Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
McCain Would Privatize Social Security
The Republicans have already turned to sick sexual innuendo and nonsense about their vice-presidential candidate, pigs and lipstick in order to distract the public from the real issues in this campaign. One of the items that should be on top of the list of real issues is Senator McCain's plans to privatize and cut Social Security.
McCain has repeatedly expressed interest in privatizing Social Security along the lines proposed by President Bush. For those who have forgotten that nightmare, Bush's plan would have reduced benefits by approximately one percent a year for many workers.
Workers who retired 10 years after the plan was put in place would see a 10 percent reduction in benefits compared with the currently projected levels. Workers who retired 20 years after the plan was implemented would see approximately a 20 percent cut in benefits and workers who retired 40 years after the plan started would see their benefits cut by close to 40 percent.
This schedule of cuts would apply to workers who earn $100,000 a year. Workers who earn $60,000 a year would see cuts of about half this size.
The losses to retired workers could mean big benefits for the financial industry. Under some versions of the plan, the financial industry would rake in hundreds of billions of dollars in fees and commissions over the next 40 years.
According to a recent World Bank analysis, the financial industry pocketed 15-20 percent of the money paid into the privatized Social Security system in Chile, which has often been held up as a model by privatizers in the United States. Given the losses that the millionaire Wall Street bozos have incurred with the housing crash, it is understandable that Senator McCain would want to help the very rich needy.
Privatization would be especially painful coming now, in the wake of the collapse of the housing bubble. The huge baby boom cohort that is just now reaching retirement age has seen most of their wealth wiped out by the housing crash.
A recent analysis that I did with David Rosnick, my colleague at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, showed that a typical late-baby-boomer household (between the ages of 45 and 54) will have less than $100,000 in wealth in 2009. This figure includes 401(k)s, IRAs and other retirement accounts, personal savings and home equity.
A relatively small share of these late baby boomers has traditional defined-benefit pensions. In other words, these families are going to have very little to support themselves in retirement other than the Social Security that Senator McCain is so anxious to cut.
While the Bush-McCain crew has long been trying to whip up fears about Social Security's finances, the reality is that the program is financially solid. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently updated its analysis of the program's finances.
The analysis projects that Social Security will be able to pay all scheduled benefits through the year 2049 with no changes whatsoever. Even after 2049, when the program is first projected to face a shortfall, the payable benefit is projected to be more than 30 percent higher than what the average retiree gets today, and the payable amount would continue to rise from that level every year.
The privatizers have worked hard to convince the public that Social Security is on its last legs, but this is simply a lie. We are going to face many problems that dwarf the dimensions of the projected Social Security shortfall. For example, the annual costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are approximately three times as large as the annual revenue that would be needed to eliminate the projected Social Security shortfall.
The 2049 date when Social Security is first projected to face a shortfall is more than three decades after the latest date when the next president can leave office. John McCain will be 113 when Social Security is first projected to be unable to pay full benefits. In a country where millions of families are struggling to hang onto their homes, and tens of millions are struggling to pay for health care and child care, a distant and relatively minor problem like the projected Social Security shortfall hardly warrants center stage.
The public should know that Social Security is fundamentally sound today and is projected to be sound far into the future. The line about Social Security going bankrupt is just a scare tactic pushed by the privatizers.
The presidential debate must return to Social Security and other issues that affect people's lives. The sleaze that Senator McCain and his vice-presidential candidate throw out as a distraction should be left to the pigs.
- Posted in
98 Comments so far
Show AllOne problem is that various administrations (including Clinton) have raided a/k/a borrowed from Social Security funds to help balance their budgets. The Republicans don't want to have to pay the money back.
(The last line of the article might have been better posed as "The SLOP that Senator McCain and his vice-presidential candidate throw out as a distraction should be left to the pigs.")
Peace hugs,
Kate Anne
Hi Kate,
You beat me to it. SS is becoming more of a joke word these days unfortunately at least where I live at. There are more elderly residents moving in and yet these states out in the heartland are losing seats. It is as if the Republicans are silently disenfranchising them even though these voters still look at them as "caring".
I like your site by the way.
