Obama uses the phrase "Social Security Crisis" again

The use of the word "crisis" regarding our social security system is important.  

The first dictionary definition of the word is : a stage in a sequence of events at which the trend of all future events, esp. for better or for worse, is determined; turning point.
A later medical definition is: the point in the course of a serious disease at which a decisive change occurs, leading either to recovery or to death.

The implication of the use of the word "crisis" to describe our social security situation is that it is a program that is going to be dead if some dramatic change isn't implemented and that the time for implementing that change (or losing the program) is imminent. It it is poll tested word that the Republicans who have wanted to kill the program since it's inception during the New Deal intentionally use in order to frighten Americans into accepting their proposals ("privitazation") that would actually cause a crisis and the end of social security.

So it is important for Progressives who believe in Social Security to not accept the Republican theme that there is a "crisis" regarding Social Security.

Last week in the Democratic Candidates debate on MSNBC  Obama said: "I absolutely agree that Social Security is not in crisis."

But this week in an interview published today in national journal Obama used the phrase again.    In a comment intended to be critical of Senator Clinton he said : "You know, Senator Clinton says that she's concerned about Social Security but is not willing to say how she would solve the Social Security crisis, then I think voters aren't going to feel real confident that this is a priority for her."

I agree with paul krugman and so many others on this point.   Social Security is one of the most effective and best run programs in our Federal Bureaucracy. It's goal was to guarantee that that our seniors would not have to live out the remainder of their lives in poverty. It has accomplished and continues to accomplish it's goal.

No other federal program (except for perhaps the Internal Revenue Service) is expected to bring in more revenue then it spends. Progressives need to stand up and be proud of Social Security and say this is what we accomplished. We guaranteed that our seniors did not have to eat cat food, we guaranteed that our seniors could have health care and live in dignity and we did it over the opposition of the Republicans who fought us every step of the way.

There is no Social Security Crisis and I wish Senator Obama would stop using that Republican phrase.

update -  One of the questions I have heard from Obama supporters is asking why I harp on what might be an accidental slip of the tongue by Obama "who we know supports social security".    I don't think it was an accident.  I think Obama is very careful in his language, and one of the things I have noticed him doing repeatedly during his brief tenure as a Senator has been to repeat the Republican talking point intentionally,  before ultimately voting correctly.    We saw this the first moment after the Democrats passed an Iraq War funding resolution that contained a time line for withdrawal.  Obama said something like "If Bush vetoes this bill the Democrats will pass a funding bill without a timeline because no one wants to play chicken with the troops.    He did it also back when John Kerry first proposed a fillibuster to prevent Alito's confirmation on to the Supreme Court.  Obama immediately said the fillibuster would lose and was a bad idea.       I actually believe this is Obama's intentional style
sort of an attempt to create a compromise by showing the other side that he understands them by using their language.

•  He's slowly killing himself

  Is he doing this in exchange for good press?

  by Salo on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:09:08 AM PDT

  •  following the script

    I'm becoming convinced these people have no clue what they're doing.  They're just reading cue cards.

    The script for the lagging candidate is to attack the leader.  And another DC script is to whine about the "social security crisis."  Follow the cue, stand on your mark, and read your lines.  There's no actual thought required.

    by ferg on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:14:39 AM PDT

    •  SS is fine.

      There will always be enough resources to care for the elderly.  How could anyone ever think differently?

      by Salo on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:16:55 AM PDT

      •  greenspan says

        medicare is the thing that will need adjustments and funding....dwarfing any slight problem in SS

        by coigue on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:19:56 AM PDT

        •  and deficits

          If we don't run huge deficits, there won't be a problem for either program.

          But I don't see much of Obama the Deficit Hawk.

          by Leggy Starlitz on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:23:02 AM PDT

          •  right!

            and the debt! How much of our taxes go to interest on the national debt, anyhow?

            by coigue on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:25:48 AM PDT

    •  I can tell you from personal experience...

      I'm becoming convinced these people have no clue what they're doing.  They're just reading cue cards.

      That this is true. The Obama campaign has NO CLUE what it's doing or why it's doing it. That's why they allow homophobes to bash LGBT people on campaign stages and why they talk of a nonexistent "Social Security crisis".

      by atdnext on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:25:33 AM PDT

      •  Hey, McCain actually does read his talking

        points from written notes. He's a careful man:)

        by BoringDem on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:39:57 AM PDT

    •  I've said dummer things

      which is why I prefer writing.

      The question wasn't even about Social Security, and the transcript gets almost incoherent at the end:

      Obama: Well, I strongly disagree. Look we are offering our plans for the future on health care, on education, on energy, and the American people have a right to judge how clear and how consistent have the candidates been in their positions. Because if they're not clear and consistent, then it's pretty hard to gage how much they're going to fight on these issues. You know, Senator Clinton says that she's concerned about Social Security but is not willing to say how she would solve the Social Security crisis, then I think voters aren't going to feel real confident that this is a priority for her. And that's the kind of leadership I think that the Democratic Party has to offer in the years to come.

