Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiMcCain 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.
98 Comments so far
Show Alltetti:
the rest of the world views America as a 3rd world country NOW. Corrupt eletions, so NO DEMOCRACY, out of control military spending. Drug trade around the world ( you forget Afghanistan under the Taliban had ZERO poppies growing) Now is the #1 producer in the world with CIA help. A media that is not free at all so it tells the people what they are told to say. NO HEALTHCARE, NO JOBS the list goes on. To me that sounds like a 3rd world country.
If a person did something to hurt America what would you call them? A terrorist. Then why do you sit on your fat butts and let your so called elected people or about to be elected people a free rain to do what they want and hurt millions of American? In the last 8 years I have watched as America has be been attacked from within and bring it down to a 3rd world nation of followers.
Lively discussion here, folks.
I think it's plausible Obama got one of those phone calls... the type that lets him know he's now in too far to NOT obey the corporate masters. Whether he would answer to a higher authority IF he got the presidency, still remains to be seen. Curently US politics is theater of the absurd crossed with spiritual porno.
NATE W: I am not as up on Roman history as you are. I like Commodius as southerners call a toilet a commode, and certainly Bush fits being king of that, full of shit as he and all his policies are.
MiMICCS: All of your speaking about the solidity of Social Security into the distant future, at this point in time, given the courting of Armageddon, certain empowered factions SEEKING WW III, and the vicissitudes of climate change, we are arrogant to postulate that far into the future!
SAMSON: Excellent posts, particularly the 5:25 PM one.
DOG LEG: I was moved by your cynical and well told tale. Did you know Edgar Allen Poe was a Capricorn? That depression figures go up around the December-January interim. Some believe due to less light (in northern hemispheres), but astrologers attribute the mood to the rather cynical, somber sign of Capricorn. Henry Miller was another important Capricorn author, Anais Nin's favorite lover, by the way. I am dealing firsthand with the dark moods of a Capricorn, my boyfriend of the past 13 months... tough fit between sunny Leo and dark Capricorn, but there's always cosmic chemistry that comes into play. What cracks me up is he calls ME paranoid when I try to relate to him all the inroads into surveilling citizens. He's one who believes you have nothing to fear if you're doing nothing wrong, has "faith" in our government! Capricorn is by nature the most inwardly wired to be authoritarian, although most prefer to BE that authority.
Elvis Presley, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin are three notable Capricorn musicians and performers. I am only now getting a sense of the intense passion that explodes from this sign due to its usual living behind controls, both inwardly and externally (the state) directed. You have the makings of a good writer... thanks for sharing in the forum.
Commodus was an actual historical figure. He reigned as Roman Emperor from 180 - 192 AD (Juaquin Phoenix played him in "Gladiator"). He was the son of one of Rome's greatest rulers, Marcus Aurelius (that is where the historical comparison diverges, as Bush I is nowhere near the level of Marcus Aurelius), and is considered by historians as the ruler that ushered in the decline of the Roman Empire due to his incompetence and rapaciousness. He is thus an easy figure with which to compare Dubya to.
BTW: at one point in his rule, he changed the name of Rome to Commodia.
People voting for either a Republican or a Democrat are the sole reason America will be a third world nation in less than 10 years. Obama would not do any better for Social Security, fools.
Haven't you had enough with Pelosi and Reid not only protecting Bush and Cheney, but also giving them more money than they had asked for, for their 2 illegal wars? What on Earth is wrong with your people's brains?
Haven't you had enough with Obama speaking against the war but voting to fund it, speaking against the FISA bill but voting for it, speaking against drilling but changing his mind days later, being pro choice and anti choice at the same time etc? His record is appalling. Biden is a neocon, thirsty for more wars.
The definition of political insanity: Voting the same two party's in year after year and expecting a different result! Vote third party-vote third party-vote third party.
The definition of political insanity: Voting third party year after year and expecting someone other than a Republican to win.
wcdevins; Bulls-eye! And, the definition of moral insanity is the same.
Ralph has been running for sixteen years, but all of a sudden he's gonna save us?
He used to rail against corporations; now he is invested in Halliburton, General Dynamics and Raytheon who makes cluster bombs. This through his holdings in Fidelity Magellan.
Ralph's biggest investment over the years has been in Cisco who Naomi Klein says "works hand in glove" with the Chinese police-state government on surveillance systems to 'monitor' it's citizens.
Know Ralph by the companies he keeps. Follow his money. He could have invested Green-I guess the returns are not as high.
Anyone doubts me Google 'Nader investments Fidelity Magellan Cisco' or combinations of those words.