Actually, I believe most was put into discretionary spending and used to subsidize Corporate interests along with the NAFTA, CAFTA funding and assistance buying out of Public Education with Charter schools, also a corporate intrusion. That had appeared to be running on empty lately, until Obama sold an additional slice of his soul by his pledge continuing Fed funding of Bush's pledges to right wing religious nut cases, another corporate mask.
At any rate we both, or most of us, here know it wasn't used for anything remotely humanitarian.
Corporate swill, indeed.
As it was explained to me there is no such thing as a social security account, it is all just paper being shifted here and there. The money for social security payments is based upon guestimates of inflow to the treasury and outflow to retirees and survivors. I believe it was Lyndon Johnson who first thought to "borrow" against this inflow, to make the budget look better I suppose.
Most experts seem to believe that the social security fund is in no danger and is healthy through 2028. Of course if your goal is to enrich yoru buddies with privatization and concommitent fees etc., one might cry that the sky is falling.....
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Privatizing social security should be one of the most important issues for today's college students since much of the current US workforce will be far more dependent upon social security than the past two generations have been.
With the demise of defined benefit pensions and the current equity meltdown (that will not recover for at least a decade), many workers who were planning to retire during the next decade will not retire. The good news is that at least many of those workers have jobs with "family wages" and benefits. The bad news is that if those people delay their retirement, today's college students will have diminished opportunities to obtain "family wage" jobs with benefits.
If a president could privitize social security, the current incumbent would have already done it. This is far less an issue for the presidential candidates than it should be for every congressional and senatorial candidate, because they are the ones who would have to ratify such a lame-brained scheme.
Right now is a great time to argue the issue what with the private financial sector showing itself so inept at keeping its own house in order.
Poet
Thanks for the warning. Not that I was going to vote for McCain, anyway. He is advertising driving out the sleazies, but this would be a giveaway to them.
Kate Anne might have something. Didn't Nixon start the "unified" budget, and social security tax income is included on the balance sheets that show our record deficits? That payout for 2049 might already be spent. Can anyone do a nutshell on this stuff? Thanks in advance.
This is an important article, but it probably won't reach the target audience who are being duped by the Republicans. Let us pray that the idiots who think religion and faith substitute for an informed body politic do not give this next imbecile license to so blatantly STEAL from the people! Given what's going on currently on Wall St, that anyone would even CONSIDER such a proposal should consign them either to jail or the loony bin. These excuses-for-human beings have already thrown the nation into a calamitous karmic future, raped the treasury, failed to invest in infrastructure or MEANINGFUL education, inverted the value of homes, crippled all regulatory agencies so that the public's needs are NOT being served, and the list goes on and on.
The reason why people like Murdoch buy out media outlets is that history proves he who controls the message controls too many of the people. Those of us who post on CD are largely better educated than our peers, and willing to find the time to cultivate the most viable information on a variety of topics. This is not true for the vast majority in America, and it shows in this charade known as an election. As RICH M and WSWS.ORG and others point out, there are only small relative distinctions between the 2 parties; but we are so close to the abyss, one wonders if they can gamble on team A.
It looks as though Team A and Team B are both corrupt to the point of disaster certainty. We all know this but seem in denial. It is we who should be leading the American People out of this mess, not further into it. Other paths are available.
Team A will most certainly do far more harm to the country than they did in the past 8 years. In 2001, they started with an inherited surplus; they have left us in the deepest of holes. This time they would be starting out in the hole and with serious momentum in the wrong direction. Team B, though corrupt, offers some small hope that things can be turned around. Their proposals are too far to the right for our liking, in an apparent (and arguably misguided) attempt to woo the moderate so-called "swing" voters? But Team B is the party of Kucinich, lead by a reasonable man who is --unlike the leadership of Team A-- not deaf to differing opinions.
First rule when you find yourself in a hole: stop digging. Obama-Biden 08. Anything else means you're still digging.
Buckminster September 16th, 2008 9:44 pm
"But Team B is the party of Kucinich, lead by a reasonable man who is --unlike the leadership of Team A-- not deaf to differing opinions."
Obama has already stated that it is not his job to rule by polls (popular will). So how is it that he will listenn to differing opinions? Like he has during this election, by swinging hard to the right after his nomination?