      I'd like to see some kind of follow up from Obama.

      by Downpuppy on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:37:20 AM PDT

  •  If Obama gets the nomination, the swiftboaters

    are going to flip-flop him to death

    by Goodbye Kitty on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:34:48 AM PDT

    •  It will be pure refined swiftboating

      by Salo on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:38:15 AM PDT

  •  he's dragging democrats down with him

    I wish he'd shut up.

    by 123Mary123 on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:41:32 AM PDT

  •  Third rails

    by Salo on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:41:48 AM PDT

•  Stupid statement

  He should know better, and shouldn't be playing into the right-wing's hands.

  by Paleo on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:11:38 AM PDT

  •  I guess he's so willing to "go after" Clinton...

    That he'll use right-wing talking points against her. Wow, and that's supposed to make us feel better about Obama?

    by atdnext on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:27:27 AM PDT

  •  Wrong, this entire diary is totally off base

    There is not a Social Security crisis.

    There will be a Social Security crisis in the future, many many years from now, if things go on the current course, but that's no reason to suggest there's a crisis now.

    Obama said "There is not a Social Security crisis."

    He also said the Clinton has not told us "how she would solve the Social Security crisis".

    I haven't told you how I would solve all the problems on the bar exam, but that doesn't mean I'm taking it today.  

    Would it have been better if Obama had said "future Social Security crisis" or "crisis when it happens"?  Probably.  Does the fact that he didn't mean you can automatically attribute his quote to the present-tense?  Not if we're being intellectually honest here.  Clinton has NOT told us how she would solve a Social Security Crisis;  that doesn't mean one is currently taking place, and Obama has made that very clear.  I wish people would take more time to think before posting diaries and comments like this; I am undecided, but hit jobs like this do a disservice to all our candidates.

    by ShadowSD on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 09:51:43 AM PDT

    •  Respectfully, no you are wrong

      The SS "crisis" is decades ahead of us. That should give even the incompetents in Congress sufficient time to figure out how to tweak it sufficiently for it to stay solvent until the end of the century or so.

      Wish we could say the same for our budget with military and Iraq War spending  spiraling out of control. And Rudy is calling for a military build-up.

      i suggest that Obama should focuse on this, or some of the other more immediate crises. Unless, of course, he needs an issue that he can irrational fear-monger to find a wedge issue with other candidates.

      Oh, and this is from someone who until recently was seriously considering a vote for Obama.

      by crick02478 on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 10:08:55 AM PDT

      •  I believe I am right if you too just said that

        "the SS crisis is decades ahead of us".  Call me crazy, but I don't think having plans for a crisis decades ahead of us is a disqualifying factor, or even a diminishing one.  I wish that thirty or forty years ago, Congress had planned for global warming.  I wish that the New Deal had gone into effect before the Depression hit.  I wish we could all, our elected leaders in particular, look forward at what we can solve as opposed to limiting our focus to just the immediate problems of today; I always thought that's what makes me a progressive.

        You bring up the budget, but SS is a part of it; increasing the SS tax to a fair share for the wealthy is money that goes towards overall the budget.  If Obama wasn't talking about the Iraq War or fiscal responsibility in this campaign, all in order to focus his message on the "Social Security CRISIS", I could understand your post.  But looking far ahead in addition to dealing with what's right in front of you is not a liability, and is a lacking progressive trait in our government.

        by ShadowSD on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 10:19:14 AM PDT

        •  In the abstract

          Yes its nice to start making plans about an issue that is decades ahead.

          We have a crisis in leadership concerning issues that are of immediate concern. Obama is not the only one failing to step up, IMHO opinion, so please do not think I am picking on him. Frankly though I held out greater hope for more and better leadership from him on issues that have....shall we say reached much greater critical mass than SS.

          Once upon a time, I thought he might be the type to walk onto the Senate floor and address the body with the same kind of fire that McGovern did in....well it was before he announced to run in '72 in any case. Its a famous speech. He called everyone of his colleagues out, then turned around and ran for President and managed to secure the nomination without much support from the party regulars.

          That's conviction. That's leadership.

          by crick02478 on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 11:46:47 AM PDT

          •  There is a reasonable argument to be made

            that what one can accomplish with Bush in office and a slim Senate majority is drops in a bucket compared to what they can accomplish as President.  That is not an excuse for inaction, but it is a reasonable consideration.

            Perhaps the best selling point of the Obama candidacy is how much he can undo the Bush administration damage from his first day; the caveat to this selling point is whether or not we trust him to do so with the reigns of power.

            by ShadowSD on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 12:02:27 PM PDT

            •  Really?

              Tell me, what can Obama undo from his first day that will prevent regimes from all over the world from pointing for decades to come at our embrace of torture as a justification for their crimes against humanity?

              How will Obama undo the deaths and mutilations of not only the soldiers, but the innocent Iraqis who would not have had to die and be maimed if Congress learned how to be an opposition party with spine? I don't think he will be able to make like Jesus with Lazarus, so I guess we'll just have to take comfort in the fact that they die and are damaged for the good cause of bringing the "right" guy to office down the road.

              What will Obama do in his first days to convince corporations not to be emboldened by and look at how the telcoms gained immunity (if indeed they pull it off) as a road map for how they might avoid liability for future sins?

              How long do you think it might take Obama to reverse all the insidious damage that Cheney causes to the governmental apparatus, especially given his beaurocratic experience and savvy? Do you really think it wouldn't be more efficient to push back NOW, rather than let his cronies gut the environment further?

