Obama DOES NOT support the privatization of Social Security

[Colobo]

http://www.aflcio.org/issues/politics/issues_retirement.cfm#barackobama

So, whoever says the opposite lies and has no credibility.

By the way, I admit I'm more open to privatization that most people over here.

[FrenchieCat]

1. Looks like the AFL-CIO should know what they are talking about, hey?

He says he opposes privatizing Social Security:

Barack Obama: Opposes privatization. Favors "an equitable mix of benefit and tax changes" to extend the solvency of the program. Is open to lifting the amount of income that is taxed for Social Security. Backs a bipartisan effort to address the issue. (The State, 4/22/07)

Obama voted for a resolution amendment saying Congress should reject any Social Security plan requiring deep benefit cuts or a massive increase in debt. (S. Con. Res. 18, 3/15/05)
http://www.aflcio.org/issues/politics/issues_retirement.cfm#barackobama

[Lasher]

4. Does he say specifically what benefit cuts he favors?

I assume by benefit changes he is not suggesting enhancements.

[mitchtv]

33. Raising the age is "on the table"

Don't expect anything concrete, that's not like him
Raising the age is a big mistake and will not go over well with labor.

[Capn Sunshine]

40. Yeah, but that's NOT privatization.

I fully expect the age to go up before I , and other boomers my age , hit 65. Don't you?
I predict 68 1/2 because tables show a substantial dropoff in claimant longevity in the years between 65 and 68 1/2.

Look, we have to be realistic here. Some combination of age increase and tax adjustment, maybe a means test, a sliding scale, I don't know, but we have to fix it.

Of course the real red light and siren hair on fire crisis isn't even being discussed- Medicare, which has no easy answers.

[Capn Sunshine]

39. Respectfully Frenchie, that is NOT privatization

benefit and tax changes are certainly in the future to ensure the solvency of the program. Neither can be construed as creating private accounts or anything remotely like that.

[Colobo]

2. Interesting to see how the threads with false info about Obama

get more views and replies than those that talk about the truth...

[Alamom]

5. Sadly, that's the trend with all the candidates. I should say, with all

the top Dems. Speaker Pelosi, among others get their share too.

[illinoisprogressive]

10. because a certain element here have a personal agenda to take Obama down

He is between Hillary and Edwards.
the edwards supporters see him as the usurper. the guy who upset Edwards 'the anti Hillary' claim and put him in 3rd.
the Hillary supportrs see him as a real threat to her status as frontrunner. He destroyed the inevitability claim

[Cameron27]

3. Thanks for setting the record straight...

(but keep it handy, disinformation seems to be the game lately)

K&R

[AtomicKitten]

6. hmmmm

It's kinda funny watching people get all atwitter around here over BS.

The truth apparently isn't nearly as interesting, eh? :eyes:

Thanks for posting this.

[primative1]

7. You didnt help your case by ...

You didnt help your case by saying you were open to privatizing SS. Are you joking? Think about it.
The big "problem" that privitization fans cite when making their case is that the system is supposedly going to be made unstable when the baby boomers begin retiring en masse and thus payments will overwhelm contributions ...
Well what do you think will happen in the stock market?
When IRA outflows dwarf inflows you will see the exact same effect, only amplified because the bucket (wall street) is so leaky to begin with (what with all the fees and perks and raids by corporate execs).
I have never read that Obama supports privitization ... but I would hope you personaly would reconsider.

[Colobo]

14. I didn't think about it that way

You bring some good points I hadn't considered before.

[primative1]

20. Glad I could help

This kool aid smells realy bad

[OHdem10]

8. More People Were Questioning Where OBama Stands On

SS Privatization than falsely accusing. Someof his closest
Economic Advisors push SS Privatization. Most of us simply
wondered how Obama reacts to his advisors.

Since Obama does not discuss specific issues he is going
to get more and more questions. Ouestions are not bashing.

Voters have a right to know.

There is a response--Not for SS Privatization but more open
to the idea than some. Voters weigh these things as they
rightly should.

[illinoisprogressive]

9. He lays out specifically in his book that he opposes privatization.

[Mass]

11. Thanks. (K+R)

[Jimmy Hoops]

12. I'm surprised this was a story in the 1st place.

In Audacity of Hope, Barack is extremely damning of the privatization of Social Security. I'm paraphrasing but he calls it un-American and that it goes against what the New Deal intended it to be.

[madfloridian]

13. Something to think about.

The Hamilton Project is Robert Rubin's baby. Please note that he prevailed on the free trade yesterday. Pelosi did not even talk to the labor voices, and Rubin was the only one called upon to talk to freshmen Democrats.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x865133


The Hamilton project is murky on the Social Security issue. DU is quirky, and I am searching for my post on the "partial privatization on the road to total privatization" quotes from some who support Rubinomics.