Lobo Gris
The most superficial of perusals of the voting record and speeches of Senator Obama plainly show that his Presidency will do nothing to resolve the massive ills that affect and infect this nations governance. Until and unless the electorate ( you and I) engage our brains, study and reflect on those for whom we cast our ballots nothing much is going to change.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
POET: The rules broke down with "unitary exec" and the various elected representatives largely serving as a blank check to any and every egregious policy he could come up with. The only HOPE now is that Wall St is tanking so badly, only someone interested in jumping off a building would consider pouring more solid capital into that casino.
Siouxrose--
Read the article by Nomi Prins about the repealing of the Glass-Stegal act--that is what I believe is the proximate cause of the financial sector melt-down we are presently facing. The most annoying thing about this is that we have already learned this lesson and solved this problem only to see it surface again facilitated by those who will not see what should be plain to any thinking adult.
Poet
If one needs an example of the downside of privatizing social security, simply look at what has happened to its' equivalent in Chile. Pinochet gave the local acolytes from the Chicago School free reign to do so and it has turned what was formerly South America's best state pension system into a mess where the recipients get less and pay more. Of course, the big economic winners are the Pinochet cronies who have made oodles of money out of it. Their American equivalents are salivating at the thought of the pots of money available in the US system.
Obama would be well advised to use this still "Third Rail of US Politics" while he still can.
IF there is an argument against privatizing social securit it is the stock market today and yesterday
NATE W: Can you believe the absolute lack of shame, the evident missing conscience, the sociopathic tendencies of those who having eviscerated the "worth" of mortgages/homes, gladly accepted the government bail out (with borrowed $, atop the sums already borrowed for a war that equally profits a very few at ENORMOUS cost to so many others) and now want to take STOCK of the hard earned deferred income of so many who have few if any OTHER resources? This must be hell... this kind of sacrilege could not go so unchecked if it were anything else. I know heaven and hell are partially constructs of human consciousness, but if so many are supporting systems that do so much harm, perhaps hell has descended on us... but we're too caught up in the appearances of business as usual to notice.
Right! Take all the money from the CEOs--those ass clowns--and put it into social security. Its no more a ridiculous suggestion than what govt/wallst/govt is doing.
I know he harped on it, but, they should have to admit that Gore's focus on not spendign up ss trust fund, had merit
Siouxrose: I am amazed, but never surprised at the extent of the rapaciousness of the American ruling class. As I am one to use the cliche historical comparison to Rome, its' history is most instructive... as it was the rapacity of its' ruling class that was the root cause of the demise of the Roman Republic. There, as with the USA, the warning signs had been there for years, but enough of the patricians just could not temper their greed. They also killed those of their number who tried to take effective steps to stop this (the Gracchi, for example). Flash forward to today and we have a lot of the same stupidity going on.
BTW: if I was to compare Dubya to a Roman ruler, it would be Commodus.
Television and myth is the great pacifier. As long as people believe that they need only work hard and they will become rich, there little chance they will recognize they are being plundered.
Some guy from the ghetto is making 4 million a year playing football? Hey that can be me! Flood the airwaves with "success stories" with people claiming "All i did was worked hard and prayed to God" and it becomes a story for everyman.
The opiate of the masses.
The old Hollywood movies turned out by the bucket full might well have those scoundrels and crooks in Government caricatured, but Mr Smith and the little guy always come through in the end, justice served and those crooks get their come uppence. Just like the real world...right?
From the day they are born, people are fed the stuff of myth to keep them complacent. They are infantilized. They will continue to believe that by voting the latest white knight, all will be set alright again. They are oblivous to the true history of America and what it was really like for those first Union organizers to set up picket lines and be shot down by Government agents.
In France the Government is afraid of the people. The people will take to the streets in droves if the Government tries to pass laws the people do not like. In America, the people fear the Government.
This theft by these scoundrels and crooks is not an anomaly. It has been ongoing for years, for decades and more. As far back as history goes in America there have been these same type of scandals. Respected citizens of America today had ancestors that ran drugs, were involved in the slave trade or supported the Nazis.
The Governmnet is their comrade in arms. Their job to keep the people down as the powers that be plunder the land. Why should these tycoons feel shame? They OWN the Government. The Government will do exactly as they want.
As far as they are concerned this was not a Government bailout. It was the Government and the taxpayer paying their tribute as they are destined to do. That is their purpose. To serve their betters.
