Obama's New Ad Could Help Kill Social Security

(Obama supporters please read the last paragraph of this post.)

For decades the right has been trying to kill Social Security. They have spread the lie that it is a "ponzi scheme" that depends on workers paying in today to pay for current benefits. Barack Obama is running a new ad that reinforces that lie.

Here is the fact: For decades Social Security has been collecting MUCH MORE $$ than it has been paying out. This money is saved in a "trust fund." This trust fund is large enough to cover any "shortfall" that occurs when the baby boomers retire.

But starting with Reagan, and especially under Bush, this trust fund was used to pay for the Republican tax cuts for the rich. (This is what Gore was talking about when he said this money should go in a "lockbox.")

Now that the baby boomers are starting to retire Social Security will need to tap into this trust fund to pay their retirement. It's their money but the money is not there -- taken by the Republicans to pay for their tax cuts.

So what is fair? Cutting old people's benefits to cover they money that was taken by the Republicans to give to the rich? Taking more from working people's paychecks to ocver what the Republicans took? Or taxing the rich to cover the money that was given to the rich? Which is fair?

And, most of all, how is this Social Security's problem? How is it Social Security's problem that the conservatives owe Social Security all that money?

With that in mind, watch Obama's commercial, in which he is talking about Social Security's problem entirely in right-wing terms:

Obama is running ads reinforcing the right's bamboozlement that Social Security is running out of money! The language in this ad implies that Social Security's retirement payments are responsible for the shortfall, and does not say that the trust fund was taken to pay for Reagan and Bush's tax cuts.

This language in this ad, if seen and heard by millions of people, could make it so much harder to fight back the next time the right tries to kill off the program by claiming it is insolvent.

I know that Senator Obama's heart is in the right place and he has no intention of harming Social Security. But this ad is a mistake that could backfire. Please stop running this ad and please change the language. Instead of reinforcing the right's lie that Social Security has a problem, let people know that the conservatives took their money from Social Security and gave it out as tax cuts to the rich and THAT is the problem!

Comments

[bowserbois]

no one ever mentions the millions of ss payers that paid into it all their lives and and then died shortly after being able to collect it. where did all that money go?

[splashy]

Yes, that money should be given BACK into SS. It was stolen from those that paid into it far more than needed at the time, so they would have it later on when THEY needed it.

The Republics complained there was a problem, the problem was fixed, then they set about creating another problem by stealing the fix from those that worked hard to solve the problem. You are absolutely right, the problem is NOT SS, it's thieving RICH people that want everything for themselves.

[rboylern]

Politicians will always use Social Security concerns in order to garner votes. These people generally don't seem to know what the hell they're talking about. You'd think they'd take some time from all their grandstanding and gasbagging us to death to do some real homework and to learn the facts before they open their big mouths.

[dalelegan]

Its only paper money. and the trust fund is a IOU and nothing more. It isn't real, just a bookkeeping entry.

HyperInflation from overprinting our money, due to our Foreign Policy will ensure that even if the money is paid out it will not be enough to survive or even eat.

We are not property of the state and it does not have the right to take our pay and force us into a "voluntary" system.

Yep the SS system is now "voluntary" the problem is that if you don't "volunteer" for it you don't work.

[Levittown]

Social Security has helped millions and continues to do so month after month. Republicans and some Democrats
would like to see it privatized because they are in favor of making money for their brokers and their own investments. This country will collapse under the weight
of the future homeless and downtrodden that mass poverty will bring. Their lives deserve Security because they helped make this country great. This administraion has dishonored us and our world wide reputation.

[Dave Johnson - Huffpost Blogger]

"Its only paper money. and the trust fund is a IOU and nothing more."

The trust fund is in treasury bills. They are supposed to be the most solid investment that can be made.

[Galvestonians for Dr. Ron Paul]

I would disagree with your statement....
The most solid investment proven over centuries, and recent decades as well, have been Gold and Silver and precious metals and stones..
The statement you make is that of the Federal government which should NEVER be trusted.
I know you will quote several authorities on this subject but I will submit they receive their pay in one form or another from our Federal government making them an announced or unannounced partner.
Therefore a conflict of interest.
All you have to do is measure the rising values of these materials over the years and centuries and see gold(metals and stones) are the way to go.
I personally believe Saudi Arabia will go back to the Gold standard, like France and break the dollar.(whatever is left of it, that is.)
Therefore all oil will be measured in gold standard (as opposed to USD, the way it is now)...The exact same way Arabia did it before they switched to the USD in the 50's,I believe.

