Breaking, er, old news... Obama against privatization

[never cry wolf]

From a speech he gave to the National Press Club on Tuesday, April 26th, 2005... Where he advocates strengthening America's social safety net...

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/050426-_a_hope_to_fulfill/index.html

snip----

"Today, we're told by those who want to privatize that promise how much things are different and times have changed since Roosevelt's day.

I couldn't agree more.

A child born in this new century is likely to start his life with both parents - or a single parent - working full-time jobs. They'll try their hardest to juggle work and family, but they'll end up needing child care to keep him safe, cared for, and educated early.

They'll want to give him the best education possible, but unless they live in a wealthy town with good public schools, they'll have to settle for less or find the money for private schools.

This student will study hard and dream of going to the best colleges in the country, but with tuition rising higher and faster than ever before, he may have to postpone those dreams or start life deeper in debt than any generation before him.

When he graduates from college, this young man will find a job market where middle-class manufacturing jobs with good benefits have long been replaced with low-wage, low-benefit service sector jobs and high-skill, high-wage jobs of the future.

To get those good jobs, he'll need the skills and knowledge to not only compete with other workers in America, but with highly skilled and highly knowledgeable workers all over the world who are being recruited by the same companies that once made their home in this country.

When he finally starts his job, he'll want health insurance, but rising costs mean that fewer employers can afford to provide that benefit, and when they do, fewer employees can afford the record premiums.

When he starts a family, he'll want to buy a house and a car and pay for child care and college for his own children, but as he watches the lucky few benefit from lucrative bonuses and tax shelters, he'll see his own tax burden rise and his own paycheck barely cover this month's bills.

And when he retires, he'll hope that he and his wife have saved enough, but if there wasn't enough to save, he'll hope that there will still be two Social Security checks that come to the house every month.

These are the challenges we face at the beginning of the 21st century. We shouldn't exaggerate; we aren't seeing the absolute deprivation of the Great Depression. But it cannot be denied that families face more risk and greater insecurity than we have known since FDR's time, even as those families have fewer resources available to help pull themselves through the tough spots. Whereas people were once able to count on their employer to provide health care, pensions, and a job that would last a lifetime, today's worker wonders if suffering a heart attack will cause his employer to drop his coverage, worries about how much he can contribute to his own pension fund, and fears the possibility that he might walk into work tomorrow and find his job outsourced.

Yet, just as the naysayers in Roosevelt's day told us that there was nothing we could do to help people help themselves, the people in power today are telling us that instead of sharing the risks of the new economy, we should shoulder them on our own.

In the end, this is what the debate over the future of Social Security is truly about.

After a lifetime of hard work and contribution to this country, do we tell our seniors that they're on their own, or that we're here for them to provide a basic standard of living? Is the dignity of life in their latter years their problem, or one we all share?

Since this is Washington, you won't hear them answer those questions directly when they talk about Social Security. Instead, they use the word "reform" when they mean "privatize," and they use "strengthen" when they really mean "dismantle." They tell us there's a crisis to get us all riled up so we'll sit down and listen to their plan to privatize.

But we know what the whole thing's really about.

It's not just about cutting guaranteed benefits by up to 50% -- though it certainly does that.

It's not just about borrowing $5 trillion from countries like China and Japan to finance the plan - after all, we know how fiscal conservatives hate debt and deficit.

And it's not even about the ability private accounts to finance the gap in the system - because even the privatization advocates admit they don't.

What this whole thing is about, and why conservatives have been pushing it so hard for so long now, is summed up in one sentence in one White House memo that somehow made its way out of the White House:

"For the first time in six decades, the Social Security battle is one we can win - and in doing so, we can help transform the political and philosophical landscape of the country."

And there it is. Since Social Security was first signed into law almost seventy years ago, at a time when FDR's opponents were calling it a hoax that would never work and some likened it to communism, there has been movement after movement to get rid of the program for purely ideological reasons. Because some still believe that we can't solve the problems we face as one American community; they think this country works better when we're left to face fate by ourselves.

I understand this view. There's something bracing about the Social Darwinist idea, the idea that there isn't a problem that the unfettered free market can't solve. It requires no sacrifice on the part of those of us who have won life's lottery...and doesn't consider who our parents were, or the education we received, or the right breaks that came at the right time.

But I couldn't disagree more. If we privatize Social Security, what will we tell retirees whose investments in the stock market went badly? We're sorry? Keep working? You're on your own?

When people's expected benefits get cut and they have to choose between their groceries and their prescriptions, what will we say then? That's not our problem?