              No thanks. I think its long past time to fight today, not wait till some tomorrow that may never come. Yes, I know McGovern lost, but do you really think that his and McCarthy's failed candidacies did not help bring the war to an earlier and less bloody end than we may have seen otherwise?

              Give them credit. The Republican Senators have way more guts than the Democrats. People used to say that they were only going along with a popular president. Now that Bush is no longer popular, they still have the courage to pull together their block of 40+ and stuff the Democrats whenever they want. Democrats can't do the same. Political equivalent of battered spouse syndrome I guess.

              My apologies to anyone who had the misfortune to read this long winded rant. Just had to vent.

              by crick02478 on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 12:27:14 PM PDT

              •  Obama can't be held accountable for all of

                Congress or the party having or not having a spine.  No candidate can.  I agree the party needs to put up more of a fight, and I want a President who represents that sentiment, but I want that President IN office.  That's why it's not enough for me to vote for a Kucinich or a Gravel, as much as I respect their fearless ability to take a stand.  I look at Obama, Edwards, and Dodd and see examples of leadership on different issues, but none has voted to impeach the President as of yet; if I was to be as pure as you are being, I would have to disqualify all of them for that.

                by ShadowSD on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 12:54:20 PM PDT

                •  Pure? Not me.

                  Far from it. The Republicans have been engaged in the political equivalent of gutter fighting for a long time. Sometimes you have to get dirty to fight it. That is not purity.

                  I respect your views on this and understand more than I probably seem to you. I could see myself sharing your perspective in somewhat altered circumstances. Just that I seem to feel that our backs are already up against the wall far more than you seem to think.

                  I hope for all our sakes that I am wrong  and you are correct.

                  by crick02478 on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 01:23:07 PM PDT

•  The guy just

  can't help himself, it seems.

  He keeps using rightwing frames, whether it lamenting the secularism of the Democratic Party or suggesting that the "faith" community doesn't include gay or lesbians or portraying defunding as a threat to our troops or talking about the crisis in Social Security.

  by david mizner on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:11:38 AM PDT

  •  He Is Another

    Joe Lieberman.

    by bink on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:19:25 AM PDT

    •  Puh-lease

      that's a bit extreme

      by coigue on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:20:28 AM PDT

      •  Yeah

        I've got issues with Obama but come on, there's only one Holy Joe.

        by david mizner on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:24:10 AM PDT

    •  I wouldn't go that far

      But this seems like totally poll driven drivel.  He doesn't do well with older voters so talk up 'saving social security,' paint by numbers

      by AJ WI on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:24:49 AM PDT

      •  Really?

        Old people freak out if you say anything about changing Social Security.

        Obama needs to go back to slapping around fags ... Now that was hilarious.

        by bink on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:28:15 AM PDT

    •  I never thought I'd say this...

      But you may have a point. Now I used to be an Obama supporter, but all this right-wing posturing is freaking me out. Homophobia? Social Security "Crisis"? What the hell has gotten into him? Has Loserman signed on as a campaign adviser?

      by atdnext on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:30:25 AM PDT

      •  Gay Folks Will Survive ...

        ... Yet another Democratic president who treats them as second-class people.

        But the ramifications of making changes to Social Security could be absolutely devastating for all of us.  There will be no future change to this program without a privatization clause that will further weaken and threaten the program.

        It works fine the way it is.  It is fully funded.  It is paying out all expected benefits just fine.

        Don't touch it, Sen. Obama!

        Don't you dare.

        by bink on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:33:55 AM PDT

        •  Obama has stated that he supports

          Federal Civil Unions with the same rights as marriage - what other Democratic front-runner has gone so far?

          The answer would be NONE.

          by Elise on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 09:30:32 AM PDT

      •  Yes and some of the left wing

        argues that he's so incredible progressive/liberal. His campaign is certainly not demonstrating that...there's a lot of anger out there against GOP, and all his nice let's be friends stuff is not going over that well.

        by kitsapdem on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 09:30:35 AM PDT

  •  Is this his strategy to get GOP votes or what?

    He seems to be siding with the GOP more than DEMS, not going to help win the nomination. He should figure out which side he's on. Plus he's being challenged on floating bad rumors about Clinton, whether this is true I don't know, but it sure doesn't bode well for him.

    by kitsapdem on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 09:28:34 AM PDT

•  Oh I think

  the Edwards and Clinton campaigns are cracking a smile now.

  by bam bam on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:13:05 AM PDT

  •  Only if you think the public buys that there is

    no problems with social security.  Remember that is was privitization that people were against, not fixing social security.

    I would bet that Obama's rhetoric plays well with the aging constituencies in Iowa and New Hampshire.

    by Yoshimi on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:18:42 AM PDT

    •  Obama

      just needs to say lockbox.

      by Daaaaave on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:21:12 AM PDT

      •  I actually thought that debate between Bush

        and Gore and the lock box was comical.  

        by Yoshimi on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:22:24 AM PDT

      •  Well

        as long as you are clear about Obama's motivations behind his factually suspect rhetoric.

        by bam bam on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:40:04 AM PDT

        •  "Factually suspect"

          Prove it.

          by Daaaaave on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:49:20 AM PDT

    •  then Obama should tell the damned truth!

