McCain’s ‘disgrace’ on Social Security percolates along

On Monday, John McCain told a town-hall audience in Denver, “Americans have got to understand that we are paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers in America today. And that’s a disgrace. It’s an absolute disgrace, and it’s got to be fixed.”

A phalanx of campaign reporters were on hand to hear this, but not a single one thought to report it. Bloggers and the DNC, however, began pushing this rather aggressively yesterday, and the grudging reporters who make up McCain’s “base” apparently decided they couldn’t ignore it anymore. Wednesday afternoon, the AP finally did an item, and CNN’s Jack Cafferty questioned why McCain doesn’t seem to understand how Social Security works.

“You’d think a guy who spent 20 years in the United States Senate would be more aware of how that system operates,” Cafferty said of McCain.

Now, I have to admit, I really thought this would be a huge story. It’s hard to ever know for sure what reporters will pick up on, but if the national media can obsess for four days on Wesley Clark’s innocuous and accurate comments about McCain’s presidential qualifications, I figured John McCain describing the Social Security system as an “absolute disgrace” would dominate the political landscape.

That, apparently, hasn’t happened, at least not yet. That said, a handful of reporters did feel compelled to at least raise the subject with McCain and his campaign, inviting him to explain what he meant in Monday’s town-hall event.

The explanation didn’t really make any sense, given the original quote.

Here’s the spin from yesterday afternoon:

McCain sought to clarify his remarks yesterday afternoon on the Straight Talk Express. Young people, he said, “are paying so much that they are paying into a system that they won’t receive benefits from on its present track that it’s on — that’s the point.”

The Social Security trustees “have clearly stated it’s going to go bankrupt,” he said, adding that this is what he meant when he called the system a disgrace. “I don’t think that’s right,” he said. “I don’t think it’s fair, and I think it’s terrible to ask people to pay in to a system that they won’t receive benefits from. That’s why we have to fix it.”

Nice try, senator. First, the system isn’t going bankrupt; that was Bush’s line in 2005, and it was proven wrong then, too. Second, the explanation for Monday’s remarks doesn’t match the remarks themselves:

McCain was describing a pay-as-you-go system as an “absolute disgrace.” The words are clear, plain, and unambiguous. And lest anyone think McCain just got confused on Monday, the next day he appeared on CNN and reiterated the exact same sentiment: “[Younger people] pay their taxes and right now their taxes are going to pay the retirement of present-day retirees. That’s why it’s broken, that’s why we can fix it.”

Social Security, McCain argues, is “broken” because of the way the system has been structured since its inception. As Josh Marshall put it, “In other words, there’s no question that John McCain thinks that the problem with Social Security is the way it was designed at the very beginning, the way it was always designed to work.”

As far as I can tell, reporters seem to think, “Well, we knew what he meant, so this isn’t a huge deal.” This is crazy. For one thing, it’s not reporters’ job to reinterpret what a candidates says in order to make the comments less controversial. For another, reporters knew what Wesley Clark meant — as well as what Obama meant when he said he’d continue to “refine” his Iraq policies — but that didn’t stop them from manufacturing a media frenzy for no reason.

Look, Social Security matters. It’s arguably the most popular and successful government program in American history. John McCain a) wants to privatize it; b) doesn’t understand how it works; and c) can’t talk about it without contradicting himself.

I’m probably being overly optimistic, but I still think this matters, and may very well have an effect on Election Day.

Since McCain’s voter base is weighted toward the elderly, this should be a major talking point for the Democrats. Maybe Obama can win over enough over 60 votes to counter the progressive voters he’s alienated on FISA.

  • You have to argue that Social Security is:
    Broken,
    Disgraceful,
    Unfair;
    if you are going to destroy with with Privatization.

    You can convince Americans to follow almost any stupid policy if you can get them to believe it is more ‘FAIR’. Even giving millionaries tax cuts when the country is at war and needs to stop borrowing from China to pay for it.

  • I continue to be amazed that this guy.

    Not only is he not qualified to be President, he’s not qualified to teach high school social studies.

    Between this and his complete lack of understanding of what habeas corpus means….

    I’m just boggled.

  • I think reporters aren’t really covering some of this because, quite simply, McCain isn’t going to win. He doesn’t really matter.