As far as they are concerned, those Social Security dollars are theirs by rights and they will ensure they get as mcuh of it as they can, leaving a pittance for the rest of Americans so that they can feel all is right in the world.
It does not matter where you are in the world. There something very very wrong with a sytem that has billions living in poverty with barely enough to it, while a certain few feel it their prerogative to sit on toilet bowls made of 24 carat gold.
There is something very wrong in the world, when all too many people want to blame their own hardships on terrorists in Iran, or dirt poor immigrants from latin America as a President to be , who does not even know how many houses he owns, lectures Americans on the need to tighten their belts and live with less.
pk
McCain Would Piratize Social Security
We have worked all our lives and invested a lifetime of savings to buy a milk cow called Social Security to feed us in retirement and now McCain and the Boyars want to trade all that for 'magic beans' named Fannie, Fredie, Lehman, AIG and a Bear named Sterns. It's enough to make a retiree want to Lynch those behind these Merrill-aculous ideas.
http://bumperstickers.cafepress.com/item/dont-piratize-social-securit-sticker-bumper/19571196
The whole idea behind privatization and talk of small government by the Republican cabal is to cheat the people and make their corporate friends and themselves rich. I remember the steep jump in the price of electricity when they privatized it in California a few years ago.
As a result of Bush’s wars, they cut my Social Security payment by 6% a couple of years ago.
If you haven't read Naomi Klein's book "The Shock Doctrine", you should do so.
You've got the basics right. But its bigger than that. Basically anything that has any value that people have gathered together and built, they want to steal it. The Social Security Trust fund is one example, but the book is full of hundreds of pages of other examples.
One technique is to create a 'crisis' to do this. They know they'd lose any fair democratic vote by a society on this stuff. So, they take advantage of any crisis to ram through 'reforms' they say must be done. Or, they just completely subvert democracy entirely and take what they want. There have been coups that overthrow governments, or there have been candidates in elections who say one thing to get elected but then sell out their people and their country once in office.
And, of course, police states, surveillance and torture are used to keep the people under control as their wealth is stolen from them.
The really scary part is that the Chicago school of economics plays an important role in all of this. They provide the wacky economic theories that serve as cover for the thefts. And the really scary part is Obama's connections to that same group. What was that about candidates who run saying one thing, but then do the opposite once elected? Or in Obama's case, would it be that they don't say anything of substance to get elected, then surprises us by stealing us blind once elected? Obama's same ties to this same groups at the Chicago school make one think very worrisome thoughts like that.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
I will freely admit I am not an expert on Social Security but something must be done...and soon...most young people today will tell you they don't expect to receive it when they retire...
if the new system (privatization) is voluntary and they promise to give the old dogs like me what we were promised if we elect to stay in it... I see no problem with it
I recall reading someplace (and perhaps somebody can confirm it) that the City of Corpus Christi opted out of SS for city workers many years ago and as a result their people receive an average of $4K a month in benefits vice $1K for SS
bottem line...why not let the workers decide?
Of course, you begin with the myth that 'something must be done'. That's the common starting point of everyone who wants to go steal the social security money.
Last I heard, if you made even a minor change in the economic assumptions behind these arguments, social security becomes a sound system for decades into the future.
And even if it needed a bit of help, the amount it would need would probably pale compared to what we've just given away in handouts to the wall st firms over the last few months.
Did the people ever get a choice between making social security completely secure and bailing out a bunch of wall street firms that engaged in very risky behavior and lost? Nope. Instead we are now being told that we must hand over all the money in the social security trust funds to the same wall street crooks.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Heck, some of this is even in the article just above us.
"While the Bush-McCain crew has long been trying to whip up fears about Social Security's finances, the reality is that the program is financially solid. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently updated its analysis of the program's finances.
The analysis projects that Social Security will be able to pay all scheduled benefits through the year 2049 with no changes whatsoever. Even after 2049, when the program is first projected to face a shortfall, the payable benefit is projected to be more than 30 percent higher than what the average retiree gets today, and the payable amount would continue to rise from that level every year."
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
"I will freely admit I am not an expert on Social Security but something must be done...and soon...most young people today will tell you they don't expect to receive it when they retire..."