      THERE IS NO CRISIS.  And whatever funding concerns exist would be best addressed by balancing the budget, not fooling with SS structure.

      by Leggy Starlitz on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:26:28 AM PDT

      •  Thanks Jiminy

        When you wish upon a star, makes no difference who you are
        Anything your heart desires will come to you

        by Daaaaave on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:34:08 AM PDT

        •  I assume you believe the Bush numbers

          Geez.

          by Leggy Starlitz on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:50:28 AM PDT

          •  I'd like

            to see you post any numbers at all.

            Or at least respond to any of Just This's quotes downthread.  

            by Daaaaave on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:54:20 AM PDT

            •  I've posted earlier

              The "Social Security runs out in 2042!" numbers come from worst case scenarios presented by the SSA and CBO.  That's good; those organizations SHOULD be planning for worst case.  But those worst-case scenarios are based on 1.5%-1.7% economic growth for the next several decades... less than half the long-term economic growth seen in the past century.  Kick the growth numbers up to 3% or so, and SS never runs out of money.

              And what does "run out of money" mean, anyway?  It means that benefits will be reduced not abolished!  We'd have to reduce benefits to 80% of current/projected levels... a crisis, to be sure, but hardly the scenario I imagine you have stuck in your head.

              by Leggy Starlitz on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 09:26:54 AM PDT

              •  Wait?

                A crisis? Reduced benefits?

                Q: I'm 26 years old. If nothing is done to change Social Security, what can I expect to receive in retirement benefits from the program?

                A: Unless changes are made, when you reach age 60 in 2040, benefits for all retirees could be cut by 26 percent and could continue to be reduced every year thereafter. If you lived to be 100 years old in 2080 (which will be more common by then), your scheduled benefits could be reduced by 30 percent from today's scheduled levels.

                Oh, no worries then.

                by Daaaaave on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 09:36:58 AM PDT

                •  a couple of things

                  First, did you read what I said about worst case scenarios?  The projections require EXTREMELY gloomy growth for the rest of your natural life.  Assuming the economy doesn't implode, you're fine.

                  Second, are you honestly planning to retire on nothing but Social Security?  Save, dammit!  Put money in a 401k, or an IRA if you don't have a 401k where you work.  Save, save, save.  

                  by Leggy Starlitz on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 09:43:42 AM PDT

      •  it's the old Lieberman thing again

        he just wants to play both sides and in the proccess, he makes dems look bad.

        by 123Mary123 on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:44:24 AM PDT

      •  Exactly

        The whole crisis meme is total right wing talking points. Code for getting rid of SS, buying into that is not a good. There is no crisis, and Obama is not exactly making friends with the senior demographic, and now he's questioning Clinton's age and the baby boomer generation. Even though he is one...born in 1961. Why is he doing this? It's not helping his campaign. I don't get it.

        by kitsapdem on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 09:34:25 AM PDT

•  You are fighting the last war.

  Progressives rallied around the idea that there was "no crisis" because we had a minority in congress and stood a chance of having social security privitized.

  Today, none of our Democratic candidates, even the ones who use rhetoric not approved by the blogosphere, is for privitization of social security but to pretend that it doesn't need to be fixed is Pollyanish.  Even Hillary Clinton who won't commit to anything regarding social security agrees that it needs to be fixed.

  by Yoshimi on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:15:17 AM PDT

  •  Um, if we're fighting the last war, why are

    you using the last war's rhetoric?
    It's only been 2 years, man. This is the SAME fight, and the Republicans who wanted to end SS 2 years ago still want to end it now.
    Furthermore, why doesn't it bother you that Obama is directly contradicting himself in such a major way?

    by BoringDem on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:17:07 AM PDT

    •  There is no crisis

      There will always be enough to care for old people and allow them dignity in their golden years.

      by Salo on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:18:54 AM PDT

      •  With tweaking. Populations and inflation

        fluctuates.  

        by Yoshimi on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:21:13 AM PDT

        •  Obama's "tweaking" is means-testing

          which has always been the Republicans idea of the foot in the door which will end SS.

          by BoringDem on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:23:44 AM PDT

          •  Slippery slippery slope.

            Scary.  Meh.  Social Security will never end.  Republicans found that out in the last election.

            by Yoshimi on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:25:22 AM PDT

          •  No

            I heard him give a 15 minute answer to SS on Tuesday and he didn't mention "means-testing".  His long term "fix" is to raise the cap on payroll taxes.

            by bawbie on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:26:08 AM PDT

            •  Um, are you one of those people who

              think Bush never said Iraq was an imminent threat, because he never used those exact words?
              Obama has proposed means-testing. He doesn't call it that because he knows he'll get heat for saying those words.

              by BoringDem on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:28:41 AM PDT

              •  Uh, no.

                Where did he propose that?

                All I said was I heard him talk about this issue for 15 minutes Tuesday night and he didn't mention means-testing or anything like it once.

                by bawbie on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:43:20 AM PDT

              •  Evidence would be nice

                Can you provide a link for where Obama  said he favored means testing or something that is like means testing? Just saying something doesnt make it true.

                by jj32 on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 09:14:52 AM PDT

  •  It needs to be fixed

    It is not in crisis.  The current funding mechanism ir regressive in that lower and middle income workers pay a higher percentage of their income to support the program then do the wealthy.   (Self employed people pay the most).  