  • Just give me a tax free lump sum payment of every dime I’ve paid into Social Security so that I can put it into my IRA. I won’t ask for another thing. Oh, you don’t have the money because you’ve borrowed from the trust fund? How much of a dimwit does McCain have to be to believe that after taking people’s money on the basis of a future return that there will be no blowback if he now says, “Too bad guys. We spent the money so you’re out of luck.”

  • Now, I have to admit, I really thought this would be a huge story. It’s hard to ever know for sure what reporters will pick up on…

    Here’s an easy way to make this call: if it’s a Democratic/liberal/progressive individual, and they step one micron out of line, it’s a huge story. If it’s a Republican’t/conservative, it’s a non-story.

  • Perhaps if we blast it into every retirement community in every single swing state and the polls start to reflect a severe drop in McCain’s poll numbers, the media would start to take notice. At the very least, the McCain camp would.

  • Amazing. I thought we were “safe.” We have endured nearly eight years of the worst president in history, and we survived. We hit rock bottom. The only direction is up, after this disaster, I foolishly thought.

    How I wrong I was. This man is worse than Bush. Bush is a lazy, good for nothing son of a bitch, and he didn’t spend full time destroying the nation and the world because he doesn’t like to work and would rather ride his bicycle and clear brush than get involved in presidential matters. That saved us from doomsday. But with McCain?

    I suspect McCain will back off from this outrage, but his message could become the welfare queen mantra of this age – honest, hard working young American workers having their pockets fleeced so that lazy, good for nothing seniors can bask in the sun at posh resorts and play golf all day.

  • Some of these things that McCain says are just ammunition that Obama is storing away to use in October, I think, Like Hillary was writing the Republicans ads for them, McCain is writing Obama’s ads for him.

    McCain’s words will come back to haunt him. If he should live so long.

  • Privitization was a big loser for Bush, I don’t see how it will be any different than John McCain.

    Obama’s idea of raising the wage cap is a good start. I’d like to see needs based benefits and the eligible age tied to average life expectancy, and then I think we’ll have a sustainable system.

  • That said, a handful of reporters did feel compelled to at least raise the subject with McCain and his campaign, inviting him to explain what he meant in Monday’s town-hall event.

    Back of the bus or the cargo hold of the jet for you guys.
    Not even donuts with sprinkles on top can buy them redemption now…

    http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15222.html

  • Following this story, I’m again thinking how grateful I am for the blogosphere. I don’t know how these so-called reporters look themselves in the mirror. Social security really matters to most of us citizens of this country; that’s why Bush’s approval rating went permanently south after he spent the political capital he thought he had. If there were no blogs reporting McCain’s remarks, no one would know about them. How do the members of the “free” press continue to think of themselves as anything but servile syncophants of the rich!

  • Meanwhile, Obama and Clinton are supposedly campaigning today to try to attract women voters.

    In the same role, here is Michelle Obama’s take on Barack Obama’s keen understanding of women’s problems:

    “He’s seen the struggles I’ve faced as a woman, the constant guilt that no matter what you do, you’re never doing enough,” she said. “Barack carries our stories and these stories have really shaped who he has become as a man.”

    The rest of the remarks surrounding this quote are no better.

    If Obama bases everything he knows on Michelle, it explains a lot. She was the daughter of two married, employed parents (her father was a Chicago precinct captain), did well in school and went right into Ivy league colleges and a well-paying job with Sidley Austin, one of the nation’s largest corporate law firms, where she met Obama during his first employment out of law school — guess they were both doing “community organizing” during that first lucrative job. Guess we also know that Obama didn’t seek out community activist jobs but initially went into corporate law, just like most other elite law school graduates. Another lie (by omission) in his official campaign bio (from his official website). Michelle Obama’s most current salary with the “non-profit” University of Chicago Hospitals (according to their last tax return) was $273,000 plus $51,000 for serving on a corporate board of directors.

    Her biggest problem, as a woman and mother, by her own admission in her campaigning, has been finding a good nanny.

    This explains a lot about why she thinks emotional worry is a bigger problem than salary equity, access to health care, Choice, poverty for single-mothers and elderly women, violence against women, education, and any number of truly important issues that Obama has done little to address. Since Michelle also says her biggest problem is guilt, it explains why Barack dismisses mental health as a serious health problem — he perhaps equates anxiety disorders with his wife’s concerns about whether their current nanny is sufficiently bilingual, or serves enough arugula to the children.