Cluster Bombs. Go Ralph, I'll see you on Fox News slamming Democrats again soon I'm sure.
tetti_tati:
I absolutely, and I mean TOTALLY agree with you.
Capitalist view of government services.
Privatize profit , socialize losses.
How convenient , we love this country to do anything about this.
toophat for you!
Don't worry. Relax. McCain is not going to privatize Social Security. The debate has been had and settled. McCain's plan is to create a bi-partisan commission to study Social Security. Euphamism for ain't nothing going to change. He knows it will never happen in a Democrat controlled congress.
The greater scam, which no one realizes, is that Americans are forced to work longer and save more than is necessary for retirement. Hundreds of thousands of dollars, in most cases, due to the retirement industry's use of the "Consumption Assumption" method of calculating retirements.
If you go green, before and during retirement, you can retire with much less savings and years earlier. Try the Green Retirement calculator at the link below to find out.
Do The World A Favor And Retire!
Green Retirement
“McCain Would Privatize Social Security”
Not if people have guts, get into the streets, and raise hell, like the French do.
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.....
I believe this is fair comment.
I also believe that its not a good idea to return to the pre SS days just like it wasn't a good idea to deregulate the financial markets so we could return to the "good old days"
And can you imagine if the GOP had their way and AIG and the big Wall street firms i.e. Merrill Lynch ect. had the fiduciary responsibilty for Social Security.
excellent point!
Social Security can be credited with reducing poverty among the elderly, which was why it was initiated in the first place.
On the other hand, some folks in this post think they can do better in the big casino, otherwise known as Wall Street. Of course, as the author of this article points out, Wall Street was not (and is not) a sure thing. In fact, Wall Street lives off financial bubbles, preying on those "knowlegeable" investors.
In the case of the subprime mortgages, those debts were bundled into securities and widely incorporated in 401Ks and other investment plans. Under those circumstances, few could be smart enough to beat the casino. Only those who perpetuated the subprime fraud will not suffer this bubble. In addition, rich financial institutions are being bailed out by U.S. tax payers. It's funny how rich capitalists cling to "socialism" when their rigged game falls apart.
There are still people who don't get it. You invest if you have surplus money, but it's really a form of gambling. You can gamble on Wall Street or in Las Vegas. As for your retirement fund, you don't want to gamble with that. 401K funds were supposed to be less risky than other Wall Street funds, but with bad mortgage debt stuffed into them, it wasn't true.
Rather than complain about taxes, you should complain about how your tax monies are distributed. About 50 percent of U.S. tax dollars go to wasteful military spending. In Europe, people pay higher taxes, but they get useful social benefits from it (medical care, housing, etc.). Here in the United States, we get much less.
As Marx is quoted as saying, under capitalism, the only thing the people own is the national debt.
I have to disagree somewhat with the author. It's Congress that ultimately will decide on gutting Social Security. Although the President could propose it, Congress would have to sponsor the legislation.
The Democratic Party has been a defender of Social Security in the past, but who knows now. The party has defended very little of what it used to stand for, and it continues to join Republicans in supporting unpopular issues. Remember that it took a Democratic President, Bill Clinton, to gut welfare. The U.S. welfare system was an important social safety net, and Democrats took a leading role in killing it.
Still want to vote Democratic?
-TIA
Still want to vote Democratic?
Just thinking about voting for a democratic incumbent on the local level makes my mind go numb, causes an ache in my heart, and gives me a queasy feeling in my gut. I won't describe what happens to me when I think about voting for a democrat on the state and federal level and you don't want to know how I feel anytime the word republican comes up.
In this presidential election the only person running who is qualified for the job is Nader. He is the only one running who could actually get something done for me! Obama isn't going to do nothing to help me stand on my own two feet and McCain is going to continue the old republican tradition of trying to knock me off my own two feet.
Our federal government is corrupt and failing, our state governments are laughable in their pursuit of handouts from the feds and our local governments composed of wannabe good old boys.
Right now at this point in history, I almost think we would be better off without any government.
Rickster
P.S.
All of them are being controlled and manipulated by the corporations. Even in the smallest cities in the smallest counties, the biggest businesses around are taking control of the elections.
Rickster
"McCain helped create BlackBerry"
What a clever fellow!
And complicated too,
about four times more complicated
than a Baked Potato,
by count of DNA Base Pairs.
No, not the electronic BlackBerry - he doesn't know what that is. The actual thorny blackberry - McCain cultivated the second Bush.
HAHAHA! You did not say that! HAHAHA!! That is a political commercial.
Yeah, lets keep Social inSecurity just the way it is.