    There is no reason to reduce benefits or raise the retirement age.  It is not in crisis.  It actually works very well and that is why the Republicans have hated it since the New Deal.

    by AlanR on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:18:17 AM PDT

    •  technically, it's flat

      The wealthy don't get more benefits.  They pay less in as a portion of their income, but they also get less as a portion of their income.

      I'd like to see it be progressive myself.  But it's not technically "regressive" now.

      by Leggy Starlitz on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:21:02 AM PDT

      •  90-32-15

        The benefit formula actually favors low income or short career workers, at least as a percentage of lifetime wages. The big potential inequity is that we've been overpaying since 1983 & there are signs that the Republicans are trying to welch on the payback that's supposed to start in 10 years.

        by Downpuppy on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:57:35 AM PDT

  •  That's different

    You can't say that there are some things that need to be done without saying there's a crisis--that's rightwing noise meant to generate support for a drastic response.

    Really, Yoshimi, you're defending this?

    by david mizner on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:18:47 AM PDT

  •  it's the framing

    "Social Security crisis" is a Republican frame, the one they use to push for privatization.  I actually agree with Obama's reform ideas, although I don't feel they're financially necessary - for me, it's honestly about redistribution of wealth.  

    Want to secure Social Security?  Deal with the deficit.  Go back to Clinton-era budget balancing.  Of course, the best way to get that would be to nominate the wicked Hitlary...

    by Leggy Starlitz on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:19:30 AM PDT

    •  Just a thought on framing -

      isn't it possible to actually steal their framing and use it instead to promote Progressive ideals? Then when they try to use it to push their insanity most people will note that there's an alternative...

      If they keep saying "it's in crisis!!!" and no Dem will use that word - then they will say the Dems are blind to the reality, etc. And the "only" way to fix SS is to admit that it's in crisis and go the Republican route.

      If someone on our side uses the same framing their using and then co-opts it and says that that means we should provide xy and z progressive fixes...then aren't we in fact stealing their thunder and putting THEM at a disadvantage?

      by Elise on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 09:34:16 AM PDT

  •  It's not broken

    It doesn't need to be fixed.  The 'check engine' light is on, and it needs a tuneup and maybe a new filter, but the basic mechanicals are fine and none of the parts need to be replaced.

    The mechanics who told you it needed a new engine are driving Cadillacs, did you notice?

    by Nina Katarina on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:21:48 AM PDT

  •  read the report

    Seriously read the report, carefully.  It sounds like you're just repeating DC conventional wisdom instead of learning about the issue.

    The report clearly says there's no crisis in social security.

    In fact, under the historically most-accurate scenario, social security is in the black for the entire 75-year projection.

    Now, $200 billion a year in Iraq war spending, and the $2 trillion of debt incurred by Bush's tax cuts is a crisis.

    by ferg on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:21:58 AM PDT

    •  bingo!

      Zero-funding the fucking war would do more for protecting Social Security than the measures Obama is proposing.  But Obama is a crypto-hawk chickenshit resting on his 2002 laurels rather than speaking up NOW, when he has some actual power.

      by Leggy Starlitz on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:24:54 AM PDT

      •  I agree. Tell me how to unfund the war and I am

        on it.

        by Yoshimi on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:32:46 AM PDT

        •  by not voting to fund it

          Or, perhaps, filibustering the funding bills and getting 39 senators to support the filibuster.

          by Leggy Starlitz on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:51:14 AM PDT

•  Do you remember how many times

  Obama supporters jumped on people who imputed the phrase "Social Security crisis" to Obama?
  I hope they feel their asses getting nipped now.
  Bushian hyper-parsing of statements is a road to trouble.

  by BoringDem on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:15:50 AM PDT

  •  Please remind me because I don't remember the

    argument.

    by Yoshimi on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:16:35 AM PDT

    •  I got it just yesterday

      Obama defenders are almost as obnoxious as Hillary attackers.

      by Leggy Starlitz on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:21:41 AM PDT

  •  Who is hyper-parsing here?

    I think the Obama bashers are.  

    by bawbie on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:24:41 AM PDT

    •  Obama flat out contradicts himself

      You don't need a thesaurus or a long exegesis to see that. The parsing came from the people who were denying that Obama was asserting a crisis in SS.

      by BoringDem on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:26:47 AM PDT

      •  Is Obama shilling for privatization?

        It seems to be the Hillary fanatics are paying way more attention to rhetoric, one word worth of rhetoric, than they are to the substance of his proposal.  Probably because Hillary doesn't have a proposal.

        by bawbie on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:29:45 AM PDT

        •  Hillary doesn't NEED a proposal

          There's nothing wrong with the current system.  Address the deficit if you're that damned concerned (and that's one thing we could count on from her, just like we got it from Bill).

          by Leggy Starlitz on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:30:58 AM PDT

          •  And that's what Obama spend the first half

            of his answer on SS when I heard him on.

            But then, even with the budget fixed, SS runs out in 2042, give or take.  What is Hillary's longterm plan for SS?

            by bawbie on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:33:05 AM PDT

            •  SS does NOT run out in 2042

              It does in the worst-case projections done by the SSA and CBO - projections we should have.  But those projections assume long-term economic growth at less than HALF what we've seen for the last century.  Projected with numbers more consistent with historic economic growth, SS never has funding problems.