When our debt climbs so high that our children face sky-high taxes just as they're starting their first job, what will we tell them? Deal with it yourselves?

This isn't how America works. This isn't how we saved millions of seniors from a life of poverty seventy years ago. This isn't how we sent a greatest generation of veterans to college so they could build the greatest middle-class in history. And this isn't how we should face the challenges of this new century either."

Please read the entire speech, instead of a few out of context quotes, to see where his views lie, I think you will find he fits in well with the majority of DU.

[Inland]

1. I don't see any DINO indicators in there.

But he has lots of questions and issues, but no answers. My position is to do nothing about SS.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=114&topic_id=15157&mesg_id=15157

[never cry wolf]

2. I agree, and your post is spot on

I am sure he has some solutions in mind not articulated in that speech, but until we get ahold of at least one branch of government it is a moot point.

[tishaLA]

3. You won't get many responses, I think

Because you didn't misrepresent what he says and didn't talk about how furious those misrepresentations make you.

[never cry wolf]

5. ROTFL

Exactly... maybe I should had had a splasier headline like "Obama set the charges in Tower 7."

[madfloridian]

11. I stand by my post from yesterday.

I don't appreciate being made fun of for in a fair way posting what someone said.

If this party keeps going to the right until they are lined up with Republicans....a lot of which has gone on this week...then there won't be anything but one party.

[tishaLA]

13. Yes, please stand by it

I love when people stand by misrepresentations. I have never met a republicon who advocates, as Obama did in his speech, universal health care. I think progressives have to think progressively and look for new ways of looking for solutions, otherwise we pretend the status quo is working when it CLEARLY is not. That Sen. Obama looks for solutions to problems with progressive goals and seeks improvement in the safety net is admirable.

It's sad to see Democrats criticized by some for advocating Democratic positions. Sad indeed. I guess that's what "centrists" do now. So sad.

[madfloridian]

14. If he said the words I posted, he is changing his position.

I think it is fair to question. I quoted what was already in quotes. Feel free to write the Chronicle to clarify.

I was not ugly in what I posted, but you guys are turning it into something ugly. That is really unfortunate.

I will question anyone, anytime, who even sounds like they will change Social Security.

I still don't have an answer to my question. Was he misquoted or did he change his position.

[never cry wolf]

17. I agree he probably said those words

I still maintain they are out of context and my OP tried to provide some context for where he may have been coming from.

He still did not mention Social Security but used the term "social safety net." As the Magistrate points out, that encompasses a wide range of programs. Obama talks about a number of them in this speech.

I do agree that he sounds like he wants to change the social safety net, the term he used. But I believe he wants to add to it.

It is a matter of interpretation of that Hou. Chron. quote without the context. I have provided an earlier speech which provides some context on his position and even very clearly pre-iterates, if you will, that he feels that the systems put in place arising out of the New Deal need to be enhanced to more closely address the problems of today.

[tishaLA]

18. Neither. You misrepresented him

to make it seem that he had changed his position. He was critical (in the OP) of a social safety net that adheres to the same forms as it did in the 30s and 40s; he reiterates that criticism this week. He says we need to do more, not less (to get universal health care, etc.) and that we need to examine ways to achieve these goals--ways that are not rooted in the status quo, but instead believe in progressive ways of achieving progressive results.

I wish some hadn't made this so ugly by misrepresenting Sen. Obama and allowing that misrepresentation to make them "furious" at their own misrepresentations, but I suppose some love to criticize Democrats who want progressive things like universal health care. It's so sad.

[madfloridian]

20. No, I quoted his own words. I did not misrepresent.

He needs to be clearer, see my post below.

[tishaLA]

21. He is perfectly clear

to people who actually read what he says and don't have an agenda to attack a Democrat who advocates progressive ideas like universal health care and expanding the social safety net.

So a couple bloggers choose to interpret his words to pretend he said something he didn't really say? Big deal. It happens here at DU and it happens in the corporate media, too. It's so sad to see these misrepresentations of progressive solutions to progressive issues, but I suppose I should be used to it by now. Some seem to love to engage in this kind of behavior.

[madfloridian]

22. Read my quotes from Firedoglake and another blog. I have no agenda.

I don't like the corporatization of our party, if you call that an agenda. But if you wish I can find many more instances of confusion over his stance.

Do not accuse me of misrepresenting when I am using his words.