If it weren't for the liberals you hate so much, Wall $treet would have sucked your SS paychecks and seniors wouldn't be respected. Most young people are misinformed about social security. Your kids and grandkids will hate you when they're unable to fall back on SS as the next Great Depression, courtesy of rightwing policies and wars for oil, continues to crush this nation. Besides, since you hate Social Security, you can move to Argentina where it was destroyed and see how you do after a few years. And there won't be any labor unions there to help you unlike here.
"if the new system (privatization) is voluntary and they promise to give the old dogs like me what we were promised if we elect to stay in it... I see no problem with it"
Ain't gonna happen. Funny how you criticize others as "welfare queens" and yet you do the same.
"I recall reading someplace (and perhaps somebody can confirm it) that the City of Corpus Christi opted out of SS for city workers many years ago and as a result their people receive an average of $4K a month in benefits vice $1K for SS"
That's only public service employees. You're not referring to the vast majority of workers as they work in the private sector. And opting out of SS doesn't give them a pay raise. There are other cities across the nation that give city employees a pay raise from time to time and they don't opt out of SS.
Ain't gonna happen. Funny how you criticize others as "welfare queens" and yet you do the same.
I don't get where you're saying "Welfare" if they take the money out of my check every 2 weeks..(since I was 16 years old).....
I think a voluntary system where the worker can decide is just fine with me
The Democrats have already killed Welfare. That was Bill Clinton and the Democrats and the 'Welfare Reform Act of 1996".
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
"I think a voluntary system where the worker can decide is just fine with me"
Too bad your GEE-OH-PEE will make sure Wall $treet decides against you. And after the way Wall $treet is undergoing a series of market failures, I'd prefer Social Security to Wall $treet.
I simply don't know enough people that are qualified to make that decision for themselves.
samson is quite right, the GAO will tell you there isn't a real problem for many years from now.
Privitizing is simply a way to get some profits from managing, selling product, etc on that money. SS is not in trouble.
And its not going to be privitized no matter who is elected.
You should really give more thought to the waste, inefficiency and expense that is privatisation. There are far too many examples of this, especially in our military, for you to claim innocence.......
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Nickel and Dimed from The American Ruling Class!
http://www.wilypython.net/Nickel%20and%20Dimed%20.asp
S.Wolf,
If I might offer a few observations and notes on experience.
As a state employee, in the prison system as a teacher, for 16 years I receive an amount based on my highest 3 year salary multiplied by 2.5 %. That is, about 40% of about $62k a year. When I started my salary was less than $36k. That was year around, eight hour day teaching. A comparable teacher in public school with a post graduate degree walks in to a nine month school year with two weeks for Christmas and one week for Spring would earn what I earned when I retired. 16 years in Public ed equals about $75k around here, now. I am not complaining. I am setting up my experience to show my understanding.
The state department I worked for deducted no SS for 16+ years. This option is negotiated with the Federal government and covered by statute. Some departments, such as the State University system deduct SS in addition to a fixed pension plan.
Since no SS was deducted from my salary ten years prior to my retirement, I cannot receive Disability. Even though I am a vet. This is a fairly new change to the SS laws. It appeared on my annual SS account statement about 3 or 4 years ago. I have been disabled for the last 2 years. I am a young 61. I cannot supplement my pension by working PT as most can.
That $400.00 SS check would help to offset the cost of Medical insurance deductibles.
and the effects of inflation.
Now place this in context with two major 'corrections' to the stock market in the last 15 years and the effects on retirement funds(IRA) of individuals. My $150. a month IRA grew to over $30k when the first 'correction' removed $12k. It took until my quarterly statement in fall '07 to get it back plus some modest growth.
I am afraid to look at my account. I haven't, but I know it will be a much worse 'correction.' There are tens of millions of people with IRAs.
Now, can you honestly say that the government will honor a promise? That privatizing SS is a rational course of action by a responsible government?
If your answers to both are 'Yes.' You need to re-evaluate your critical thinking skills. Or trade your brain in on a newer model.
Social Security: Here today, still here tomorrow
http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/ib246
THIS QUOTE SAYS IT ALL
"Here's where it really gets diabolical. If privatization [of Social Security] becomes a reality, every issue from that point on can be framed as a potential threat to people's retirement funds. Environmental laws. Labor laws. Corporate taxes. Liability laws. The whole regulatory framework of modern corporate America will suddenly be transformed into a drag on stock earnings and a direct attack on the retirement funds of millions of Americans." -Randolph T. Holhut, 2005
Got brains? Vote Obama.
