Drudge puts up an article finally about the "edwards scandal"

[One Taste]

http://drudgereport.com/mattje.htm

"In a page titled "seniors," Edwards takes a stand on the controversial issue, declaring how he "strongly opposes recent efforts to privatize Social Security, which would jeopardize benefits by risking our Social Security funds in the stock market."

But just 5 years ago, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal, Edwards supported investing Social Security funds in the stock market!

In a speech on October 6, 1998 in Raleigh, Edwards told a group of senior citizens that Social Security surpluses - money not needed immediately to pay benefits - should be invested and kept separate. A portion of the money, up to 10 percent, could be invested in the stock market and the remainder put in secure investments such as treasury bills, Edwards explained.

On September 27, 1998, Edwards told a gathering at Elon College how a small part of the Social Security fund should be invested in stocks and bonds "to see the kind of returns it would produce.""

Somebody please refute this so that I can explain to people who ask. I really hope Edwards hasn't flip flopped on this.:scared:

Drudge says the info came from Wilmington Star-News, reporting on the Edwards speech at Elon under the headline: "Many in poll fear uncertain future on social security."

[thedudeingeorgia]

1. Drudge Report on Edwards

Just like he did with Wes Clark's testimony before the Armed Services Committee, Drudge, as well as RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie, released excerpts that painted Clark as someone who fully supported Bush's decision 100% to invade Iraq, when in fact he didn't...all you have to do is read the transcript.

The RNC sees Edwards as a threat, so they will use all means necessary to bring him down back to earth...

[meegbear]

2. Look at what he said ...

Edwards told a group of senior citizens that Social Security surpluses - money not needed immediately to pay benefits - should be invested and kept separate. ... small part of the Social Security fund should be invested in stocks and bonds "to see the kind of returns it would produce.

He's not talking about the whole fund. And remember, this was said when he had not only surpluses, but the last elected president.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

8. instead of stealing the surplus for income tax cuts for the rich

I don't necessarily like this idea, but Edwards is NOT suggesting privatizing Social Security here - in fact, he's almost suggesting the opposite of privatization - publicization? - i.e., our democratic government owning the corporations.

Surely Edwards had an affair or something? So far his "scandals" haven't amounted to much! :evilgrin:

[Cheswick2.0]

3. he has flipped on this

But that is Edwards. I am more concerned with his dirty tricks in Iowa and wondering if he will pull the same stuff in NH

[One Taste]

4. What

dirty tricks?:shrug:

[Rowdyboy]

13. I can tell you all about Edward's dirty tricks in Iowa

That lowlife had the unmitigated gall to run against the anointed front runner. If that wasn't bad enough, Edwards dared to place HIGHER than the anointed front runner. This was not anywhere in the script.

Where the Hell does John Edwards get off thinking he can get away with winning a clean campaign? Thats downright despicable. Iowans were just hijacked by the DLC and their "pretty boy" and tricked into voting wrongly...

[Ripley]

15. That would be the 50 page memo to his volunteers that

gave them talking points on Dean...paint him as an elitist from New York.

Disregard the fact that he has lived in a town of 6,000 in Vermont for 20 years.

:eyes:

[Democrats unite]

6. BABD

Blame anybody but Dean.

[Ficus]

7. huh

what dirty tricks? He was the only one out here who wasn't.

[boxster]

5. "just 5 years ago". Geez, here we go again.

People should be allowed to change their minds. Many people were thinking investing was a good thing before the stock market crashed and burned.

[SangamonTaylor]

9. seriously. are people unable to see a big picture...

and look at issues with a little bit more of an understanding of the circumstances?

Everyone thought that investing in the stock market was a wise decision in

Do we want a President who is unable to change is mind and adjust policy as events unfold?

[Barad Simith]

10. 5 years ago, I was a Republican

Change can sometimes be a very good thing.

[Renew Deal]

11. I looked into this further. Putting that money int T-Bills is a good idea

It's not the stock market. T-bills are almost 100% guaranteed. It's actually a good idea if we get past the hysterics.

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/sec/sec.htm

The stock market part is a little more scary. But stock market always goes up in the long term. He could probably make a solid argument for this.

[Frodo]

14. It IS in T-Bills.

That's how we "borrow" the Social Security surplus. It HAS to be invested in 100% rock-solid investments... and only the US Treasury debt meets that requirement

[Renew Deal]

12. AARP's view of Social Security and Edwards

http://www.aarp.org/legislative/elections/presidential/Articles/a2004-01-12-edwards.html

Question

Do you support or oppose replacing part of Social Security with individual accounts?

AARP Response

AARP strongly opposes replacing ANY part of Social Security with individual accounts. Social Security is not in crisis. Without any changes in current law, Social Security can pay 100% of benefits until 2041. But individual accounts funded with Social Security dollars mean Social Security would face financial problems sooner.

