Another example of Obama's "unity": The Social Security "Crisis"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/16/opinion/16krugman.html

Played for a Sucker
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: November 16, 2007

Lately, Barack Obama has been saying that major action is needed to avert what he keeps calling a “crisis” in Social Security — most recently in an interview with The National Journal. Progressives who fought hard and successfully against the Bush administration’s attempt to panic America into privatizing the New Deal’s crown jewel are outraged, and rightly so.

But Mr. Obama’s Social Security mistake was, in fact, exactly what you’d expect from a candidate who promises to transcend partisanship in an age when that’s neither possible nor desirable.

<snip>

Why would he, in effect, play along with this new round of scare-mongering and devalue one of the great progressive victories of the Bush years?

I don’t believe Mr. Obama is a closet privatizer. He is, however, someone who keeps insisting that he can transcend the partisanship of our times — and in this case, that turned him into a sucker.

Mr. Obama wanted a way to distinguish himself from Hillary Clinton — and for Mr. Obama, who has said that the reason “we can’t tackle the big problems that demand solutions” is that “politics has become so bitter and partisan,” joining in the attack on Senator Clinton’s Social Security position must have seemed like a golden opportunity to sound forceful yet bipartisan.

But Social Security isn’t a big problem that demands a solution; it’s a small problem, way down the list of major issues facing America, that has nonetheless become an obsession of Beltway insiders. And on Social Security, as on many other issues, what Washington means by bipartisanship is mainly that everyone should come together to give conservatives what they want.

We all wish that American politics weren’t so bitter and partisan. But if you try to find common ground where none exists — which is the case for many issues today — you end up being played for a fool. And that’s what has just happened to Mr. Obama.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/16/opinion/16krugman.html

Thanks!

I'm good with this.

It won't be Obama that is a fool when we have a President with a large majority. That's when we can get things done. Oh Yeah!

I respectfully disagree w/ Krugman in that I do believe that Obama is a "closet privatizer". His inordinate and unjustified calls for bipartisanship on Social Security can hardly mean anything else.

You either keep Social Security strong by keeping it as it is or you go the "bipartisan" route and privatize it. There really isn't any middle ground.

Thanks.

as far as i`m concerned all the democrats program are decent . no matter who gets the presidency their plans will be modified by the time it hits their desk.

http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Obama+%22social+security%22+crisis&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Neat-o, huh?

None of them, even my boy Edwards, tell the whole story on their sites. And why should they? The site's there to convince people to vote for them. I doubt Obama's going to link to Krugman calling him a sucker.

If you're really interested, I encourage you start with rebuttals by Ezra Klein, Robert Reich, and a Ruth Marcus piece in the WaPo.

krugman is absolutely correct

The horror... :scared:

I don't, but I think there's a good chance it might happen. If it does, this is the area where he needs to be challenged by the progressives. None of our candidates is perfect, and pretending they don't have any flaws may help them get elected, but it won't make them a better president once they get there.

:hi:

I don't believe Obama ever used the word "crisis" because it's not. If he did, please provide a link

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4044168&mesg_id=4045335

Maybe a few more Obama supporters will stop denying he ever said this.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

How do you ever expect to achieve Unity, Hope and Change with that attitude? :shrug:

Way to lower the discourse to the lowest level, genius.

Otherwise the DLC could easily try to privatize Social Security all on its own, with Republican help.

and talking Bush talk = privatizing Social Security - the last Jewel of FDR's programs that bushco hasn't been able to destroy YET - and here's Obama offering to help BUSHCO. (read Corporations/Corporatists/The GREEDY YIKES

I've never read/heard Krugman coming out so strong.

:kick:

The Bush Beltway wants privitzation because it would "embolden" their financial backers. Obama advocates removing the $96K salary cap, which would affect only one American in seventeen, could be adjusted when needed and allow everyone to pay a lower rate. Krugman is right about SS being a "small" problem, though--the solution is as obvious as it is simple.

:headbang:
rocknation

Or is it a Change-ifier?

:grin:

he's a hope-MONGER.

:D
rocknation

who recently appeared with , lets see which Republican was it this week? , oh yeah, I think it was Bombs Away McCain.

And according to Krugman - Obamaman is right in there with GOP privatizing plan.
You really should read the articles in the headers.

You really should read the articles on his own web site.

...Obama is strongly opposed to privatizing Social Security.

Obama believes that the first place to look for ways to strengthen Social Security is the payroll tax system. Currently, the Social Security payroll tax applies to only the first $97,500 a worker makes. Obama supports increasing the maximum amount of earnings covered by Social Security and he will work with Congress and the American people to choose a payroll tax reform package that will keep Social Security solvent for at least the next half century.
(link)

:headbang:
rocknation

It seems to be working.

Obama has apparently calculated that he does not need the gay vote, the women's vote or older boomer votes. He has created unusual and unnatural alliances. Hope that works out for him.

:P

no i did`t see one quote in krug`s piece so i went to obama`s website...hmmm nothing there but a rather well thought out plan on how to keep the plan humming along so us old folks can live the rest of our lives without fear. sorry krug you did`t play me for a "sucker"

http://nationaljournal.com/onair/transcripts/071108_obama_barack.htm



You can find many other examples of this if you know how to use The Google.

i made the mistake of googling his website as a source.

But the “everyone” who knows that Social Security is doomed doesn’t include anyone who actually understands the numbers. In fact, the whole Beltway obsession with the fiscal burden of an aging population is misguided.

As Peter Orszag, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, put it in a recent article co-authored with senior analyst Philip Ellis: “The long-term fiscal condition of the United States has been largely misdiagnosed. Despite all the attention paid to demographic challenges, such as the coming retirement of the baby-boom generation, our country’s financial health will in fact be determined primarily by the growth rate of per capita health care costs.”

How has conventional wisdom gotten this so wrong? Well, in large part it’s the result of decades of scare-mongering about Social Security’s future from conservative ideologues, whose ultimate goal is to undermine the program.

Thus, in 2005, the Bush administration tried to push through a combination of privatization and benefit cuts that would, over time, have reduced Social Security to nothing but a giant 401(k). The administration claimed that this was necessary to save the program, which officials insisted was “heading toward an iceberg.”

But the administration’s real motives were, in fact, ideological. The anti-tax activist Stephen Moore gave the game away when he described Social Security as “the soft underbelly of the welfare state,” and hailed the Bush plan as a way to put a “spear” through that soft underbelly.

Fortunately, the scare tactics failed. Democrats in Congress stood their ground; progressive analysts debunked, one after another, the phony arguments of the privatizers; and the public made it clear that it wants to preserve a basic safety net for retired Americans.

in their bank accounts....Bush has raided the treasury and spread as much cash among his friends in and out of the military/indutrial complex as possible - hoping and planning that there would be no money left for social programs.
Not even for caring for veterans coming back from his personal war... we won't
know the full truth of what's left until he and his crew of thieves are out of office and hopefully another crook wont be in.

Welcome to DU. Enjoy your stay. :hi:

:crazy:

What's the next -ism?

BTW Krugman is right.

The more I hear about obama, the more I dislike him...it's that simple...

.

without being called a racist...and that's the truthhhhhh.

Right now, a black person would be afraid to stand up and say the emperor
is full of crap., but a few more gafs and nasties by Obamaman the Kid, should
get some upstanding genteel elder Afro American good and sick n tired of Mr.
Slick.

Hope it doesn't take too long.

Hillary at one debate whined how raising the cap would be an undue burden on the affluent. Sorry, for those of us struggling with household incomes under 50-60,000 we have no sympathy for that crap.

Raising the cap would put the issue to rest for a long, long time.