    I am also pretty tired of the repetition that the Obama’s have chosen to live on the South Side of Chicago, as if there were no fine homes there. Historically, it was where the rich people lived because there are areas of wealth and poverty on both sides of the loop. The University of Chicago is located on the South Side. The term “South Side” covers a very broad area and the South Shore of Lakeshore Dr. is every bit as ritzy as the north, as are many south side suburbs.

    The other big lie in this election is that Obama is a smoker. When a man is running on his character and judgment, what does it say about both that he didn’t give up smoking until he decided to run for president. A father must truly care about his children to feel that they are an insufficient reason to give up cigarettes, but the presidency is. And while you are all pretending that McCain must have an addictive personality because he plays craps instead of poker, here is real evidence of addiction in your own candidate, who has admitted using cocaine (in his youth, something McCain for all his other faults, didn’t do). But hey, Obama is father of the year because he is married — that makes him the guy to lecture other African American fathers about their irresponsibility. Jesse Jackson was right to call him out on his hypocrisy and those who know Obama better than the general public, e.g., members of the African American community, will feel the same way.

  • the MSM wants a horserace, so they’re focusing all their collective energy on attacking Obama and building up McSame.

    BTW–NPR has become unlistenable. This morning’s program featured about 5 pro-Republican stories, and they just repeat nonsense like the National Review ‘liberal’ ratings as if they were the accepted truth.

  • I like Jack Cafferty, but since I’ve moved completely to MSNBC (except when Tamrin Hall is on), I don’t get to see him.

    I wonder what the results from the viewers’ poll was that day?

  • The media are Republican.

    It’s no more complex than that. Really. Dustups about Wesley Clark, Rev. Wright, Obama’s bowling score, or the price of John Edwards’ haircut get wall to wall coverage because they hurt Democrats. Stuff like this doesn’t get covered, or is covered grudgingly in the back pages, because it hurts Republicans.

    All media, whether overtly as in Fox News (and now the AP), or less obviously as in CNN or ABC, are pulling for the GOP, and have been for the past few elections. It’s obvious and blatant.

    Short term, the only way to counteract this is for the Democrats to scream about it in a sustained way. Long term, we need to transform the media as part of the overall transformation of our politics generally.

  • Ya know, as a relative newbie to this site I just gotta say: Mary is just about the awesomest troll I’ve ever, EVER seen!

    Honestly, let’s all take a moment and just appreciate the mental gymnastics her last post required.

    It’s a thing of sheer beauty, in its own little way.

    I suspect that my constant refrain of “better trolls please” has finally been met by dear Mary.

    Huzzah! Hats Off! Etc Etc!!

  • @#15 dudley

    I completely agree with you. I get the feeling that the media is trying their damndest to make this election closer because they know that as it stands, come August there will be no story to tell. Obama is crushing McCain, and that simply won’t feed the 24 hour news cycle.

    I also think all of this won’t really matter in the end, and that Obama will still crush McCain.

  • Steve –

    The reporters covering McCain like him. They want him to be president. The network talking heads like him. They want him to be president. The guys who run the networks like him. They want him to be the next president.

    This is not surprising at all. I suspect that you’re trying to shame some of the journalists who read your site into performing some more even-handed coverage of the campaigns, but I can’t believe that your disbelief is anything but feigned for effect. They like him. They’ve palled around with him for a long time now. They’ve covered two presidential runs and he cultivated friendships with them during the last 8 years. They don’t want to pick on him because he’s such a nice guy and he’s put in his time – he deserves to be the president.

    We’re talking about a group of people who seem to take the election of the President slightly more seriously than they took the election of their High School Prom King, and slightly less seriously than the race for Prom Queen. Nothing about political reporting surprises me anymore, except for the fact that occasionally some of it gets done.

  • Mary, a few quick questions:

    1. What did any of that have to do with Steve’s blog post?

    2. Did you ever complain in the same way about Hillary Clinton’s affluent background and lifestyle that you just did about Michelle Obama?