"Personal control" sounds appealing. But substituting private accounts, even for part of Social Security, drains money from Social Security, which means less money to pay guaranteed benefits.

Creating these private accounts requires trading today's inflation-protected lifetime guaranteed benefit for an account subject to market risk and not guaranteed to last a lifetime.

Inflation, market turns, or sudden loss of employment can also mean that your private account may not have enough money to provide an adequate benefit. AARP supports options that help Americans save for their retirement through individual accounts on top of Social Security; but opposes replacing any part of Social Security's guaranteed benefit.

Candidate Response: John Edwards

I oppose diverting payroll taxes into individual accounts. Diverting resources would only increase the shortfall in the Social Security trust fund, threatening the programs' long-term stability. Privatization would also erode the Social Security safety net and undermine the program's social compact.

However, I do support efforts to increase retirement savings outside of Social Security. I will match $1 in private savings with up to a $1 refundable tax credit, up to a limit of $1,000 per couple, for working Americans. A family that saves the maximum under this plan starting at age 25 will have a nest egg of $200,000.

[Frodo]

16. THIS is a scandal? Clinton/Gore proposed the same thing

There's a difference between the FUND investing a portion of it's assets and INDIVIDUALS picking stocks.

A broadly diversified portfolio could only IMPROVE the return to the overall fund. And MOST individuals could benefit the same way... BUT some of MY investments have lost money over the years... what if I had put it ALL there???

[dolstein]

17. Newsflash: This is something the Clinton administration proposed

And no, this is not social security privatization in the usual sense. Social security privatization proposals generally involve replacing the current system, in which participants receive a guaranteed benefit, with a system involving private accounts (similar to a 401(k) plan). Under these proposals, the investment risk shifts from the government to the individual.

But Edwards was simply talking about what to do with the social security surpluses. Do you simply leave these surpluses available to be tapped into for other governmental programs, the way they are today, or do you invest them in real assets that can generate additional income for the social security program? It made a lot of sense at the time, and it still does. And the allocation he was talking about -- only 10% in stocks and 90% in fixed income securities -- was actually very conservative.

And before anyone screams about how unprecedented this would be, I will simply point out that state governments do the exact same thing with their pension plans.

[Killarney]

18. If this is the best Drudge can do, Edwards has got it going on

This is a non-issue.

1) He said that five years ago when most Dems (including Clinton) would have agreed with him.
2) It is MUCH different from what Bush is proposing now.
3) People are allowed to change their minds five years later. That is not a flip-flop. A flip-flop is changing your mind during the campaign.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

19. Dumbest "Scandal" Ever

It's right up there with Clark's supposedly contradictory testimony to Congress. Wow, a whole whopping 10% of the SURPLUS invested in the stock market? That's OBVIOUSLY privatization.

:eyes:

I fucking HATE Drudge.

DTH

[jburton]

20. Edwards had an affair with Judy Dean!!!

Drudge is Drudge. Everything he says is wrong or misleading.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

21. Why, That Rascal!

;-)

DTH

[mikehiggins]

22. What flip flop?

Edwards opposes recent efforts to privatise Social Security. Years ago he talked about investing part of the Social Security SURPLUS in the market to see if it would produce better returns.

That initiative was doomed to failure because the federal government depends on money "borrowed" from Social Security to cover up huge holes in the budget. Bush's "ownership society" crap will remove vast sums from Social Security, put it into the hands of investment firms (like Putnam, Merrill Lynch and so forth) where it can be lost into the coffers of corporations leaving the retirees out on the limb again.

Two entirely different things. Anyone who can't see that is a total idiot and should be forced to spend his life scanning Drudge on a tiny monitor screen while a continuous loop of Rush blares in his ears.

Two truthful statements adding up to one BIG lie.

[Memekiller]

23. I scorn any Democrat who uses Drudge...

...to knock down another candidate. Remember, the tactics he uses to hit your rival candidate today will be used against your guy if he wins the nomination, all the way through to November.

This, we should all agree on. Drudge is a hack and not to be trusted.

[LuminousX]

24. While some may want to use a 5-year-old quote to damn Edwards

I give the guy the benefit of the doubt. 5 years ago the stock market looked like the best thing ever. A wise investor seeing all that money barely earning any interest at all was thinking "if only it could see the same returns as money invested in the stock market."

The question is, does Edwards wish to invest SS in the market NOW?

[Adjoran]

25. There is a huge difference

between investing SS funds in equities, which would still be part of the trust fund, and supporting private accounts. Currently 100% of the surplus in "invested" in government bonds with a very low return.

Drudge isn't smart enough to tell the difference, but most people should be.