              And even within the realm of the 2042 projection, it doesn't mean SS is "broke".  It means benefits will need to be cut to 80% of current levels.  Think about that.

              George Bush LOVES to quote the 2042 number.  Why are you listening to HIM?

              by Leggy Starlitz on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:49:30 AM PDT

        •  Can you post a legitimate reply??

          It's hard to take you seriously when you're just making shit up, but let me try.
          Since Obama wants to work with Republicans, and since Republicans want privatization, it's a fair inference that any bipartisan solution will included privatization. THAT is what's wrong with Obama's position. He wants to get the fox's help to guard the henhouse.

          by BoringDem on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:32:37 AM PDT

          •  Complete bullshit.

            That is just complete and utter bullshit.  

            You have no idea what leadership means.

            by bawbie on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:34:32 AM PDT

          •  It would be nice to get real responses

            on Obama's policies. Instead of just deflecting the issue to what they don't like about Hillary etc.. There may be real answers, and I would like to hear them.

            by kitsapdem on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 09:42:29 AM PDT

      •  Same people who claim Hillary

        doesn't answer clearly. I mean hello? Obama is always shifting his answers. And supporters just don't seem to mind. I think it would work better for him if he could clearly define what he stands for. That's his major campaign problem. Smart, impressive figure, but his poll numbers are flat because there's not a clear platform.

        by kitsapdem on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 09:40:37 AM PDT

    •  by "hyper-parsing"...

      ...I assume you mean the hairsplitting technical distinction between "Social Security is not in crisis" (Obama, debate) and "how she would solve the Social Security crisis" (Obama, interview).

      by Leggy Starlitz on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:30:01 AM PDT

      •  Did his proposal change?

        Did his opinions on SS change?

        Did his votes on SS change?

        If you replace "crisis" in that interview with "issue", will you then vote for Obama?  Yes I think that's hyperparsing.

        by bawbie on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:31:33 AM PDT

        •  His opinions became clear---THAT is the issue

          His defenders fell over themselves trying to claim that Obama was not hyping a SS crisis. Obviously he was. Let him reap the fruits of telling his true beliefs now.

          by BoringDem on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:33:59 AM PDT

          •  Hyping? What?

            Why are you freaking out over one little word he used once?  

            Either you buy into what Obama is selling (changing the culture in Washington, leading the country to good solutions) or you don't.  You obviously don't.  Yet you have to pick on one little word in one obscure interview.  That's weak.

            by bawbie on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:36:09 AM PDT

          •  Why -

            are supporters often trying to explain what Obama really meant? You have to see that that's a problem guys don't you?

            by kitsapdem on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 09:43:57 AM PDT

•  and just yesterday...

  ...someone here was telling me that Obama doesn't use the C-word to describe Social Security.

  It's stupid fucking politics on Obama's part, and it was the last straw for me as far as his chances to win my support go.  

  by Leggy Starlitz on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:17:11 AM PDT

•  From the CBO

  Today, 47 million Americans receive some form of Social Security benefit. As the baby-boom generation begins to retire, that number will rise considerably. Under the laws that currently govern Social Security, spending for the program will increase from about 4.4 percent of the nation's gross domestic product (GDP) now to more than 6 percent of GDP in 2030, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects. In later years, outlays will continue to grow steadily as a share of GDP, though more slowly. Over the long term, paying the Social Security benefits scheduled under current law will require economic resources totaling between 5 percent and 8 percent of GDP, CBO projects.

  At the same time, the federal revenues dedicated to Social Security will remain close to their current level--about 5 percent of GDP--in the absence of changes to the program. Thus, annual outlays for Social Security are projected to exceed revenues beginning in 2019. Even if spending ends up being lower than expected and revenues higher than expected, a gap between the two is likely to remain for the indefinite future.

  Only four approaches to narrowing that gap exist, and each of those approaches has drawbacks:

     * The benefits scheduled to be paid under current law could be reduced, lowering Social Security's contribution to the income of future beneficiaries.

     * The taxes that fund Social Security could be increased, drawing additional resources from the economy to the program.

     * The resources consumed by other federal activities could be cut to make up for the shortfall in Social Security. However, the aging of the U.S. population and increases in medical costs will also lead to higher costs for other entitlement programs, most notably Medicare and Medicaid.

     * Federal borrowing could be increased, which would also draw additional resources from the economy to Social Security. But that borrowing would need to be repaid by future generations, either through higher taxes or lower spending.

  Any changes to Social Security will have to be made in the context of the pressures on the total federal budget. CBO projects that spending for government health programs will grow even faster than spending for Social Security because of rising health care costs. In particular, increasing outlays for Medicare and Medicaid are projected to cause long-term shortfalls in the rest of the budget that will be even greater than Social Security's. Unless taxation reaches levels that are unprecedented in the United States, current spending policies are likely to result in an ever-growing burden of federal debt held by the public, which will have a corrosive and potentially contractionary effect on the economy.(1)

  Ultimately, the nation's ability to support Social Security beneficiaries will depend on the size of the economy. Different changes to that program will have different economic effects. The taxes paid and benefits received by program participants embody important incentives that will affect their choices about work and saving. Decisions to raise revenues, borrow, or reduce spending will therefore influence economic growth.