    3. Do you have any idea how ridiculous you look attacking Barack Obama for being an ex-smoker?

  • I think Mary is a satirist more than part of the new wave of “better trolls, please.” I think there’s no mistaking that her intent is purely humorous. Here, let me try:

    “Unfortunately for Obama, who is supposed to be leading the fight for gender equality (as he no doubt promised Hillary and her key donors), his daughters will never have to know unfairness for they are the daughters of successful people, and will never face any kind of gender inequality.”

    There. Now you try — it’s easy, and fun!

    I’m looking forward to Mary’s take on BHO’s rank hypocrisy on the housing crisis because — gasp! — he is himself an admitted homeowner! And a pretty nice home at that! Jeepers!

  • Even if we concede, for the sake of argument, the idea that SS will go broke, thisd is equivalent to claiming that the United States will not be able to honor its bond obligations. I find it curious that various powerful members of the Federal government going around warning that the US will soon be insolvent doesn’t have much of a reaction in terms of new bond issuance (people and governments still are buying our debt) or the secondary market (people are not selling the bonds they have). One of these ideas must be wrong.

  • Social Security is a disgrace, and we should end this horrible program as quickly as possible, before any more damage is done. If you can’t work until the day you die, it is YOUR responsibility to marry a multi-millionaire beer distributor. If you make a mistake and marry a poor person, its never too late to dump them (the best time is after they’ve endured some kind of personal tragedy), and take care of your retirement the right way. Don’t expect the young people in the country to bail you out if you’re old and broke, just because you bailed old, broke people out when you were young. Asshole.

  • JHM, #24 comment, makes a good point. To expand on it a little, when Bush visited one of the places where the government keeps bonds during his SS push a few years ago, he referred to them as just pieces of paper, which again implies insolvency on the part of the US. When we have the president, a long time senator and other government officials implying that the US is going broke, how does the McCain campaign get away with blaming our economic problems on the media or the public? Even if it were just some sort of psychological problem, THEY’RE THE ONES SAYING THE THINGS THAT MAKE PEOPLE NERVOUS!

    But with a country full of Marys, what do you expect?

  • Steve insists on posting about McCain’s wrongness on large issues — something so obvious to the largely progressive audience of this site that it isn’t worth discussing. He ignores issues related to his own candidate, that Obama needs to be held accountable for, issues where discussion might influence his direction. He also slants his coverage to omit information about Clinton, furthering the view that Clinton is now just another citizen with no political consequence (but obviously Ted Kennedy and others are newsworthy). For example, yesterday he failed to mention that Clinton showed guts on the FISA compromise that Obama lacked.

    If CB won’t talk about important issues, that doesn’t stop us from discussing them.

    Obama is a liar and the things said about him omit important details. Voters should know those things.

    Obama has been shouting about the importance of family to African American churches — hence the Jesse Jackson flap. Obama has called his family off-limits during the campaign. Then he takes his kids on TV. Then he said it was a momentary lapse in judgment. Of course this is relevant to the campaign. It shows (1) hypocrisy and (2) lack of true concern for his kids as opposed to his campaign.

    CB doesn’t want to cover Obama’s attempts to woo Clinton voters. Or maybe he is just slow doing so. Obama fans would like to continue pretending that Obama is going to win without women or any of the other demographics they have wished to purge from the party. Obama’s lack of appeal to women is not because Clinton supporters are diehards. It is because Obama is clueless on women’s issues, and so is Michelle Obama, based on her remarks.

    The rest was for Maria, who keeps insisting that Michelle and Barack are self-sacrificing because Michelle works for the UofC hospitals instead of a corporate law firm. In previous discussions about Obama’s community activism, I took Obama’s website at its word that he didn’t go immediately into a corporate law firm. Then, looking up Michelle’s bio, I found that they met when they worked together at the 9th largest CORPORATE law firm in the country, his first job out of law school. So, can you trust Obama’s website to tell you the truth about the candidate? Obviously not.

    Does this mean Clinton isn’t wealthy, didn’t work for a corporate law firm, etc.? Of course not, and I didn’t say that. Clinton has not been a hypocrite about her bio. And when the Clintons declared Chelsea out of bounds (as a child), they didn’t then take her on TV, then conveniently say, oops I forgot when called on their selectivity about when children are and are not part of the campaign. Chelsea was never used to shore up Bill’s image as a family man, even when he was under attack in ways Obama has never been.