What's Obama's latest position on this? I know early in the primary season, back in 2007, he was the only Democratic contender who was resurrecting this idea of privatizing social security. Is that still his position? Or is this yet another area where he keeps changing?
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
A google search shows that, wait for it, Obama has been all over the place on privatizing social security.
Early in the campaign, he was talking about 'all options are on the table' and as Paul Krugman put it 'playing footsie with the privatizers.' Here's an article he wrote that's up on CD from Nov 1007.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/11/16/5276/
The later google hits seem to point more towards an Obama campaign that now says he won't privatize it.
Now, which is rhetoric and which is reality? Who knows. The man seems to say whatever he thinks he needs to say at any point in the campaign. But all that Wall St money Obama got early on in the campaign makes me wonder. You know after he's elected he's going to be calling the same people up and asking for more money for both the Dem mid-term elections and his next re-election campaign. When those same big wall st donors say that they still want social security privatized, is Obama going to say no?
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
"Fundamentals"
http://www.wilypython.net/Fundamentals%20.asp
A bigger distraction and lie, complete with 'unnamed Congressional sources,' is an idea whose time has arrived. One idea?
"'The Seditious Sexual Activity Act' A bipartisan amendment to the popular 'Patriot Act.' One of the revealed activities of Americans, by the now sanctioned spying on Americans, has stunned Congressional members. Their disbelief that good Americans participate in 'phone sex' as a prelude to the actual disgusting behavior of nasty, anti-christian activity is said to have prompted this legislation.
Critics hem and haw about the now disputed 'privacy' of consenting adults. This has been repeatedly denied by the SCOTUS on the basis of 'lack of verifiable permission from the appropriate authority. Further critical statements are anti-social placards encouraging public nudity and conducting 'sex theaters' on the steps of Congress and in front of the First Lady on the WH lawn. These terrorists must be renditioned to our Islamofascist allies in the Middle East to be taught the meaning of obedience.
VP candidate S. Palin (R) Governor of Alaska is a strong supporter of this Act. Her pro-active involvement is fostered by the NGO 'Pedophiles for Jesus,' of which VP Cheney is a Board member and noted mentor.
"Obviously, the hand gestures by some misguided Americans will have to be addressed, also." stated Mrs. Palin.
The First Lady turned pale and fainted when the Democratic nominee for President approached the First Lady with a dozen red roses, long stems, stark naked. Secret Police Blackwater agents immediately subdued, beat unmercilously, chained and dragged the insurrectionist.
Later, the First Lady refused to file charges based on his offer of long stemmed red roses. She said, "A member of such good standing deserves better treatment than being beaten by my security staff."
Another clear difference between Obama & McCain.
One of many.
Obama for sure.
Question Anyone; Why, QUITE often, do Nader supporters on CD exhort those in swing states to get out and vote, to 'swing' the state? (To McCain)
To What Advantage?
Thanks.
Follow the link I gave to the love fest between Phil Gramm and Bill Clinton when good ol Bill signed the bill that screwed us all and set up this debacle, and then ask yourself the question of what good is it to elect Democrats?
Or, go look at the votes on the Bankruptcy bill that sailed through Congress under Joe Biden's sponsorship (the "Senator from MasterCard"), and think about how that is screwing millions of Americans today, and then ask yourself what good is it to elect Democrats?
The key point is this. The track record of ACTIONS, ie, the stuff we can really track, says the Democrats screw us just as badly as the Republicans. If that's the case, then the key is to start building our own movement that will represent us. Voting Democrat is a useless waste. On issue after issue, we've seen the Dems 'cave' or 'surrender' or 'compromise' to side with the Republicans and screw us. Even as we speak, the Dems in Congress are working hard to make sure the Republicans and the oil companies get the right to drill offshore and pollute and destroy our coastlines.
What good is elected Democrats? Don't point to some useless campaign rhetoric from a known liar like Obama. He'll just back up later and claim it was 'overheated rhetoric' like he already has with his kinda-sorts progressive talk about NAFTA earlier in the campaign. Look at actions.
So, electing a Democrat does nothing for us.
So, we need to build a new movement.
