Obama warns seniors on Social Security Email this Story May 19, 12:51 AM (ET) By MIKE GLOVER GRESHAM, Ore. (AP) - Hours before being greeted by the biggest crowd of his campaign, Democrat Barack Obama quietly told a small group of seniors Sunday that Republican John McCain would threaten the Social Security they depend on because he supports privatizing the program. Fire officials estimated 65,000 packed into a riverside park for a spectacular afternoon rally at a sun-splashed scene on the banks of the Willamette River in Portland. They said an additional 15,000 were left outside and dozens of boaters could be seen floating in the river. "Wow, wow, wow," Obama said as he surveyed the audience. "We have had a lot of rallies. This is the most spectacular setting, the most spectacular crowd we have had this entire campaign." While more subdued, his appearance early in the day before about 130 people at an assisted living facility to talk Social Security was a significant attempt to tie the GOP's presidential nominee-in-waiting to an unpopular President Bush on a pocket book issue that motivates seniors - and also concerns younger generations worried about their own future retirement. (AP) Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., shakes hands as she attends... Full Image "Let me be clear, privatizing Social Security was a bad idea when George W. Bush proposed it, it's a bad idea today," Obama said. "That's why I stood up against this plan in the Senate and that's why I won't stand for it as president." Bush proposed a Social Security plan in 2005 that focused on creating private accounts for younger workers, but it never came up for a vote in Congress. Democrats strongly opposed the idea and few Republicans embraced it. Obama said McCain would push to raise the retirement age for collecting Social Security benefits or trim annual cost-of-living increases. Obama has rejected both ideas as solutions to the funding crisis projected for Social Security in favor of making higher-income workers pay more into the system. "We have to protect Social Security for future generations without pushing the burden onto seniors who have earned the right to retire in dignity," he said. McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds accused Obama of making "misinformed partisan attacks." (AP) Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., speaks to seniors at Huntinton Terrace,... Full Image "John McCain has been clear about his belief that we must fix Social Security for future generations and keep our promises to today's retirees, but raising taxes should not be the answer to every problem," Bound said. It was a day of coastal campaigning for the two Democrats still competing for the party's presidential nomination. Obama was in Oregon, where he is favored to win the state's presidential primary on Tuesday. Hillary Rodham Clinton spent a second straight day in Kentucky, where she is favored to win when its voters head to the polls the same day. She attended worship services at a Methodist church in Bowling Green, and happily sang hymns and joined in Bible readings. But her smile faded when the pastor launched into a sermon about adultery, asking his congregants whether the devil had ever whispered over their shoulders in their marriages. Her mood appeared to brighten by the time she arrived for a rally at Western Kentucky University. (AP) Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., shakes hands after attending... Full Image "Now, my opponent said the other day he wasn't coming back, so I've got the whole state to myself," Clinton said, sounding happy not to be sharing the Kentucky spotlight. "What a treat." Later Sunday, the Clinton campaign collected about $150,000 at a backyard fundraiser in Fort Mitchell, a northern Kentucky suburb of Cincinnati. Nathan Smith, the event's host, is vice chairman of the Kentucky Democratic Party and a superdelegate - but he still has not committed to supporting Clinton. Obama, the front-runner for the nomination, has begun casting himself as the inevitable nominee and using his time to distinguish himself from McCain as he pivots toward the fall campaign. He has scheduled appearances later this week in Iowa and Florida, two key swing states. He underscored that speaking with reporters in the Portland suburb of Milwaukee, saying he'll use the Iowa visit as another way to focus on November. "We thought it was a terrific way to kind of bring things full circle," said Obama. "We still have some contests left but if Kentucky and Oregon go as we hope, then we think we will have a majority of pledged delegates at that point and that's a pretty significant mark, that means that after contests in every state, or almost every state and the territories, that we have received a majority of the delegates that are assigned by voters." (AP) Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., left, with his wife Michelle holding daughter Sasha, 6, as daughter... Full Image He declined to declare victory. "It doesn't mean we've declared victory because I won't be the nominee until we have a combination of both pledged delegates and super delegates to hit the mark," said Obama. "What it does mean is the voters have given us a majority of delegates. Obviously that's what this primary and caucus process is all about." During the meeting with seniors, Obama was asked why McCain seems to have avoided the enormous press scrutiny the Democrats have gotten. Obama said McCain has benefited from a Republican nomination process that ended early while the Democratic race continues. He said the attention both candidates receive will grow more intense as the race settles into an Obama-McCain contest. "It's very understandable that the press has focused on myself and Senator Clinton because it's been a pretty exciting race," Obama said. "The fact is that the press will submit him to the same scrutiny they are giving to me." "People will lift the hood and kick the tires with John McCain, just like they do with me," he said, who traveled Sunday with his wife, Michelle. ---
When Bush wanted to privatize Social Security, he went to the Bureau of the Public Debt in Parkersburg, West Virginia, where a tour guide showed him the filing cabinet full of papers representing bonds in which the Social Security Trust Fund is invested. Bush then went outside and said the following: "There is no 'trust fund,' just IOUs that I saw firsthand, that future generations will pay -- will pay for either in higher taxes, or reduced benefits, or cuts to other critical givernment programs...They're stacked in a filing cabinet. Imagine -- the retirement security for future generations is sitting in a filing cabinet." These IOUs that Bush was frowning upon were US T-bonds. It is worthwhile to mention that the fourth section of the Fourteenth Amendement of the United States Constitution frowns upon casting doubt on the full faith and credit of the United States. Specifically, "The vailidity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned." It has been suggested that Bush was lucky that he had a Republican Congress at the time he said that, or he almost certainly would have been impeached or imprisoned. A further note of interest is that, on a subsequent occasion, Bush suggested that owners of private Social Security accounts would be able to invest in something that would give them a sense of security: "I propose that one investment option consist entirely of treasury bonds, which are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States goernment." So, while T-Bonds were nonsensical IOUs in the Social Security Trust Fund, they are now worthwhile once again in priviatized Social Security? Talk about disingenuous spin! And this from the president. Who would benefit from the privatizing of Social Security? The financial sector, of course, as it has been benefited throughout the Bush Administration at the expense of everyone else.