    Does it matter that Obama smokes. Well, perhaps not to you. But, I consider someone who still smokes given the health issues a stupid, stupid person with no concern for immediate family. I would think that even if the person were not Obama and were not running for president. By the way, Laura Bush also smokes. Why do you think the candidates go to such lengths to hide the fact that they smoke? It is stupid. And Michelle works for a hospital!

  • Sorry, I think it s was Micheline, not Maria, who was arguing that the Obama’s are selfless. Whoever it was, the facts remain the same.

  • Mary, Mary, quite contrary. How does your garden grow? With loco weeds, I think, because you must be smoking something..

  • Mary, Mary, quite contrary. How does your garden grow? With loco weeds, I think, because you must be smoking something..

  • Mary,

    I have no problem with criticizing Obama so long as it based on facts and knowledge of the legal field. When Obama met his wife, he was a summer associate, which is basically a paid internship while attending law school. During that time he was doing volunteer work. He convinced Michelle to leave her job at Sidley Austin to work to in non-profit. When he finished law school he worked as a civil rights attorney. That field pays peanuts in comparison to corporate law. The salary in that field of law doesn’t come close to six digits. You can criticize him for being a hypocrite but at least do so with facts. Some of your comments regarding Obama are on target. I submit to the fact that he can be arrogant and sanctomonius. The problem is the way you go about it that makes it difficult for you to be taken seriously.

  • By “Mary” making herself the center of attention with the obvious inflammatory comments,the real subjects of the threads get sidetracked. Which is no doubt her posts purpose to begin with.

  • Mary he worked as a summer associate at Sidley Austin while he was in law school, not after he got out of law school.

  • Also, I worked at McDonalds for 2 months when I was 16, (my very FIRST PAID JOB!) therefore everything progressive I claim to stand for is obvious horse manure, because I clearly stand for The Man and all His Evil Interests. I can only redeem myself by prostrating at Mary and Hillary’s feet.

    Oh, back to the topic – this won’t be the first time the blogosphere has to push a story into the MSM (ask Josh Marshall) and it won’t be the last. Keep up the good fight people, and don’t let douchebags like Mary distract you too much.

  • Mary –

    your fellow women would like you to stop embarassing us.

    You act as though a woman has to live in a trailer park to be disrespected. Michelle’s point is that he has seen her struggles and she is an educated professional, implying he recognizes the incidious nature of sexism. Obviously you can’t appreciate that man can get it and say that he gets it.

  • Like many loud people who tilt right, Mary is good at distraction: after reading these comments (to #35), I had to go back to the top to remind myself what CB’s topic here was. Fascinating though Mary may be in another context (psychological novel, anyone?): McCain’s position on Social Security is wildly off base and frighteningly ill-informed; it appears he doesn’t understand how the best and most effective social program ever (successful for decades) works; either he’s losing it or he never had it; the MSM is colluding in his campaign by repeatedly dismissing his mistakes as unimportant or flat out ignoring them. Reporters can be bought by a good Bar-B-Q, I suppose, but — more likely — they fear losing their jobs (money, position, access, sense of self worth, membership in elite) if they don’t help help keep at the helm a dunderhead who allows corporate rule. What can we do? Keep shaming the MSM with facts. Keep being more relevant so that the MSM either gets back to truth telling or withers away. Thank goodness for blogs.

  • Micheline, so, you’re right and Wikipedia is wrong. You can go there and correct their entry on Michelle Obama if you want. Obama says nothing about Sidley Austin in his campaign bio, although he did work there, by your admission too. She says she was his mentor at the law firm, where they were the only two African American employees (not interns, not volunteers, not students). But, summer jobs not counting is perhaps like calories you eat standing up not counting toward your diet.

    I said Michelle made a six-figure salary, not Barack. I said his salary was high compared to real community activists who make much closer to the $15,000/yr plus a car that he was paid before he went to law school. I suspect he probably made between $60-80 thousand because that is what poverty law program lawyers typically make to start (at that time).

  • Mary, basic netiquette:

    if you want to bring up some topic that you feel needs discussion, you can either find an open thread, or start your own blog. Hijacking a thread meant for a different topic is trollish behavior, however strongly you feel about the topic.