  The long-term nature of Social Security's structural imbalance--along with the desirability of phasing in any policy changes over many years so participants have time to adjust their plans accordingly--requires that analyses of proposed changes extend beyond the traditional 10-year horizon of federal budget projections. Moreover, if the Congress considers changes to Social Security law, it will benefit from receiving timely analyses of the impact of legislative proposals. To provide such analyses, CBO has developed the capacity to produce comprehensive long-term projections of Social Security's finances under current law and under a variety of possible legislative changes.

  This report presents CBO's outlook for Social Security over the next 100 years under current law. Projections of various measures of Social Security's finances all show that outlays will continually grow faster than revenues, resulting in significant annual deficits in the system. Projections of benefit levels indicate that future generations will receive higher retirement benefits--and pay higher Social Security taxes--than current beneficiaries do, even after adjustment for inflation. However, those benefits will represent a smaller percentage of their pre-retirement earnings than is the case now. Such long-term projections are necessarily uncertain, but the general conclusions presented in this report hold true under a wide range of assumptions about future demographic and economic trends.

  by Just This on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:18:14 AM PDT

  •  Imbalance and gap

    having corrosive effects, but no "crisis". Must not be a problem then.

    Whining about a Republican "frame" is shirley the last argument of the defeated. Either his statement has merit or it doesn't, parsing verbiage seems an obvious Hail Mary to me.

    by Daaaaave on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:32:27 AM PDT

•  When I saw Obama in person on Tuesday

  He said exactly what you quoted him from in the debate. In fact, his answer on SS was one of the most well thought out answers by a politician I've ever heard.

  He not only said that SS was not in crisis, he explained in detail why it was not in crisis, how the Federal budgetary system is in crisis and how you fix that and how you solve SS in the long term.  It was just a really good answer.

  It's interesting that I heard him say something different the same day he gave that interview...

  by bawbie on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:23:17 AM PDT

  •  General election mode clashing with

    appeals to Democrats.. tsk, tsk.

    by BoringDem on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:25:34 AM PDT

  •  So?

    Was he misquoted, or is he's doing Clintonian doubletalk?

    by david mizner on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:25:51 AM PDT

    •  I would guess

      having no clue whatsoever, that he was either misquoted or misspoke, accidentally using a Bush catch phrase subconsciously.

      It seems that many Obama bashers are more worried about the rhetoric than the substance.

      by bawbie on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:27:49 AM PDT

      •  The words are key

        by Salo on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:29:41 AM PDT

      •  Nothing accidental about Obama's words

        This is calculated... seemingly as a way to sling arrows at HRC.

        from the WaPo

        BACON (10/27/07): Sen. Barack Obama yesterday slammed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for "ducking the issue" of ensuring the solvency of Social Security and signaled that he will take a more aggressive approach to the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination.

        At an event in Des Moines, Obama (D-Ill.) characterized Clinton's approach to addressing the issues as "You should hedge, dodge and spin, but at all costs, don't answer."

        http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

        and from the debate:

        OBAMA (9/23/07): My personal view is that lifting the cap is much preferable than the other options that are available. But what’s critical is to recognize that there is a potential problem.

        As I travel around Iowa and New Hampshire I meet young people who don’t think Social Security is going to be there for them. They don’t believe it’s going to be there for them.

        And I think it’s important for us, in addition to getting our fiscal house in order, to acknowledge as Democrats that there may be a problem that we’ve got to take on.

        He is not "misspeaking".

        by dannyinla on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 09:26:07 AM PDT

    •  he's sucking up to the Broders.

      by Salo on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:29:21 AM PDT

•  best run programs in our Federal Bureaucracy

  That's it in a nutshell. It's best run programs in our Federal Bureaucracy so it must die because Government doesn't work according to the Goopers.

  by JML9999 on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:24:40 AM PDT

•  It is absolutely a crisis

  The fastest growth in outlays as a share of GDP will occur from 2018 to 2023, CBO projects, when that share will increase at an average rate of 2.2 percent a year. By 2030, projected outlays will reach 6.1 percent of GDP--nearly 40 percent higher than in 2003. In later years, as baby-boom beneficiaries die, outlays relative to GDP will stabilize for about 15 years. But they will then resume their increase, albeit at a slower pace, as lifespans continue to lengthen. By 2100, CBO projects, scheduled outlays will equal 6.8 percent of GDP--56 percent higher than in 2003, and 41 percent higher than projected revenues in 2100.

  The fastest growth will start in 10 years. The country will have to find an additional 300 billion a year.

  That is going to seem like a lot of money given the waste over the last years and the upcoming recession.

  by Just This on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:25:02 AM PDT

  •  prefunding

    That's already been taken care of.

    The Greenspan commission in the 80's looked at the baby boomer issue and came up with a funding solution, which has successfully prefunded the baby boomer retirement.  It's not like people didn't know about the boomers in the 80's.

    Social security is fine.

    by ferg on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:30:12 AM PDT

    •  But the "prefunding" is all spent.

      The "crisis", although we are not banned from using that word, is that the SS Trust Fund is all spend.  Both Hillary and Obama agree this needs to be fixed.

      by bawbie on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:37:49 AM PDT

      •  china and the trust fund

        Bonds are bonds whether they're owed to china or to the trust fund.  The federal debt crisis has nothing to do with social security itself.