For 40 or 50 years, we can contribute 12.4% of our pay into it.
If we die before retirement, we get NOTHING, and our contributions cannot be passed on to our heirs.
If we work for a government entity that had the good sense to "opt out" of social insecurity, we become scummy windfall double dippers, and our miserable social security payment, if we survive to collect it, will be cut by up to half.
If we make it to retirement, we will pay tax on our social security benefits, despite having ALREADY paid tax on the 12.4% we paid into the system.
If we compare our social security payments to what we could have gotten if we had contributed 12.4% of our incomes into an IRA or 401K over our working life, we will cry.
Yes, sure, this is a GREAT system. Let's keep it just like it is...
More magical thinking on your part.
You are going to have to show me how with the little savings you are putting aside privately, you will be able to get a monthly income greater than Social Security for your entire life span guaranteed with medical care when you are retired plus total disability payments should you be disabled before retirement and death payments to your children should you die before they reach they age of majority. Perhaps AIG could do better?
Please explain to this ignorant one how SOCIAL SECURITY guarentees medical care.
Good point but wrong point TruthTeller--
The issue is not whether social security should stay just as it is--the point is that it should be funded by taxes paid jointly by both employers and employees. Privatization would effectively make SS a pretax fund to be turned over to the mercies of the predatory financial markets (the banks, investment houses, insurance companies).
They are the ones who have helped to financially wreck America with their fraudulent financial dealings made possible by the deregulation schemes promoted by the neocon/neoliberal pro-business robotic drones in both parties (and the presidential and vice-presidential candidates of both parties) and the despicable Alan Greenspan whose commision to "reform" social security back in the early 80's began this privatization scheme.
Of course the ceiling for wages from which social security should be deducted should be increased.
Of course the tax rate for all levels should increase for therE to be sufficieint income to cover future obligations.
Of course the funds should never be allowed to become a part of general revenues either for direct spending or as collateral to borrow more money at interst from the wealthy willing to lend it instead of using taxes on all to cover the expenses of the program.
These are all important reforms that need to be instituted (or in some cases reinstituted)but that discussion is for another time and place.
Right now the important thing to remember is that social security privatization = social security destruction and that nobody should tolerate without screaming BLOODY MURDER!
Poet
You want to INCREASE the tax rate? It is already outrageous.
Example:
I am not rich. I live in California, and have self employment income; my total income is about $60K, which, in San Diego, is NOT rich.
I pay:
15.3% social security and medicare. (Because I am self employed, I pay double what employees pay, as there is no one making an employer contribution for me.
25% Federal income tax
9.3% state income tax.
Add it up: I am paying a marginal rate of 49.6% tax. How undertaxed am I, and how much more should I pay? How would it be possible for me to be worse off if I put my 12.4% in a private retirement fund?
"How would it be possible for me to be worse off if I put my 12.4% in a private retirement fund?"
Given what happened to AIG, I wouldn't be dumb enough to let Wall $treet "handle" my money like that.
Besides, you didn't even mention all those deductions you could make as a self-employed individual. 60k might not be much in CA but you can move to NE if you're upset about it since 60k is considered a lot here.
Gee with all your figures and calculations and such, somehow you managed to forget the deduction for 1/2 of the SE Tax. I'll bet you didn't forget to take it.
The cap on income for Social Security taxes should be removed, thereby increasing the amount collected and making sure that everyone who is entitled to collect has the tax taken out on their entire salary, just as happens to the rest of us.
And your net tax rate after itemizing deductions? Closer to 26% like everybody else, Except corporations, and those who don't work but pay a rate of 15% on capital gains on dividends. Any working stiff with an IRA, investment and dividends, withdraws money from it before at least 65 years of age gets hit with a 33% rate. Whether or not 2 major market 'corrections' wiped out 50%.
Also, you are enjoying your free choice to follow your entrepreneural dreams. Many would envy your income as you pursue your dream.
You haven't learned that the middle class of this country supports this economy of which 48% goes down the now corrupt black hole of the Pentagon.
Go ahead and continue to vote Republican or Democrat. Check back with me in ten years.
You should have learned by now.
Actually, I do not itemize because I cannot afford to buy a house. So, my rate continues at 49%.
The one deduction I have is my IRA, and I do NOT take early distributions, and I contribute far LESS to it than to Social Security, yet am quite sure that I will recieve far MORE from it when I retire. Unless I die, in which case, my heirs get the IRA, but get NOTHING from Social Security.
So, tell me again how I am undertaxed, and how Social Security benefits me?
Odd that, with a name such as yours, little truth is found in your posts. I wonder at that, really I do...
