Obama Talks About Social Security In New Iowa Ad

Comments (16)

Jane wrote on October 29, 2007 10:35 AM:

The 'problem' with Social Security is that the Rethugs have been talking it down and some fools have bought into that idea: sure there will be a fewer people paying per retiree but they will have much greater resources from which to do so.

Progress increases wealth and the repulsive conservative Thomas Donlan of Barron's makes precisely this point in discussing the impact of military spending (in fairness, while lamenting the blunders the existence of our military might has tempted the rethugs to commit). He points out that while the inflation adjusted cost of the Iraq/Afghanistan War at $571 billion is half again the cost of WOrld War II and that it takes 20% of the Federal Budget. But in terms of burdens WWII cost 37.5% of GDP and the current war cost 4.2% of GDP.

With increaseing wealth Social Security will not seriously impact the current payers -- particulary if the cap is listed to tap more of the impact of the higher tax brackets.

NYMARJ wrote on October 29, 2007 11:18 AM:

GREAT - get the meme out that the democrats want to raise your TAXES. As Atrios says he should find another issue - don't let the repubs start to talk about trying to stave granny.

Swopa wrote on October 29, 2007 11:39 AM:

Interesting. On my blog, I've been hammering on Obama's misguided campaign for several weeks now, saying that instead of the conventional wisdom of needing to "go after Hillary," he needed to match her impression of knowing the problems the country faces and having the grit to attack them successfully.

Or, as I've put it, "Dubya has got the country stuck in the ditch in any number of painful ways. So the candidate people are likely to vote for is the one who gives the best sense of being ready to roll up their sleeves and start digging us out."

This ad seems like a direct response to that suggestion. He's even got his sleeves rolled up, for crying out loud...

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/4407

Anonymous wrote on October 29, 2007 11:47 AM:

Obama Hearts Russert

daniel155 wrote on October 29, 2007 12:08 PM:

On the surface the Obama ad portrays him as taking on a difficult issue but the only specific thing mentioned in the ad is eliminating the cap on earnings subject to the FICA tax. The revenue raised by that would only be a drop in the bucket compared to what is needed.

The other things mentioned in the ad such as not cutting benefits or no privitization sound like they come straight for the AARP.

Nice try.

loki wrote on October 29, 2007 12:40 PM:

So...whatever happened to that politics of hope crap?

Many in here have defended Obama by saying he's only trying to show a difference between himself and Clinton.

But when you say things like: "I don't want to just put my finger out to the wind and see what the polls say,"

Or, as Bob Somerby at the Daily Howler notes, when you try to characterize Hillary's approach to addressing the issues as "You should hedge, dodge and spin, but at all costs, don't answer."

When you do these things, when you say these things, you are attacking Clinton's character. You are not simply citing differences in policy.

Welcome to "The politics of Hypocrisy and Doubletalk," Barak and friends!

DTM wrote on October 29, 2007 12:57 PM:

loki,

Actually, what Obama is doing is making a process claim. And process issues certainly should be fair game in a campaign. Indeed, I'd argue process issues are often more important than statements about policy, because Presidents usually do not have the power to simply enact their policies.

bob wrote on October 29, 2007 12:59 PM:

daniel155, you don't know what you are talking about. If Social Security does indeed face a problem in the future, which is not a given as the economic growth estimates they use are exceptionally conservative, a tinkering-type fix, such as eliminating the cap on income subject to FICA taxes at $90,000 or so, will definitely fix it.

loki, your response is incomprehensible, but if you wish to interpret Obama's pretty simple Social Security plan as an attack on Hillary, so be it.

loki wrote on October 29, 2007 1:04 PM:

He is attacking her character. Plain and simple. Whether it is right or wrong, others can decide for themselves.

But he was promising something different. Maybe this somehow in Obama's mind actually falls under the heading Politics of Hope, but I think that's a stretch. ;^}

Call it a "process claim" if you like. But he is attacking Hillary's character.

loki wrote on October 29, 2007 1:06 PM:

Bob,

Read more carefully. I didn't say Obama's "plan" was an attack on Clinton. I said what he said was an attack on Clinton. And it is.

destor23 wrote on October 29, 2007 1:09 PM:

Social Security is fine. Worst thing that could happen to it would be for a bunch of musguided people to come together to muck it up.

daniel155 wrote on October 29, 2007 1:10 PM:

Bob, I hope you right even if it means me being wrong but you seem overly optimistic at best and in denial at worst.

If it were such an easy fix then it would have been fixed by now and candidates would not avoid discussing it like they do. I do not think the Social Security system is actuarily sound but it would be too much to try and explain why here.

But I still hope you are right but logic tells me otherwise.

I still think the measures outlined in the Obama ad are for political purposes rather than a serious fix for Social Security. But if it leads to a serious discussion on the issue then I will give him credit for that.

Anonymous wrote on October 29, 2007 2:09 PM:

Daniel55. My understanding of the issue, and everyone please correct me if I'm wrong, is that Medicare is in far worse shape than SS. When (mainly right-wing types) want to demagogue the issue, they use fright numbers based on both Medicare and SS, and then demand a change in SS. (Tim Russert provided a classic example of this.) SS has experienced "crises" before, leading to a fairly straight-forward and bi-partisan-supported change in the retirement age and/or income cap. The reason it hasn't happened yet is that the problem with SS is still pretty distant.

The silence on Medicare, however, is pretty universal.

DTM wrote on October 29, 2007 3:06 PM:

There are indeed simple fixes to the anticipated problems with SS: you either need to cut the benefits somewhat (eg, by moving the schedule farther out) or raise taxes somewhat (eg, by raising the income cutoff), or do a bit of both. The problem is that either approach (cutting benefits or raising taxes) leads to someone attacking you politically.

loki,

If you want to draw a negative inference about Clinton's character from the fact that she has been deliberately vague about how she would go about dealing with SS, that is your right. But please keep in mind that it is you who is drawing that inference, not whomever gave you the information about Clinton upon which you based your negative inference.

skeptic wrote on October 29, 2007 3:58 PM:

You can talk about "lock boxes" all you want. But the only politically acceptable investment for social security taxes are in US Treasury securities. US Treasury securities are issued to cover spending beyond what tax receipts can cover. So fixes that increase the cushion to cover future beneficiaries will always be a cookie jar for the politicians. This is exactly why past reforms only delay the day of reckoning.

Social Security should be put on a pay-as-you-go basis.

loki wrote on October 29, 2007 8:32 PM:

DTM,

Nice try, but swing and a miss!

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)