with "your life savings" are also misleading exaggerations. Only a little over one-fourth of any workers' total Social Security taxes could have been invested (a maximum of 4 percent of taxable wages, out of the total 15.3 per cent now paid, split equally between worker and employer.)


Speculation in individual stocks would not have been permitted. Workers would have had a choice of a few, broadly diversified stock or bond funds.


While McCain has voted in favor creating private Social Security accounts in the past, and endorsed Bush's 2005 proposal (which never came to a vote in Congress), he is not making a strong push for them as part of his campaign. In fact, a search for the term "Social Security" on the McCain-Palin Web site brings up the following: "No documents were found."

Footnote: When we contacted the Obama campaign for comment, spokesman Tommy Vietor defended Obama's remarks as accurate:

Vietor: You don’t have to be retired to rely on Social Security. Millions of people who will one day retire rely on Social Security as they plan their future. Senator Obama's bottom line is absolutely true. If McCain got his way and we had private accounts . . . people who are relying on that money for their retirement would be in a very difficult situation.

We would grant Vietor a point if Obama had made any mention of workers being fearful of their future retirement (although this would apply only to those who had chosen to participate in private accounts, and not to everybody.) But Obama did not say that. Instead, he referred to "elderly women" in danger of poverty. He spoke of families "scrambling to figure out how to give their mothers and fathers, their grandmothers and grandfathers" a secure retirement – not to families worrying about their own retirement. If Obama did not mean what he said to be a reference to current retirees, he could say so clearly and amend his words.

-by Brooks Jackson

jettio
09-22-2008, 03:51 AM
All this thread proves is that racists in the Hannity hyena pack do not understand hypotheticals.

Programmer
09-22-2008, 06:16 AM
All this thread proves is that racists in the Hannity hyena pack do not understand hypotheticals.

And you are blind as to the lies of Obama.

Guru
09-22-2008, 06:23 AM
All this thread proves is that racists in the Hannity hyena pack do not understand hypotheticals.
No wonder we can never get past the past.:rolleyes::shake:

penchief
09-22-2008, 06:49 AM
Bush and McCain have been advocating the idea of privatizing Social Security for some time now. It was one of Bush's signature policy proposals. If Bush had gotten his way that money would have found it's way into the hands of the same Wall Street crooks who've taken every chance they've been given to rob this country blind. Obama is fundamentally correct to suggest that we would be trusting our social security to the same crooks who've perpetrated this fraud against America.

I've been saying from the start that privatizing SS would be just another scam designed to transfer great gobs of taxpayer money to private entities (ala Medicare prescription plan). At the very least, this whole sorry episode exposes the folly of that notion. And hopefully it will finally put the issue to rest.

Programmer
09-22-2008, 07:02 AM
Bush and McCain have been advocating the idea of privatizing Social Security for some time now. It was one of Bush's signature policy proposals. If Bush had gotten his way that money would have found it's way into the hands of the same Wall Street crooks who've taken every chance they've been given to rob this country blind. Obama is fundamentally correct to suggest that we would be trusting our social security to the same crooks who've perpetrated this fraud against America.

I've been saying from the start that privatizing SS would be just another scam designed to transfer great gobs of taxpayer money to private entities (ala Medicare prescription plan). At the very least, this whole sorry episode exposes the folly of that notion. And hopefully it will finally put the issue to rest.

The point being that no congress is going to pass a bill that would privatize Social Security, the excess money (which is ours as citizens) has been the source for dipping from President to President. If it stayed as first conceived we would be in great shape for retirement, as it is Social Security is now a burden to the taxpayer rather than a retirement account.

HonestChieffan
09-22-2008, 07:06 AM
If the privatization of some portion is so bad, is that because those who are dependent on govt feeding them are incompetent and cant understand they can invest in a CD at the bank and do better with thier money?

Guru
09-22-2008, 07:07 AM
Bush and McCain have been advocating the idea of privatizing Social Security for some time now. It was one of Bush's signature policy proposals. If Bush had gotten his way that money would have found it's way into the hands of the same Wall Street crooks who've taken every chance they've been given to rob this country blind. Obama is fundamentally correct to suggest that we would be trusting our social security to the same crooks who've perpetrated this fraud against America.