    Also, whether you realize it or not, Steve Benen is not obligated to cover all topics. Again, if you want to pick the topics, get your own blog (and, BTW, see if you can attract a quarter of the audience Steve has).

  • Mary…even if everything you say about Obama is accurate he is still 100Xs better than McCain which should be obvious. Many of us here have not “laid our critical faculties at Obama’s alter” and blinded ourselves to his inadequacies. Forget about those who support “my Obama right or wrong”, the reality is he’s better than McCain and republican control and maybe that is all. Isn’t that enough to vote for him? Are you saying you’d rather have a republican you can hate in power rather than a dem who just embarrasses you and makes you feel ashamed? I really don’t mind being made aware of Obama’s failures…but I would vote for any dem if it means ending this republican obstructionism disaster. Sometimes I have to vote for what I don’t want rather than what I want…because what I want is not out there.
    But the republican controlled corporate media is breaking all the rules of integrity to get McBush elected to justify passing over some of Obama’s lesser flaws…FISA not being one of them…he is wrong totally here and there is no forgetting or forgiving this action.

    But you seem to go after Obama at every opportunity. I hated those who did that to Clinton and it downplays and distracts from the needed pressure on the really important disagreements like on the FISA capitulation lumping such criticism in with less important issues. Why would Obama’s name even come up in light of this post on McCain’s stupidity concerning SS?

    Smoking??? I mean really…not any more harful than drinking unless done to access. Calling smokers stupid…is that if they smoke more than two cigarettes/day or just ever so often. Women’s issues??? McCain is more knowledgeable about”stupid f**king c*nt” issues??? Is this really important compared to the current disaster voters want to get us out of. Your concerns are trivial by comparison but it seems you never miss a chance to knock Obama on some issue all the while knowing that McCain is so far below your bar.. People stop listening when the discussion gets petty. I wish you would spend as much energy trying to make sure no republican wins the WH. But WTF…bitterness only hurts the bitter.

  • Mary, when you’re making stuff up you should stay away from numbers that are so obviously made up.

    Starting attorneys at poverty law programs don’t make $60,000 – $80,000 even NOW, they certainly didn’t make that in the early 1990s.

    When I left law school in 1996, $80,000 was a good salary for a new associate at a big firm on Wall Street; I don’t know of anyone going to a poverty law program who got even $30,000. Five years earlier, when Obama graduated, it was probably less than $25,000 for those programs.

  • TCB: “Nice try, senator. First, the system isn’t going bankrupt; that was Bush’s line in 2005, and it was proven wrong then, too.”

    Steve, well maybe not exactly bankrupt, but we are headed for a major hole in the budget that will have to be met with increased taxes, more borrowing, or reduced benefits.

    It is not my intention to throw a skunk into the party here or to defend McCain whose words were poorly chosen. But, I have to support his idea that the system does have a major problem that many responding here ignore. I cite this passage by Allan Sloan:

    “Social Security’s negative cash flow becomes so horrendous — hundreds of billions of dollars a year — that our nation’s 20- and 30-somethings aren’t going to let the government cover it, regardless of how many Treasurys the trust fund holds. So forget about 2039 or whenever. Starting worrying about 2016 or 2017.

    You can see this for yourself in Table VI.F8 in Social Security’s 2007 trustees’ report (it’s at http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR07/VI_OASDHI_dollars.html#wp150920). Compare “income excluding interest” with “cost,” and you get cash-flow numbers. (I’m ignoring interest, because it’s paid with Treasury IOUs, not with cash.) You see that the system’s cash flow is projected at about positive $92 billion this year. Nice. But by 2020, it’s negative $96 billion, rising to about negative $280 billion in 2025 and half a trillion dollars in 2030. That is unsupportable, unless we plan to devote the entire federal budget to baby boomers’ retirement. Which I hope we don’t.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/17/AR2008031702702.html

    McCain is just presenting a realistic view of what most young people think about SS. They don’t think the system will be functioning for them when it comes their turn at the cookie jar. I don’t see this a being a partisan view. More of a generational divide.