[MAGLATINA]

NEVER LIKED OBAMA... IS HE THINKING OF GETTING REPS VOTES? FIRST HE MUST WIN THE PRIMARY. THIS IS SPOOKY... AND I AM SCARED...

[CLYDEFOROBAMA63]

WOW! What I got out of this(you do have to read),
is that he wants to get the whole country together on this issue and make the rich start paying social security taxes. Anyone else out there read that? I'd say Barack has it right. I think the writer needs to stop trying to make a problem where there isn't one. The media has been doing this all along because Hillary is the media darling and they all want her nominated.

[Mormondude]

Social Security, in its current form, is NOT worth saving!!

Sure, we screwed up, and now we have millions of seniors living in sub-poverty. Oops. Too late to fix that now, they'll just have to continue getting their measly checks.

But young workers should have the option to participate in a much better, much cheaper, and much more beneficial program. If they want to stick with SS, FINE! Let them pay through the nose for table scraps. Let them burden their kids and grandkids. But let ME out, so that I can retire on more money, AND I won't be a burden to my kids or grandkids, because my retirement will be funded in ADVANCE instead of after the fact.

If you libs are determined to stick-it-to-the-rich again, then use the extra money to set up personal accounts as well.

[RobertPaul]

Excuse me, but just a damned minute here!

I'm sorry but "Oops!" just doesn't cut it.

I live on SS. It ain't much but I don't have to go thru anyones trash to find something to eat. Yes, I have a supplemental pension that "supplements" my SS.

But the way that SS has been set up is just downright crooked!

The fact that SS has taken in a SURPLUS of funds for years and years is just that...a FACT.

That the Govt has spent that surplus is NOT MY FAULT!

I'm sorry, but the US Govt has a Social Contract with us Baby Boomers and by God they should have to honor it.

You want to change the way things are done in the future? Fine...do it!

But don't you DARE write off those of us who have paid into this system in good faith for decades.

You want to do something different? Come up with a plan. But leave us out of it. It's not OUR fault that the govt pissed away the money we gave them in good faith.

[Spoons]

"Stick it to the rich"...? What I see is that "the rich" are sticking to the little and middle guys (like never before). You and I live in the same country. Isn't that funny?

[FogBelter]

Mormondude, Let me be succinct ...

Millions of American citizens have been paying into Social Security for decades. This money was supposed to be used to pay for Treasury Bonds that would have kept the system solvent. Instead, elected officials of both parties "BORROWED" money from the Trust Fund, for other purposes, including tax breaks for the RICH and for CORPORATIONS. I am not going to speak to the parasitical nature of politicans, and their tenuous morality ... because, frankly, it doesn't matter. What does matter is that the "BORROWED" money needs to be repaid by those to whom it was given.

The "BORROWED" money given to the RICH and CORPORATIONS was not a GIFT. It's not about "oh, woe is me, Social Security is broken and should be privatized".

It's about PAYING BACK THE "BORROWED" MONEY ... Through the nose if need be.

My guess would be that there are about 300 million Americans, across the political spectrum, who have contributed to Social Security that may share my position.

It's not my problem if those who benefited from the "BORROWED" money didn't make good investments ... It's simply loan shark time ... No excuses

Pay the TRILLIONS you "BORROWED" back.

Is that a clear enough message?

[Shortyfuse]

Well I was impressed with his speech at the Democratic Convention just like everyone else. However, I was damn suprised that they made such a fuss about him. A senator ok , but the president of the United States. Not yet.
I am about ready for him to go the way of Howard Dean.
Please let me remind you again that SS is the one taxpayer funded monies that is spent (recycled) here in the U.S. The billions , and billions, and billions spent on government military contracts are often spent in foreign countries.
However, the SS was to be used for retirement, not the many ,many other uses such as dependent children , the handicap etc. A seperate fund should have been set up for their needs.
Down with Obama and Up with Biden. Let's have a look at Biden. Dod is going nowhere with that grey hair and two young kids. Of course if Biden starts talking about making me work longer before I get SS then I will just write in Ralph.
One thing is for sure, I will never vote for a Republican or a Republican look-a-like.

[mick3]

The DLC took Dean down in favor of a Rightist, in this case, Kerry. But Clinton is a dedicated member of the DLC, and corporations will continue to run this nation down as long as those people (and who elected them to run my Party?) continue to have a say. Dean was an actual Democrat with some democratic ideas. I can't imagine why you approve of what they did to him.

[Kansas Evans]

I may be repeating what others have said, but are you really busting Obama over making the same mistake Dems make over and over and over again by using a Republican frame?

