Obama lies about Social Security- tries to scare senior citizens

Obama’s latest lie

From FacCheck.org:

This is a big one. Not a gaffe, not an exaggeration. Just a stupid, malicious, premeditated lie. Intended to scare. And wasn’t he accusing someone of the politics of fear or something like that?

Nonsense. McCain says he doesn’t understand the economy. The man giving him advice is Phil Gramm. Phil Gramm wants to privatize Social Security. George Bush tried to, actually, only three years ago. Expect the Republicans to try to again, if they receive any sort of encouragement in this election cycle.

AARP membership is currently open to people born as late as 1958.

Gramm, btw, says the recession is mental and we’re a nation of whiners. McCain thinks he’s the smartest economics expert in the country, just like Palin is the leading energy-policy expert.

Even if what you say is true, so fucking what? The McBushcain plan still calls for millions of Americans to have their retirements in the stock market. Unless you’re pormising them (including me) that there will never be another major crash in the market, this week was an excellent illustration why we need to be extremely fearful that a crackpot idea like McSame’s will replace Social Security.

Better check your facts again.

*John McCain told the voters, “I am not for privatizing Social Security. I never have been. I never will be.” But as a new video released by the Democratic National Committee shows, Senator McCain clearly does support privatizing Social Security. In 2004, Senator McCain said “without privatization, I don’t see how you can possibly, over time, make sure that young Americans are able to receive Social Security benefits.” *

Here is a link to the cite and the video…

http://www.democrats.org/a/2008/06/dean_john_mccai_5.php

So, Plan B, it would be fine with you if only middle aged folks, not the elderly, lost their retirement funds in a stock market plunge?

As far as I’m concerned, the point stands. If investing social security funds in the stock market is a bad idea for the elderly, it’s also bad for the middle aged.

Plan B, you guys should have gone with Romney. McCain’s out of it, and it’s not going to get better.

That they were born pre-1950 seems like a rather mild distinction. Among other things the newly senior (those born in 1950, '51, ‘52, and 53’) would be under the Bush/McCain proposal. That most seniors were lucky (or unlucky as you’ll have it) to be born before 1950 seems like a silly mitigation when they could have just as easily have been born at a date which would have gotten slapped with the law.

If someone said “We’re going to buttfuck all children between the ages of 3 and 7”, regardless of whether you’re 8 years old, the intent doesn’t necessarily seem encouraging.

But ultimately this has little to nothing to do with the validity of the Bush/McCain proposal, which over the long run might have been a good thing. I have no idea. Short-run hiccups can always be covered through loans or what-have-you.

Privatizing is a terrible idea. They just want to get their talons into the huge pot of money that S.s. is. It is run cheaply and efficiency run. If the insurance companies got into it they would filter millions out of it. The market is volatile. That would be Social Insecurity.

No,no,no! That was Bush’s “No Child’s Behind Left” program.

Yeah, well, tit for tat, as they say. McCain lied through his teeth about Obama’s voting record on taxes, too, so now they’re moving towards even (McCain’s still way ahead).

To be honest with you, I’m starting to feel like someone from the McCain camp said just recently; I don’t even fucking care anymore. Let them do what they have to do, and may the one with the harshest stick win.

I’m fairly certain that the official Pubbie response would be “What do I care? I’m over seven.”

-Joe

Indictment pending.

I really think the McCain should push back hard against this. Make sure everyone in the country knows that, whatever Barack Obama might say, McCain only wanter to screw over people under 58. Clearly a winning strategy.

You stupid lying poo plop. You think McCain is excused from trying to privatize social security by the details of just one failed plan to have Wall Street steal the funds? John McCain’s top advisor and best friend forever is retired Senator Phil Gramm, who has been pushing for privatization since 1988. He’s also the propeller head who first proposed repealing Glass-Steagal.

“Without privatization, I don’t see how you can possibly, over time, make sure that young Americans are able to receive Social Security benefits,” McCain stated in December 2004 at an event in New Hampshire. In 2004, McCain claimed that Social Security could not be preserved for younger generations “without privatization.” In 2005, McCain campaigned alongside Bush in a failed attempt to sell their risky Social Security privatization scheme, and Americans rejected the Bush-McCain plan for privatization.