I had a guy harassing me once, I was stuck in a waiting room, it was before the last big election. He was convinced that Bush was going to cancel social security. I had to tell him to go bug somebody else. Likely this garbage will start up again and the AARP will do nothing to stop it... I guess it's class warfare to Obama, anything goes... I saw a clip of a reporter asking Obama a pointed question about how more taxes was a proven bad thing for the economy and everybody and why was he advocating it? The answer boiled down to "the people that vote for me are more interested in class warfare than the overall good"... pretty nauseating really.....
That's bullshit, and you know it. There is nothing wrong with you disagreeing with what Obama, or anyone else for that matter, says. But what makes it wrong is when you feel you must misrepresent the other side to further your own cause. That's just disingenuous. If you feel you must resort to misrepresenting or intentionally misinterpreting the "other side," then perhaps you may wish to have a look at the strength of your own argument.
One doesn't need to make up stuff to show Obama's socialist beliefs, especially in this case. Because it's true. During the last televised debate between Obama and Clinton, one person pointed out that Carter raised the cap gains tax, and less tax dollars came in, while another president (Regean?) cut the cap gains tax and more dollars poured in. Then that person asked Obama why he planned to raise the cap gains tax. Obama replied that it was not an issue of how many dollars came in, but about "fairness". He talked about hedge fund managers who make great piles of money and just have to pay the cap gains tax rate. I'm not a hedge fund manager, but it seems unlikely to me that their pay is subject to the capitial gains tax. Raising the tax would cut down on hedge funds, which in turn would reduce the payscale of their managers. In either case, Obama is more interested in punishing those who do well in life than he is in funding government.
Punishing? Or participating? As for your reference to Reagan's collecting more tax dollars than Carter and with a lower capital gains tax rate, I cannot really comment. Perhaps it is true as you present it. However, the Republican party is not known for disseminating factual and balanced information. For all I know, the comparison is being made in total such tax dollars collected under these presidents' respective administrations. However, it should be kept in mind that Reagan was in office longer. The GOP has made greater intentional comparison distortions for me to readily dismiss this possibility until I get it from a non-partisan source.* Also, I don't know how the underlying economic fundamentals during the time of their respective administrations would have affected such tax collection, all else being equal. * Not that Franken is a non-partisan source, but have you read Al Franken's Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them and his subsequent The Truth (With Jokes): http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1926306#post1926306
John McCain is checking with the RNC to see if he can nominate his mother for VP. Johm wants to get across to voters that old warmongers do not fade away, they just get more stupid.
Just curious Hog. What makes you think Obama is any less a "war monger" than McCain? Comments to the Chicago Tribune during his Senate campaign in 2004: âIn light of the fact that weâre now in Iraq, with all the problems in terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in,â he said. âOn the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. ⦠And I hope it doesnât get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, Iâd be surprised if Iran blinked at this point.â âWith the Soviet Union, you did get the sense that they were operating on a model that we could comprehend in terms of, they donât want to be blown up, we donât want to be blown up, so you do game theory and calculate ways to contain,â Obama said. âI think there are certain elements within the Islamic world right now that donât make those same calculations. â⦠I think there are elements within Pakistan right nowâif Musharraf is overthrown and they took over, I think we would have to consider going in and taking those bombs out, because I donât think we can make the same assumptions about how they calculate risks.â In a speech last summer: "I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges," Obama said. "But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. ... If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will."
I find it interesting that members of a trading forum would think privatizing at least parts of social security was a bad idea. Bush's point about the IOUs was entirely valid. People have this naive belief that there is a separate trust account in their name with real assets in it, just waiting for them to draw them down. There isn't. It is just an unfunded government liability. Plenty of once rich governments have defaulted on sovereign debt. Since our bonds are denominated in dollars, our government will not likely default. It will just pay them off in severely depreciated dollars. Those who oppose privatization are just saying they don't want you to be able to guard against that.
Here's why the politicians, both Republican and Democrat, don't want to privatize SS. Right now, we are running a surplus in SS. There is more coming in than going out. Part of this is due to an expanded work force (read: immigrants), that is taking care of our reduced birth rate. This surplus gets spent as part of the general fund and we all know how politicians like to spend money. In order to fund private accounts, the govnmt would have to "refund" part of this surplus, or over payment. Now you know: a) why 5 administrations, Congress and numerous courts have turned a blind eye to illegal immigration (mo money), and b) why SS will never be privatized. It's really pretty simple when you look at it the way politicians do.