  • On Monday, John McCain told a town-hall audience in Denver, “Americans have got to understand that we are paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers in America today. And that’s a disgrace. It’s an absolute disgrace, and it’s got to be fixed.” — CB

    What’s a *real* disgrace is how all the lazy, good-for-nothing *kids* (I mean the term loosely: from birth till 25yrs old or so) are draining the resources of the hard working Americans, both young and not-so-young. They have a roof over their heads — for free. They are fed (and they eat like pigs, especially during their teens) — for free. We have to pay extra for their health insurance. Sometimes, they even demand we send them to college — on *our* dime.

    It is only those who abandon their children early (and often), who truly understand the principles of the free market and the fend-for-yourself American world. *They* are the true patriots. And what do we say about them? Instead of calling them heroes, we call them “dead-beat fathers”, thus doing them great injustice.

  • Excellent, succinct comment lou. It’s exactlly the point I was attempting to make a few days ago on thread about social security when I was repeatedly attacked for in any way suggesting social security wasn’t completely in the black.

    And, if it helps your conscience, you’re not necessarily defending McCain; Obama also thinks the system needs a few tweaks to stay solvent.

  • O you cruelest of cruel people. Leave Mary alone. There’s no cure for mental recession as we all know. Don’t hate the writer – hate the disease!

  • doubtful, yes, that is why Obama wants to raise the cap. He was attacked by Hillary on this point for raising taxes. She used the same tired Democratic line (which I think is a major obfuscation) that the system is fine and does not have any problem until 2045. I praise Obama for proposing to raise the cap when other politicians have been too lame to actually offer anything other than more bipartisan commissions.

    When Obama was running for senator in IL, I asked him a question about how the IOUs (SS treasury securities) were going to be redeemed in cash. Typical of any politician, he dodged the question with a long spiel about social security.

    The press does need to pursue these questions about social security with the candidates. I hope that this does not end with this “gotcha” as I would characterize this TCB post.

  • Mary, I’m a lawyer, and I don’t know a single lawyer who considers his or her summer associate job a real job. I also don’t know anyone, in any field, who has been in the work force long enough to have actual job credits, who puts their summer jobs during school on their CV. That’s basically what a bio is, a CV. You’re not actually making sense here.

    As for your attempt to find hypocrisy in the fact that Obama said he and Michelle were “the only black employees,” not “the only black employee and intern,” do you usually bother to make distinctions that have nothing to do with the point at hand, and interrupt the flow of the sentence? If so, why do you? I mean, sure, he could have said it that way, and everyone would have wondered what his being an intern had to do with it. Or he could have been even more precise and said “the only black employee and summer associate,” because a summer associate is better paid than interns usually are, so that’s obviously an important distinction that would help explain how he and Michelle related to each other at the law firm. Then he could have put in a footnote explaining what a summer associate was. Also, he could have footnoted that he was really only half-black. And maybe that the summer actually started in May, so it wasn’t really just summer. Or, you know, he could just talk the way people normally do.

  • lou@43 hits it.

    Social Security IS going bankrupt if it stays on its present course.

    What “Ace” fails to mention is that there’s absolutely no need to keep the present course. Increase the tax cap, increase retirement age 6 months every year for five years. Voila!

    Medicare is the nasty problem. Health care rationing is the only solution there and finding the courage to get THAT done will make Social Security look like a walk in the park.

  • Someone will have to explain what McCain said was wrong. We count the excess SS receipts in the federal budget deficit numbers, which means for that purpose we ARE on a pay as you go system.

    If we want to pretend that there is anything of substance backing up the “trust fund” the first step is to stop counting the excess as a reduction to current year deficits. It’s a good idea, but nobody on either side seems particularly interested in honest accounting for SS or medicare. As is, accounting for the SS “trust fund” is a vaguely interesting academic exercise which tells us what has happened with taxes and benefit payments over time, but that is all. lou’s numbers are all that matters. When it turns negative, there is nothing but taxes on the then current workers to make up the shortfall.

    And according to the latest Financial Statements of the United States Government, SS is about $7 Trillion in the hole – the PV of future benefits in excess of future receipts. That is the amount a private company would have to come up with TODAY to fully fund its pension obligations.

    It is frustrating to hear so much about SS, when it’s Medicare that is the real issue – maybe $40 Trillion in the hole, around $10 trillion of that is the drug plan.

    Just to be clear, I’m not voting for McCain, under any circumstances.

  • Comments are closed.