I watched the commercial twice and don't see what the problem is. I guess instead of saying, "More money's going out than coming in," you're arguing that Obama should've said, "Due to tax cuts on the rich, more money's going out than coming in." If that's your argument, I understand that point. But please, the hysterionics are unneccesary.

[wrabbitt]

here's a way to make it all work have the mint print 900 billion dollars and give it to congress and, the senate and then they won't need to stab the people in the back or rip us off everytime they vote one something maybe we could get health care for everyone if the insurance companys can't offer them anything to sway their vote..

[Kansas Evans]

Okay. You didn't respond to anything I said, so I don't quite know how to respond to you.

[roneckley16823]

No, since probably Reagan, all the Administrations, Congress and the Senate have been taking your hard earned social security dollars and paying other bills, like pork, the war, and anything else the good old boys wanted to use it for. There has never been a shortage, just a lot of borrowing and stealing from the citizens. If they are paying back China and all the other countries we now owe trillions of dollars, let them pay back the social security funds they keep stealing from. Obama just hasn't been here long enough to understand that. He is too honest. But the other candidates from Congress and the Senate know whats happening and they still think we are dumb enough to swallow that garbage. We want new people, new blood, who can learn and change things. Enough of the old money hungry guards.

[Kansas Evans]

I was thinking it was something like that. I just didn't think much was wrong with the commercial.

[ModMs]

What can I say? The bloggers here have more to say than Barack Obama. He's got nothing as a candidate, except to parrot what many others have already said (not just on SS, but other issues as well). Democrats would be advised to look to the other candidates for their nominee.

[wrabbitt]

don't it seem to you that we have been here before? just another promise breaker. he will fit right in with all the rest of the crooks sooner or later they had to figure out some way to steal all of the social security we have. they don't care they have their own agendas and obviously the people are not part of it. after they try to steal all our social security, they will go after our 401k, well, government has gotten to the point that is no longer viable, they say France is a pretty place and they have health care and the government works for the people not against them.

[CLYDEFOROBAMA63]

I really hate to burst your bubble, but most of Hillary's good ideas, and she doesn't have many, were Obamas first. the last couple of debates she started to parrot him. And if any of you took the time, as I have said before to go to Obama's website and find out the truth you might figure it out. NO he isn't a far left liberal but more divisivness is the last thing this country needs.

[Binckeslaw]

Politicians tremble when anyone suggests that social security/medicare taxes could be applied to "all income" instead of just "earned income". I believe that we should explore assessing a meager tax of 1% for social security purposes to be levied against all capital gains, dividends, royalties and net rental income. These forms of income already receive special treatment at reduced or non-existent tax rates and they are not subject to social security taxes. Taxing "all income" would yield a windfall that could result in a reduction of the tax rate on earned income as well as an increase in the benefits that participants receive. Note: Everyone, even people who haven't worked a day in their lives because they live on investment income, currently collect benefits. How come the wealthy who don't work aren't required to contribute? I think that we should consider raising the cap, lowering the rate, taxing all sources of income, and increasing the benefits. Americans can no longer rely on employer provided pensions or the adequacy of their 401(k) plans.

[Dantheman99]

This is an excellent idea. To "fix" a program, one needs to agree with what is "broken".

Conservatives hate social security because it works and disproves their free market, anti-government dogmas. They've wanted to destroy it, even if there was no shortfall, since it was created in the 1930s for that very reason.

If there is a shortfall in truth, then the "broken" part isn't retirement security against poverty as a public good paid for by tax money. It's that the tax is inequitable and the wealthy pay a far lower rate of social security tax that working and middle class people. Lift the cap and the "shortfall" is over.

Fortunately and thankfully, conservatives failed at their Holy Grail of destroying social security and the whole concept of public obligation to pay for public goods.

[Mormondude]

I can't speak for all conservatives, but my main problem with SS is the return on investment. You get almost nothing in return for a lifetime of work. Why? Because your work paid for your grandparents retirement. If your grandparents had paid for their own retirement, you could now be paying for your own retirement. And your kids could pay for their own retirement. The system would be stable.

Your first obligation is to meet your own needs, not to try to meet everyone else's needs and then have to go ask for a handout yourself. Once your own needs are met, then you have a moral obligation to help others.

The current system FAILS on so many levels. They say that it was set up to solve senior poverty. Well, they did a great job of that, didn't they? More than 2/3 of seniors have less income from all other sources combined than they are getting from Social Security. In other words, they ARE living in near poverty. They didn't solve senior poverty, they institutionalized it!

http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/01/social_security.html

[RuthieM]

We all know social security is running out of money, and Obama's only identifying this, not saying he will change it, he's identifying there's a problem and there is, he wants to protect it, so why this alarming article? Give me a break! Again.