I've been saying from the start that privatizing SS would be just another scam designed to transfer great gobs of taxpayer money to private entities (ala Medicare prescription plan). At the very least, this whole sorry episode exposes the folly of that notion. And hopefully it will finally put the issue to rest.
I would rather have the choice of what my medicare money does rather than be forced to put it in some account that congress can raid at will.

penchief
09-22-2008, 07:11 AM
The point being that no congress is going to pass a bill that would privatize Social Security, the excess money (which is ours as citizens) has been the source for dipping from President to President. If it stayed as first conceived we would be in great shape for retirement, as it is Social Security is now a burden to the taxpayer rather than a retirement account.

It's still working and can be salvaged easily by making a few adjustments. If we had privatized SS it would have gone the same route as Enron pensions, Bear Stearns, Fannie & Freddie, AIG, etc. It would have resulted in nothing more than handing our social safety net over to the same bunch of thieves who have had no objective other than getting rich quick off the backs of others.

The speculators and profiteers would have screwed us out of social security just like everything else. Their pattern has been well established.

penchief
09-22-2008, 07:13 AM
I would rather have the choice of what my medicare money does rather than be forced to put it in some account that congress can raid at will.

All the drug prescription plan did was bloat the taxpayer's expense without providing more or better service soley for the purpose of transferring huge amounts of taxpayer money to corporate entities.

HonestChieffan
09-22-2008, 07:13 AM
what corporate entities recieved this bloat?

penchief
09-22-2008, 07:33 AM
what corporate entities recieved this bloat?

The pharmaceutical comapanies and the HMOs. It didn't help that the government is prohibited from negotiating prices. It's estimated that the drug companies are making 30% more for the same drugs through Plan D. And the HMOs are getting their share, too. They did their part by making sure that those who stayed with regular medicare benefits would not get as good a deal.

It's no mystery why drug prices have skyrocketed over the past few years. Taxpayer money is paying for them and their is no negotiating leverage.

HonestChieffan
09-22-2008, 07:55 AM
Ohhh

Bash those corporate devils

penchief
09-22-2008, 08:15 AM
Ohhh

Bash those corporate devils

Don't you think you're missing the point? All you're doing is deflecting away from a valid argument by trying to demonize my motives. It has nothing to do with how I feel about corporate greed. It has everything to do with the fact that the Medicare drug prescription plan was designed as a boon for corporate health care. It has allowed for pharmaceutical companies and HMOs to gouge the consumer on the taxpayer's dollar.

It's just another example of what republicans mean when they say they want to privatize everything. They want to privatize obscene profits but socialize the cost of doing business. They adhere to the "free money" ethic instead of the work ethic. It's an investor nation not a producer nation. Specualtion and market manipulation has replaced tangible goods and services.

It all goes back to their desire to "starve the beast." And they intend to do it by creating a self-fullfilliing prophecy by transferring huge chunks of taxpayer money to private entities so that it can be pissed away making a few people rich at the the expense of everyone else.

All of which are reasons that we can't trust Wall Street with our Social Security.

HonestChieffan
09-22-2008, 08:20 AM
No I think your point is absurd. If you had any understanding of the pharma business or even a modicum of understanding of the medicare system you wouldnt bloviate about such things.

penchief
09-22-2008, 08:33 AM
No I think your point is absurd. If you had any understanding of the pharma business or even a modicum of understanding of the medicare system you wouldnt bloviate about such things.

I think you are just making statements that I don't know what I'm talking about but you do.

Why take the time to say I'm wrong instead of pointing out where I'm wrong?

RINGLEADER
09-22-2008, 08:57 AM
All this thread proves is that racists in the Hannity hyena pack do not understand hypotheticals.

Huh?

The "Bush-McCain" plan, as Obama likes to put it, gave recipients under a certain age the OPTION of opting out of the current system or staying in it. In those places where people have opted out of the traditional social security system the returns are higher. It's a fact. But if you don't want to take the risk, according to the plan, then you stay with the current system that is headed for failure.

penchief
09-22-2008, 09:19 AM
Huh?

The "Bush-McCain" plan, as Obama likes to put it, gave recipients under a certain age the OPTION of opting out of the current system or staying in it. In those places where people have opted out of the traditional social security system the returns are higher. It's a fact. But if you don't want to take the risk, according to the plan, then you stay with the current system that is headed for failure.

I wonder if there would have been a built in financial incentive to take the riskier alternative like there was to jump from Medicare to Part D? The question is not the rate of return so much as what Wall Street would have done with the money.

Also, it would have served the overall goal of undermining the social security system in favor of putting that money in the hands of unregulated investors and speculators.