[tishaLA]

24. I read their interpretations

And I read what Sen. Obama said. As I said before, I'm happy some stand by their misrepresentations, which made them "furious." It's sad indeed that some misrepresent like this, but it's become par for the course. I think the republicons have succeeded in teaching us to hate it when Democrats propose progressive solutions for progressive issues.

So sad.

[madfloridian]

26. Please do not keep saying I misrepresent.

I am not a Republicon, as you call them. I am a Democrat who wants our leaders to speak clearly.

If you keep saying I am not telling the truth, which is what you are doing, I will just have to keep finding stuff to defend myself...as I don't like to said to be be telling the truth.

That is what misrepresenting is....not being truthful. I used his own words.

[tishaLA]

30. I call em as I see em

And I see misrepresentation. Willful misrepresentation, in fact.

Sen. Obama proposed progressive solutions to progressive issues like universal health care and universal education. He says we need to expand the safety net and not settle for what we did 70 years ago. And that makes some "furious."

[madfloridian]

33. If you refuse to address his statement this week...and blame me.

then you are perhaps not realizing he is possibly changing his position.

If you feel better blaming me, fine. I don't mind.

[tishaLA]

36. I have spoken about his statement this week

Which reiterates what he said a year ago: that we we need universal health care, universal education, and a secure safety net for children, adults, and senior citizens. In so doing, we need to avoid the trap of complacency. As The Magistrate has already said, "These are both things that seriously need some reform and improvement, as the number of uninsured persons, and the declining status of U.S, students relative to foreign students' achievements in their home countries, amply demonstrates."

[madfloridian]

41. He criticized Democrats who support the safety nets.

Why?

[tishaLA]

43. Another misrepresentation

He wants to expand the safety net to include things like universal health care! He criticized those who support just sticking with models founded in the 30s and 40s (in the quotation, BTW, the word "Democrats" is not in quotation marks--He said Democrats "all too often are defending a social safety net that was constructed in the 1930s and '40s") and wants us to look at ways of IMPROVING the safety net and using progressive solutions to progressive issues. You'll notice in that quotation he doesn't criticize "Democrats who support safety nets" because he supports the safety net himself! He criticizes pretending the status quo--a 70 year old solution-- is working!

But I've said that several times on this thread already.

[madfloridian]

4. Sounds very good...but here's what he said almost a year later.

A year later. This sentence is disturbing, and I think I am being fair in questioning it.

In addition to criticizing Republicans, Obama chided members of his own party.

He said Democrats "all too often are defending a social safety net that was constructed in the 1930s and '40s. My argument to Democrats has been that we need to cling to the core values that make us Democrats, the belief in universal health care, the belief in universal education, and then we should be agnostic in terms of how to achieve those values."

Ok, I am glad he was against it last year, so just explain why he is criticizing Democrats now for defending the same thing he was defending a year ago.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/3768066.html

Has he changed his views? It is a fair question, and it deserves an answer. Why would he be critical of Democrats who say the same thing he said a year ago.

I care about truth. At times I have written reporters requesting a source for what they said. I usually get an answer. In this case, I posted what the Houston Chronicle says, and it seems to be clear. If I am wrong, and he did not say it...I will apologize.

[never cry wolf]

6. Read the first 11 paragraphs I snipped

Starting with:

"Today, we're told by those who want to privatize that promise how much things are different and times have changed since Roosevelt's day.

I couldn't agree more.

A child born in this new century is likely to start his life with both parents - or a single parent - working full-time jobs. They'll try their hardest to juggle work and family, but they'll end up needing child care to keep him safe, cared for, and educated early...."

And ending with:

"These are the challenges we face at the beginning of the 21st century. We shouldn't exaggerate; we aren't seeing the absolute deprivation of the Great Depression. But it cannot be denied that families face more risk and greater insecurity than we have known since FDR's time, even as those families have fewer resources available to help pull themselves through the tough spots. Whereas people were once able to count on their employer to provide health care, pensions, and a job that would last a lifetime, today's worker wonders if suffering a heart attack will cause his employer to drop his coverage, worries about how much he can contribute to his own pension fund, and fears the possibility that he might walk into work tomorrow and find his job outsourced."

He is saying that times have changed since the 30's and 40's and goes on to list the numerous challenges of today that are NOT covered in the existing social safety net. It is an argument to enhance the safety net, just as I maintain the quote in the Houston Chronicle implies. I see his stand as quite consistent, the social safety net needs an upgrade, the New Deal did not anticipate the skyrocketing costs of health and education.

To me, his criticism of some Democrats is that they are not progressive enough!