[wrabbitt]

social security would have lots of money is every person in the country had put money in. government employees have their own plan and it is going to cost our children their social security. we need someone to vote for who gives a shit. an honest, trustworthy, can't be bought, won't vote party lines,don't owe nobody nothing,real american and no we ain't seen one yet. they are all the same just the packaging is different. losers, or well, i guess that means we are losers again.

[Spoons]

I feel certain Obama didn't say anything except broad platitudes about what he's going to do about anything. He never does.

[Dantheman99]

The simple solution to any funding shortfall for Social Security is to lift the cap so that all income is taxed. Furthermore, the Medicare tax should be raised to pay for Medicare for all.

If Obama wants to save his campaign, he needs to think bold in terms of policy, not tactically in terms of debate points. Debate tactics won't cut it. He's got 10 weeks before it's over. Only boldly running to Hillary's left and standing up to the DLC will peel enough voters away from her.

Remember conservatives wanting to "cut Medicare to save it"? Horsehockey. Saving requires tax increases on the wealthy that they may not like but can easily pay.

[Mormondude]

Do you suggest we lift the SS benefits cap alongside it? Or are you abandoning the whole 'insurance' dogma altogether?

Remember, Social Security is facing an $11 TRILLION deficit over the long term. That's how much money we'd have to plop on the table TODAY to make the books balance for your kids and grandkids.

Do you have $11 trillion to spare at the moment? No?

We CAN tax our way out of this problem, but the question is WHY should we do so?

We've got 30 years of solvency left. Why not implement an ALTERNATIVE system for young workers that is designed to succeed instead of spending trillions on life support for this system that was designed to fail?

[Dantheman99]

Yes, we absolutlely must lift the SS cap. Even if there weren't a shortfall, Bill Gates should be paying the same social security rate as the cleaning lady who empties my garbage bins at night.

If Schwarzenneger's wealthy friends end up buying one less yacht because they are paying their fare share of taxation and they don't like it, too bad for them.

Newsflash. The stock market is not a guarantee. It has inherent risks. I'm certainly old enough to remember the 1987 crash. Bush's plan to privatize the system went nowhere because it took the "security" out of Social Security.

We already have alternate systems for the young and everyone else, including IRAs, Roth-IRA's, annuities, 401-Ks, etc., for those who wish to use them. I use two of these private investments in addition to paying social security taxes. With $100 I opened up a Roth-IRA. There are no shortages of private alternatives already.

Social Security is a public insurance against poverty. It is not meant, nor should it be a private investment vehicle.

I know conservatives hate the idea of obligations to provide for the public welfare and general good, but they have them.

Social Security is here to stay, even if taxes are raised to pay for it.

[Dantheman99]

Yes, the benefit caps can be lifted too. I'm sure an actuary with an excel spreadsheet can figure out how to reduce the rate of increase in benefits as the amount paid in increases so that there is more than enough to cover the shortfall.

Oh, and I'm one of those young workers who conservatives keep referring to, and I support lifting the FICA cap and medicare for all.

[57basque]

Hey instead of putting Social Security in a lock box. Lets use that trash/cash to set up a Mortgage Company for the poor. Then we can use the interest it makes to expand Medicare.
What in the World is wrong with Socialism? S.S. is the closest thing America has of a Brotherhood of Americans.
[e-mail]

[wrabbitt]

we have to put it in a lock box so congress don't steal it they didn't earn any of it but they sure want to pad their pockets with it...

[Grit]

How quickly we forget. Under Clinton, and Gore's hands off policy, we quickly had a surplus in the SS fund. Of course Bush quickly gave it all away to the mega corporations and the most wealthy of the nation. Its interesting that the money for the fund is used up on everything except what it was collected for and then said to be going broke because it can't pay for itself. The Republicans hate SS because to them its wasted money that could be buying more welfare for the rich.( which includes themselves) The funding problem would be quickly fixed if (as Gore put it) placed in a lockbox. And the cap was taken off on paying into it. Why should the person who makes say 50k a year have to pay SS taxes on 100% of his income and a person who makes 1 million a year only have to pay SS taxes on 10% of his income.But this will not be fixed as the Democrats are a bunch of gutless cowards, including most of them running for president.

[Balzac]

It may be a mistake to assume Obama's goodwill on Social Security.

He's a politically calculating guy, not a principled guy like Kucinich.

[wrabbitt]

princled i think not he's in the same boat with the rest. crooks,crooks,crooks.

[deminmo]

Social Security has lost money on lots of pork
spending in the last 20-30 years. If people
were held accountable for it, there might be
a backlog of court cases.