        The general fund is screwed.  That's not China's fault.  That's not social security's fault.  It's not even the boomers' fault.

        The general fund screwed because of 30 years of tax cuts for the rich and massive military spending.  Those bills are finally coming due.

        It has nothing to do with social security.

        by ferg on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 09:03:10 AM PDT

        •  of course it has something to do with SS

          resources are limited and fungible.

          You can't get out the "lock box" it is a fallacy. GDP ads up to GDP, it is always 100% which is equal to national income.

          if SS goes from 4% to 6% it changes the entire, sorry for the reality and use of language, matrix.

          There are no such thing as "line items" they are interconnected variables in a dynamic system.

          One changes they all change, there are no constants, and a shift of the order of magnitude we are facing is enormous.

          by Just This on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 09:16:29 AM PDT

    •  Greenspan on MTP book tour

      MR. RUSSERT:  Do you believe either political party has stepped up to the crisis we face with Social Security and Medicare in the coming years?

      MR. GREENSPAN:  I do not.

      MR. RUSSERT:  How big a crisis will that be?

      MR. GREENSPAN:  Social Security is not a big crisis.  We’re approximately 2 percentage points of payroll short over the very long run.  It’s a significant closing of the gap, but it’s doable, and doable in any number of ways. Medicare is a wholly different issue because, remember, right now, with the current entitlement, we can afford Medicare.  It’s easily refunded.  We’re going to double the size of the retired population.  And by all of the analysis I go through in the book, it’s very evident to me that we are not able to actually deliver on the Medicare we are promising, and I think that is marginally unethical to immoral because we are promising to people who have not yet retired a fairly significant Medicare package which, if they knew they weren’t going to fully get, they would take actions now—maybe retire later, do different things—and I think everybody has been avoiding this issue.  We avoided it in the Social Security Commission in 1983, and everyone’s done—been doing it since.  Then it was more than 20 years before.  We’re now right at the point where if we don’t act we’re going to be in very serious problem—trouble.

      crisis, but not big, but very serious trouble...Greenspeak

      by Just This on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:46:57 AM PDT

      •  Greenspan is an asshole

        "2 percentage points of payroll short" means Greenspan wants to default on the trust fund.

        by ferg on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 09:04:57 AM PDT

        •  agreed

          but you brought him up

          by Just This on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 09:08:00 AM PDT

      •  Yet, 3 days later at the debate Russert said:

        RUSSERT (9/26/07): And we’re back at Dartmouth College talking to the Democrats. I want to talk about Social Security and Medicare.

        The chairman of the Federal Reserve, the head of the Government Accountability Office, have both said that the number of people in America on Social Security and Medicare is going to double in the next 20 years—there are now 40 million; it’s going to go to 80 million—and that if nothing is done, we’ll have to cut benefits in half or double the taxes. That is their testimony.

        Senator Biden, in order to prevent that, would you be willing to consider certain steps? For example, back in 1983, Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill, Patrick Moynihan and Bob Dole got together and changed the retirement age. It’s going to be going up to 67 in a gradual increase.

        Right now, you pay tax for Social Security on your first $97,500 worth of income. Why not tax the entire income of every American? And if you do that, you’ll guarantee the solvency of Social Security farther than the eye can see.

        So Russert interviews Greenspan who tells him, specifically, "Social Security is not a big crisis". Three days later, driven by his unquenchable desire to create debate news, Russert cites "the Chairman of the Federal Reserve" as one of the two officials who have grave concerns about SS. By citing "the chairman" we have to assume he's citing Bernenke, because just three days earliuer Greenspan told him there was "no big crisis". So, again, as smart Dems we need to look long and hard at Russert and his role in attempting to tear down Dem candidates and drive wedges between them.  His question could have very easily included the qualifier: "... but just three days ago, the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve told me that there was "no big crisis.""  Why didn't Timmeh do that?

        by dannyinla on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 09:36:06 AM PDT

•  You've got to be kidding me

  You're hunting for gotchas and that's what you came up with?  Is your suggestion that Obama wants to kill SS just like the GOP?  

  The campaign to smear Obama has been so embarrasingly bad.  So much of it seems to come from Hillary supporters who are so used to hearing dumb, meaningless gotcha arguments from the GOP that now they are using them against Hillary's opposition within the party.  It's really shameful.  

  Did you hear that he doesn't salute the flag and leaves his socks on the floor too?  

  Good stuff here.

  by Sun dog on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:26:43 AM PDT

  •  No the words are telling

    There is a lexicon you should and should not use on certain issues.

    by Salo on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:28:12 AM PDT

    •  Heaven forbid a man is honest

      Every issue over the next 10 years is going to be a

      Crisis

      If you are not a millionaire and even if you are and are under 40, you are going to have one horrific time during your "golden years" if there is not a systemic change across all vectors of public policy.

      by Just This on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:32:12 AM PDT

      •  Well, he was NOT honest---duh!

        He said two things that flat out contradict each other! He was lying one of those times.
        If you look in the lexicon, the definition of "doubletalk" does not require that the speaker be Hillary, you know.

        by BoringDem on Fri Nov 09, 2007 at 08:35:29 AM PDT