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
How do we know McCain is a reformer?
He wants to privatize Social Security
Baker writes that,"The huge baby boom cohort that is just now reaching their retirement age has seen most of their wealth wiped out by the housing crash". What?! Housing prices have declined to what they were just a few years ago. Baby boomers didn't buy houses in the last few years before their retirement. They bought houses many years ago and those houses are worth way more (nominally, unadjusted for inflation) than they were when they were bought. Also, these boomers have been socking money into retirement accounts for decades. The market is down but not that much and their retirement accounts were balanced with bonds and money market funds. A statement as absurd as this one caused me to stop reading the article.
You are confused. And ill-informed.
'Boomers,' the vast majority of 78 million members maligned by the Right, have not been socking money into retirement accounts for decades and they haven't owned their houses for 30 or 40 years either. Most moved on average every seven years due to job relocation, re-assignment, career change, etc.
Sure some were smarter, more talented, from more nurturing families that helped in what their goals were. Of course, there are the more obvious power occupiers who have had no qualms about twisting this nation into a pretzel for the buck. All generations are the same.
I was born 1.1.47. My IRA has been hit by 2 major market corrections, the first cost 27% of my equity, this one is scarier than ever for someone of modest means, 16 years of $150.00 a month. The price of three children, their educations, the joy and tribulations they require is worth everything.
This, my second house, I bought during the 1993-94 real estate bubble collapse. Before '07, I was hopeful for a respectable nest egg and possible inheritance for my offspring. And still leave my native state, one more time.
Fortunately, I have been wise enough not to give up my equity to scams such as caused the current collapse.
Your generation supplied that fuel. 30-35 year old dumb fucks who, with mommies help, put a minimum down on a 4800 sq ft macmansion with no architectural or green redeeming value. It's just you and your wife.
Then life smacks you in the mouth and then breaks your nose: the teaser 1% hits 8%, the mortgage climbs from $1100.00 a month to a back breaking $4000.00 PITI. The pressure in your head builds as heating/cooling energy costs increase 300% in one fucking year. You are having constant headaches now. Then to bloody your nose your wife tells you she's pregnant. The next day you get fired for telling your boss he's a fucking idiot.
When you get home, she's not there. You take three muscle relaxers, two aspirin and a Vicodan, grab a bottle of Jack Daniels, turn on the idiot box. Four hours later, your wife comes home with runs in her nylons and her lipstick smeared. You don't know because your out like a broken lightbulb.
The next morning she tells you she is getting an abortion. It's only 8 fucking 30. the remainder of the Jack goes into your coffee. You start yelling at her, trying to control her decisions. She sits quietly and looks at you like you have been removed from existence.
Three months later, your divorced, the house has been repossessed, you are working at MacDonalds, you drive a '71 pos Pinto with bald tires, share a house with a bunch of retro stoners and can't understand what drove you into that big fucking hole called suburbia.
Now tell ME about boomers.
Shit.
Ah, your power of magical thinking....
The S&P500 is the value it was in 1999. Ten years. Baby boomers have been getting by in the Bush economy through the use of credit. As real wages dipped, home equity lines flourished. Workers who were fired (outsourced) made attempts at being small businesses using pension money. Others with Enron-like pensions were not that lucky. The cost of food, gas, utilities, healthcare, etc. has been raising so monthly costs become more and more difficult to afford.
By the way, it seems that you'd stopped reading many years ago.
Nickel and Dimed from The American Ruling Class!
http://www.wilypython.net/Nickel%20and%20Dimed%20.asp
Right now, SS is a cash cow and has been since the early 80's, running at a surplus, payments received exceed ss distributed by over 200 billion per year. This money gets spent and does not count as part of the the federal deficit, despite the fact the money is "borrowed" from the SS trust fund (now well over 2 trillion dollars).
In 2017 or so, SS payments received will match the amount of SS to be distributed. It is no longer a cash cow. As SS payments received are reduced over the next 30 years, and SS distributed grows, the money that was in the SS trust fund would need to make up the difference. The problem is, we already spent it. Thats means we must borrow it from outside government.
Alternatively, we could raise taxes, or tax the entire salary of the highest paid. Or, heaven forbid, create our own interest free money to make these payments (legal tender for goods and services within the US only).
Go dig up Reagan's corpse. Tell him he sold your birthright for a cheap case of Alzheimer's. He'll understand.
Social Security: Here today, still here tomorrow
http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/ib246
http://twocanpete.blogspot.com/
Sounds like a typical Republican solution; completely wreck something, then give it back to the people you took it from before you wrecked it.
Aw, these guys are so delightfully irreverent.