I did find this.

http://www.inclusionist.org/taxonomy/term/88

"The campaign to cut the Social Security system, now taken up by the alarmist David Walker, head of the Government Accountability Office, and by Ben Bernanke, chair of the Federal Reserve System. Here the Hamilton Project strategy document is extremely reticent--it barely mentions Social Security by name. But it is riddled with code words about the long-term "entitlement problem," which, it avers, can be solved only by a "bipartisan commission" acting on well-known options, behind closed doors. This is not reassuring.

In fact, Social Security is in better financial shape than ever, holding vast stocks of Treasury bonds on which interest can and will be paid. No economic or budget imperative requires that Social Security be cut, now or later. In private discussion Hamilton leaders let on that they understand this. But they are prepared, nevertheless, to include Social Security cuts--pension cuts for America's elderly, many of whom would otherwise be poor--in some sort of grand deficit bargain. Progressives must be absolutely categorical in rejecting any such deal."

You need to recognize that Obama was the main speaker at the opening of this Hamilton Project.

http://www.brookings.edu/comm/events/20060405.htm

I don't know his views on Social Security, but I would be concerned with his connection to the Hamilton project. Rubin's free trade won big yesterday, and he has a lot of influence.

I am afraid many Democrats will go along with privatization eventually, just call it something different.

[madfloridian]

15. I found what I was looking for.

It is like an accumulation of policy quotes from many people connected to that project and the DLC/PPI.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/100

Here is a quote from one article:

"The Skeptical Generations do not reject government; they object to inflexible bureaucracies that move too slowly, limit choices, and resist sensible innovations in areas such as welfare, education and criminal justice. That is why, for example, charter schools - a new form of public school not controlled and run by the central school bureaucracies - are spreading. It is why New Democrats have proposed converting federal training and social programs into vouchers, so that citizens can make choices formerly delegated to so-called experts. And it is why many Democrats are talking about modernizing Social Security to include individual savings accounts.

Here is a quote from another article:

""One of the major reasons the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) has supported a two-tiered or partial privatization approach (one that maintains a government-provided retirement "safety net" while moving towards private savings accounts for individual pensions) to Social Security reform is to give the poor a means for accumulating income-producing wealth for retirement. In the past, we have praised the Moynihan-Kerrey proposal to carve out a portion of the Social Security payroll tax to seed private accounts, in part because that may be the only way to get low-income families onto the savings ladder. "

It's the terminology we need to be careful about. You don't need to use the word "privatize" to be advocating for it.

[Nederland]

16. He should

The bottom line is that so long as control of Social Security money is in the hands of politicians and not in the hands of the people we will have problems. Think about it. Does anybody every talk about the 401k crisis? The IRA crisis? No, because that money is in the hands of the people, not the politicians. So long as politicians can get their grubby hands on the money they will. Period, end of story.

[Colobo]

17. I agree with you.

[OHdem10]

18. Those 401 Ks have proved disappointing to

Individuals as they retire. Somehow this never gets covered,
I picked it up twice in 10years in TV Coverage. Essentially,
people are disappointed in the amount accumulated. Overhyped.

Something is better than nothing.

On SS I trust the Government over Wallstreet. The Enron Employees
who lost everything and others, thank God they have SS. Otherise
they would be in abject poverty.

There is an interesting book--The 401 K Myth.

[mitchtv]

34. additionally, SS is an insurance plan

Not a retirement plan.It is to supplment when your 401 gets robbed by the market and fees, or when you get screwed out of your pension

[ieoeja]

19. Actually, yes, people did talk about the 401k crisis.

A few years back a lot of 401(k)s went bust. People nearing retirement were particularly injured.

But, as you say, it is in THEIR hands. And, after the initial furor died down, it was largely forgotten (as evidenced by your post) because it is in THEIR hands and was therefore THEIR problem.

You seem to be implying we are talking about the social security "crisis" because the crisis is caused by social security being in gov't hands. That is sort of right. The investment bankers want to get their hands on that money and can not. So they are talking up a non-existent crisis. But the cause of the talk is their greed, not the govt's handling of SSI. SSI has been an unqualified success.

Also, as mentioned by someone else in an earlier post, we SHOULD be talking about the impending 401(k) crisis. When babyboomers start taking from SSI instead of contributing, we pretty much know exactly what is going to happen as people have been looking at it and talking about it forever. But what is going to happen when babyboomers start taking their money out of 401(k) instead of contributing? Same problem. Except that SSI has a rock solid surplus into which it will dip. While 401(k) are invested in the stock market which will drop like a stone when the boomers start cashing in our 401(k).

Oops.

[Nederland]

32. Not accurate

401k plans do not "go bust", people make bad investment decisions. In the case of Enron, those people made the horrible decision to put all their money in the company they worked for. That is a choice that every single 401k advisor in existence would tell you is beyond stupid.