In 2005 McCain voted against legislation that would prioritize social security solvency over tax cuts for the wealthy. And, in 1998 McCain voted twice to replace Social Security’s guaranteed benefits with income from risk-based private investments.
The chief reason people like Bush, Cheney and McCain get into politics is so that their Wall Street family and friends can find various ways to worm themselves into the US Treasury. Every disaster and crisis for them is an emergency to use to remove controls for distributing money in emergencies.

I’m kind of appreciating the diabolical aspect of it. Right now, McCain really isn’t going to be helped by being any way associated with Social Security privatization. The last thing he wants is to have to defend the nuances of the plan.

Or McCain could just lie through his teeth about the whole matter, but we all know he’s not that type of politician.

What’s the matter, B? Cat got your tongue? At least when I fly off the handle and make a fool of myself by not reading carefully, I semi-admit it.

McCain is floundering about like a fish in the Sahara. I don’t think he knows who stands for what anymore.

Heh, I was leaning to say that in this case **PlanB **has a good point in the OP, but this post made me realize FacCheck.org is ignoring the big picture; sure, in the current campaign there is no mention of this by McCain, the real question is why not? And what is the position McCain has now? IMHO it is because he has not changed his position from 2004.

But the earliest one can get social security is age 62. From the OP’s cite:

Isn’t Obama referencing social security in the ad, not AARP membership? Again, from the cite:

That’s not true. Nobody currently receiving social security would’ve had any of their funds tied up in the stock market.
And as far as “screwing” people under 58, that has yet to be determined. I tried with my magic eight ball, but it kept giving me the “Ask Again Later.” I tried doing an eight ball, but that didn’t help either. Guess I’ll just have to admit that I can’t predict the future. I don’t think that tossing social security into the market is a good idea, but just tossing the term “screwed” in is making a big assumption.

And Gigobuster, Factcheck.org isn’t ignoring the big picture. It’s simply addressing the accuracy of the ad in question. That’s what they do. That’s all they do.

Apologies if I don’t have the etiquette of The Pit down correctly. I really don’t feel like flaming any of the posters above me, and if I’d wanted to debate I guess I would have started off in GD. But it sounds like I have some obligation to respond to some of the above.

Anyway, I’m as concerned about the survival of SS as anyone. Possibly more so because I’m the one in my family who worked his butt off, saved, etc. and may have to support some relatives in the future if it fails. But that hasn’t happened yet and hopefully never will.

And I presume that the Dopers who have contributed to this thread have positive intentions. You really believe it is best not to tamper with SS and it’s good to flame those who would. No problem. No need in this discussion to presume that I also have good intentions.

I am genuinely concerned that unless the economy of the US grows at a very rapid rate for the next 30 years or so, that we’re going to be unable to meet the SS obligations. We’re talking trillions, here. Trillions. That’s some pretty big promises my kids and grandchildren have to deliver on. If you can guarantee me a high long-term rate of growth I walk away from this discussion. But you can’t, so when we default on those obligations, well that sucks, and sucks a lot worse for the poor people than for the middle class and wealthy people. And we’ve already seen the signs of things to come. Several municipalities and corporations have been paying their employees with great pensions and now there’s not enough money to cover the promises. That sucks for pretty much everyone involved.

In terms of how to fix this, I’m all for a moderate approach. Choose a year, or years, and work out some graduated plan to get us out of this mess. Maybe have people in their 60s get 95% of they are owed, people in their 50s get 80%…I don’t have the actuarial tables to take this any further. And the way the world works is those who take risks usually get bigger rewards, so I’m all for having the option to take risks if you want or play it safe if you want. And as a libertarian I like the idea of choice and me taking care of me, rather than politicians taking care of me.

But this is a serious problem and refusing to consider some category of solutions is just not responsible. In fact I seem to remember an exchange from about a year ago which went something like this:

Obama: We have to consider all possible solutions to the SS crisis.
Interviewer: Even privatization?
Obama: Oh no, not that.

Well his refusal to consider something that the vast majority of economists support is why I started this thread. He deserves flaming for his dishonesty.

Dude, this is the Pit. If you are going to be all rational and shit. I’m gonna have to ask you to step outside.