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.
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.
And; jozef, you like so many Naderites are straight in love with the personal insult.
The post you replied too was 100% civil, but you were "stooping to my level," this, over time has made me loathe nader lovers, not just for their positions, but for this lack of character, a plague among you if being rude and insulting is a gauge.
It's epidemic among you; you know everything and insult anyone who disagrees.*
*For example, read your own post.
I prefer civility, but, to be fair, when you post outrageous lies it makes civility rather difficult. I would urge you to link to one single post from a Nader supporter urging a vote for Nader in order to "swing that state to McCain" . Just one...put up or for heaven's sake shut up!
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
You say you prefer civility,
Then say "PUT UP OR SHUT UP!"
Go look in a mirror to see passive aggressive hypocrisy-that is 'what you are'
The posts have been numerous urging people to vote Ralph in the swing states-numerous.
You are a typical rude, insulting Nader supporter.
See yourself as you are, take 400 micrograms of pure LSD, free-fall into yourself, and if you can find your way home, get back to me.
"We see things not as they are" As though there was only ONE, 'true' reality (how stupid-and how convenient, yours!) There is more than you know little Horatio. And your little truths are your personal subjective perceptions, not absolutes.
Read a book on manners and try to write your own material.
And ardee; Google Nader swing staes common dreams 2008. Or variations on those words. Nader's historical emphasis on swing staes, personally and by his supporters, is endlessly, I mean endlessly documented. That is endlessly; so I have "put up" 'ardee'.
"We don't see things we don't want to, know matter how up close they are"
Anais Nin
Thanks for the invitation to Shut Up.
jozef; I have seen numerous, COUNTLESS posters on CD, who I've seen promote Nader over time recently urging those in swing states, to 'swing' the state-to McCain
So you are FLAT OUT WRONG in your first sentence. Here's a concept for you; maybe that's not the first time in your life. Take the Blinders off little guy.
But hey, don't worry about 'stooping to my level.' We will never be on the same level, I'm going to try and keep McCain out of office, you want to help him in.
He might win too. Then you can feel extra good about yourSELF.
Hey Joe, you done a lot of organizing and building that 3rd party base thse last years?
Yeah, I bet.
Oh crap. I have no blinders on. It's you folk who have religious faith in the duopoly that have the blinders on. Listen. If Obama man cannot romp over McCain then he deserves to lose. Just like uber-intellectual, Al Gore, couldn't romp over mental midget George. You have no friggin clue what I have or have not done. But just as an aside, I was in on the organizing of Vermont's 3rd major political party, the Progressive Party. And I work with the Liberty Union Party from time to time, Vermont's 4th major political party. You know how Vermont got 4 major political parties? It wasn't by voting FOR Demopublicans and Republicrats. By the way, I am a big guy at 235. And the website is http://www.metaphoria.org And of course, Run Ralph. Run! By the way, Ralph like McCain, is a veteran. You wouldn't know it though because Ralph talks about the issues, not himself, like McCain and Obama do.
That's the most asinine argument I've ever seen on CD (but not by much): "If Obama man cannot romp over McCain then he deserves to lose." WTF?
If a candidate can't "romp over" the other then he should lose? By this logic, you are saying, if the race is close, the worse candidate should win regardless of the actual vote count; the better candidate should win only if he can win by a large margin. That is stupid. Any argument about whether Nader or any other 3rd-party candidate can ever be anything more than a spoiler aside, that is just stupid.
By saying "Obama man" rather than merely "Obama" you tip your hat. Your real motive does indeed seem to be to elect McCain. Or perhaps you're just trying to get Nader some government bucks. How nice of you. I bet Nader really appreciates that; after all he needs the money.
Congratulations on your 4 "major" political parties, but the US is not VT. It will be a long, long time before a 3rd party candidate can be anything other than a spoiler (at best) in any national contest in this country. If Republicans continue to get elected (with or without help from 3rd parties) the country will not last long enough for your efforts to matter.
Agreed. Most Nader supporters would simply not have voted given the sorry and miserable choices the two major parties (or one party with two seperate brands from which to choose) are running.
Poet
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
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.
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?
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
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!
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
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."
Got brains? Vote Obama.
"Fundamentals"
http://www.wilypython.net/Fundamentals%20.asp
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
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
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?
Social Security: Here today, still here tomorrow
http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/ib246
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.
"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.
Nickel and Dimed from The American Ruling Class!
http://www.wilypython.net/Nickel%20and%20Dimed%20.asp
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
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
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.
"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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
IF there is an argument against privatizing social securit it is the stock market today and yesterday
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.
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
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.
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