[primative1]

22. You need to take off the blinders ...

You are missing the view.
The Social Security "crisis" is projected to occur in 30-40 years.
There is no crisis in SS today just as there is no IRA crisis or 401K crisis today.
But the same demographics apply.
People that hold the accounts will retire and withdraw on them at the same time in the same volume. What is the difference?
The difference is that the government guarantees you a payment from SS and so the efforts that they have and are making to assure they can live up to their obligation make news.
Oooh, lookie, the government is attempting to divert a crisis.
As for Wall street (the destination of virtually every ira dollar) ... they offer no guarantees, never have and never will. Its written in plain english on every disclosure you throw away.
They do not care if you lose every cent when the boomers start their run on their accounts. Its all part of doing business. They will make no adjustments and there will be no news.
No news = no crisis
Brokers will prosper just as well in the down market as they had in the up one. Its all about trading volume, nothing else.

[tammywammy]

25. Well, only 30-40 years away

So, let's not worry about it right now. I mean that's only about the time that I'll want to retire. At least I've already figured out not to expect Social Security when I retire.

[primative1]

26. I didnt say it wasnt a problem ...

What I said was PRIVITIZATION doesnt even pretend to be a solution.
Its just certain people in our governments attempt to walk away from the obligation. There are lots of actual constructive ideas out there.

[tammywammy]

28. Sorry, I didn't mean to sound snippy

It's just that there are many people that think because it's not going to be a problem for so many years, we can ignore it.

[primative1]

29. I hear ya ...

If its any consolation, my 85 year old father tells me that the scare stories about SS going belly up have been floating around since he was a kid. Nothing ever came from them because we the people never allowed the government to walk away from its obligation. Lets not fold now.
They will find a way to pay, they always have and they always will ... What I would like to see them do is LOWER the retirement age back to 65 and let us, like the rest of the free world, actualy enjoy a few of the years we have left.
I doubt preserving the ceiling on contributions will wind up being so important once BushCo is history.

[Withywindle]

21. He spoke at a Town Hall Meeting in Chicago about this two years ago

when he'd just been elected Senator. I was there. He was appearing with Durbin and Jan Schakowsky and some others. They were all VERY adamant about opposing anything the administration wanted to do to mess with it.

I remember the event in particular because the place was mobbed--three overflow rooms!--and the average age of the crowd seemed to be about 23. I thought, "wow, who thought all these college kids would be so passionate about Social Security...oh wait, I know why." :D

[Ethelk2044]

23. Hillary Supporters

Are just trying to do a hit job.

[AtomicKitten]

30. like this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3260794

pot - kettle - black

Please don't emulate the same behavior you abhor.

Go Dems.

[IA_Seth]

24. Yeah, but...

Who cares what HE says, or the AFL-CIO says after meeting with him...we all care what the posters here at DU speculate based on advisor/staffing positions..duh!

[AtomicKitten]

27. DU can be a fountain of knowledge

... or a cesspool of disinformation.

I hate this kind of crap politics against any of our candidates.

[meldroc]

31. I'm glad to see Obama suggesting fixing Social Security the correct way.

The correct way, as AFLCIO has mentioned, is by raising the cap on the amount of income that's taxed by the FICA tax. Currently, everyone pays 6.2 percent of their income, up to a maximum income of $97,500, for a maximum tax of $6,045 to pay for Social Security.

My question is WHY THE HELL IS THERE A FUCKING CAP ON THE FICA TAX? If you're making enough money for the cap to come into play, you can afford to pay your bills if the cap didn't exist, and you paid 6.2 percent on all your income. That's how you fix Social Security - the very wealthy have more than enough just by raising or eliminating the cap to keep Social Security solvent, with full, decent benefits (no cutbacks) for centuries! Of course, the GOP will pooh-pooh this idea as "soaking the rich." While some taxes like federal income tax is progressive, FICA is actually regressive in that it is a bigger drain on the poor and middle classes, and diminishes to pocket change for the rich.

Privatization? That's another word for "Let's take your Social Security money, give it to our criminal friends on Wall Street, who'll make themselves rich and waste and steal all your money so you get nothing when you retire!" It's yet another full broadside from the criminal rich straight at the poor and middle class in the Class Wars.

Cutting benefits and raising the retirement age? If we raise the cap on the FICA tax, we won't have to do that.

[mitchtv]

35. Cutting benefits and raising the retirement age

They are on the table from what I heard on TV Sunday morning. Listen closely to this guy

[Colobo]

36. He clearly said, on that interview

That he doesn't support privatization.

Yeah, YOU need to listen closely to "this guy".

[mitchtv]

37. you are right cutting benefits is not privatization

Strawman! Cutting benefits is what I was talking about . I never said he tried to privatize anything. I did say that increasing the age is a Big mistake , and union people will not fall for it.I hope BO rethinks this anti worker position

[Ethelk2044]

38. Where is the video ?

I am sick of people saying Obama said something. Show me the video where he clearly states he will up the age. I watched him on Sunday. I did not hear that.

[mitchtv]

41. I have dialup

I don't do video. If you didn't hear it, look it up on George Stephanoplis'? show this past Sunday. Also you could buy a pig in a poke.