So, if we ever want to try to pressure the Dems into not constantly siding with the Republicans, then we have to demonstrate that we have the political power to hurt the Dems. The very best way to do that is to precisely go into the swing states and work and campaign for Nader or McKinney and give the Dems a bloody nose and a kick in the balls. Maybe after that they might actually be willing to do something for the people of this country. But its only going to be after we the people show we can inflict some pain on the Democrats.
That's why its important to go exactly into those swing states and do everything we can to kick the Democrats in the balls, and to do it as hard and as painfully as we can.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
We do need a new movement, especially if Obama goes along SS privatization and a lot of other right-of-center stuff and giveaways, but not now. Obama is the only decent choice right now with a chance of winning. McCain will be a (continued) disaster. Lets elect Obama, and then give him hell while something new can get organized.
bbr-001 September 16th, 2008 5:52 pm
"Lets elect Obama, and then give him hell while something new can get organized."
And just how do you propose to give Obama hell after you elect him? By threatening to vote for him again in four years if he doesn't address the issues you want addressed?
Obama has already stated that he won't govern by polls (popular will)
Lobo Gris
So you want to see McCain elected?
I note this; Nader has done nothing in betweeen POTUS elections to build a third party. Nothing. Since he is the darling and icon of 3rd partiers, and has been these last two decades while he has run for president, his non-organizing, non-building of a 3rd party has resulted in what you have: no viable 3rd party.
For anyone, Nader, his supporters, anyone, to lambast the Democrats-which they deserve-THEN say elect McCain in this context is way wrong.
The Democrats won't be pressured to change much. Although Obama is far preferable to McCain, real pressure would come from organizing and working by progressives IN BETWEEN election years to build a 3rd party.
Thas has not happened.
Given this, it is only sane to end this Republican Raping, elect Obama, and start organizing and working to end the duopoly.
You defeat your own argument if you say elect McCain to change the Democrats when the argument is based on the sold-out immutable sameness of the two parties.
IE-Elect Obama then build a 3rd party. It would be far easier to do than it would be under the More Fascist Republicans.
So you want to see McCain elected?
You say, "I note this; Nader has done nothing in betweeen POTUS elections to build a third party. Nothing." Bullshit. Check out the man's work schedule. Then ask yourself which of of all the candidates of all the parties has done more for YOU in your life. You also say, "it is only sane to end this Republican Raping, elect Obama, and start organizing and working to end the duopoly." I have been hearing this same line of reasoning since at least 1968. Look where it has got us. To hell with both political parties. I don't shive a git if McCain gets elected. The Titanic is sinking and neither Corporate captain has any idea how to save it. look. How did the "fascist Republicans" do what they did? They did it with the aiding and abetting of the fascist Democrats. Just who gave Bush the go ahead to run a preventive war? Who voted FOR FISA immunity. YOUR OBAMA! That's who. Keep drinking the KoolAid. There are millions who won't be drinking from it from the same old cooler any more. Run Ralph. Run!
When you post myths such as this you really only comment about yourself. Take a bit of time , use a reputable search engine and learn how hard Ralph Nader works for you. A real pity you fail to work at least a little for yourself.
Nader has never been much of an advocate for third party politics ( unfortunately) His thrust is still the reformation of the Democratic Party.His run in 2000 was a marriage of convenience and he has since moved to independent status. Again, posting without knowledge is sad.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
So you are recomending we elect a Republican? And how is that going to work out, much like the past 7+ years I would think. A pet monkey could have done as well.
No Nader supporter is urging people to vote for Nader to "swing the state to McCain". This kind of pap is what makes Nader supports spit at the Democratic Party. People are being urged to support Nader in EVERY state so Nader can get the most number of votes. Period. Naders' votes don't belong to Obama. Obama is not entitled to them, even though you think so. And voting for Nader is NOT voting for McCain. A vote for Nader is a vote for Nader. "To What Advantage?" To the same advantage that Obama urges voters to vote for Obama. Plain and simple. You see, Democrats want one set of rules for themselves and a different set of rules for Nader. By the way, a vote for Obama or a vote for McCain is a vote for the same old screwing. I wouldn't say it is a vote against Nader because that would be stooping down to your level. Run Ralph. Run! Go get 'em and get 10% in the polls which would qualify you for federal matching funds. Then debate those two corporate lackeys and raise hell.