[madfloridian]

8. I read it all, and he sounded against privatizing a year ago..

You are not addressing the point I made in my post. My quote I question is from a year later almost....so why he is criticizing Democrats who say the same thing?

Don't get me wrong on any of this. I like Obama, I think he has a great future in the party...in fact I think he will be VP for Hillary.

However, I read the article from Monday and I questioned that statement fairly. I still do.

[The Magistrate]

7. In That Article, Ma'am

There is no clear reference to Social Security at all. The usage "social safety net" is a far more general item, including everything from food stamps to Pell grants and labor and environmental regulations. Judging by that whole parahgraph, he seems to have been most particularly refering to health care and public education. These are both things that seriously need some reform and improvement,a s the number of uninsured persons, and the declining status of U.S, students relative to foreign students' achievements in their home countries, amply demonstrates.

[madfloridian]

10. This statement:

"He said Democrats "all too often are defending a social safety net that was constructed in the 1930s and '40s."

Social Security comes to mind from the 30s. The others come later. I have been fighting for keeping it as is for years. It has been an uphill fight. I keep up with statements, and this disturbs me.

If he did not say it, the Houston Chronicle was wrong. If he did say it he is wrong because he is criticizing Democrats for saying what he said a year ago.

I am very bullish on this issue, and there are only so many ways to compromise on this issue. Mostly by turning it over to private companies...which they just did with Medicare D.

[The Magistrate]

12. So Did Much Of The Rest, Ma'am

THe current structure of employer-based health insurance was erected during the war; a good deal of aid to publiic schools originated in that same time period. The basic idea that the government should provide social assistance at all dates to the New Deal times. THere is nothing at all in that statement that indicates support for privatization fo Social Security.

[madfloridian]

15. It sounds like he is changing his position, and will compromise.

The statements are a year apart.

So while I get taken apart here piece by piece, no one is questioning if he is changing his mind on things.

Go ahead, I'm pretty tough.

[The Magistrate]

16. It Does Not Sound Like That To Me, Ma'am

Nothing in that statement indicates to me an openness to privatization.

[Guaranteed]

31. LOL. Magistrate, you're wrong.

Read it again. It is most definitely what he is saying- privatization of something, for damned sure.

Privatization of public schools? That's extremely right-wing, if that's what he's saying.

No matter what, he's referring to the New Deal, and deconstructing it. He IS directly contradicting the spirit of his speech a year ago.

[never cry wolf]

37. Read the speech in my OP, and the speech quoted from Kos

We have instances in April and September of 2005 where Obama states that we should be forward looking with regards to the social safety net, this for instance from September:

"So let's dream. Instead of doing nothing or simply defending 20th century solutions, let's imagine together what we could do to give every American a fighting chance in the 21st century.

What if we prepared every child in America with the education and skills they need to compete in the new economy? If we made sure that college was affordable for everyone who wanted to go? If we walked up to those Maytag workers and we said "Your old job is not coming back, but a new job will be there because we're going to seriously retrain you and there's life-long education that's waiting for you--the sorts of opportunities that Knox has created with the Strong Futures scholarship program.

What if no matter where you worked or how many times you switched jobs, you had health care and a pension that stayed with you always, so you all had the flexibility to move to a better job or start a new business? What if instead of cutting budgets for research and development and science, we fueled the genius and the innovation that will lead to the new jobs and new industries of the future?"

And this from last April:

"Today, we're told by those who want to privatize that promise how much things are different and times have changed since Roosevelt's day.

I couldn't agree more.

A child born in this new century is likely to start his life with both parents - or a single parent - working full-time jobs. They'll try their hardest to juggle work and family, but they'll end up needing child care to keep him safe, cared for, and educated early....

... These are the challenges we face at the beginning of the 21st century. We shouldn't exaggerate; we aren't seeing the absolute deprivation of the Great Depression. But it cannot be denied that families face more risk and greater insecurity than we have known since FDR's time, even as those families have fewer resources available to help pull themselves through the tough spots. Whereas people were once able to count on their employer to provide health care, pensions, and a job that would last a lifetime, today's worker wonders if suffering a heart attack will cause his employer to drop his coverage, worries about how much he can contribute to his own pension fund, and fears the possibility that he might walk into work tomorrow and find his job outsourced."

In light of these statements there is a definite stand and the following quote from the Houston Chronicle is right in line and consistant to that theme:

"He said Democrats "all too often are defending a social safety net that was constructed in the 1930s and '40s. My argument to Democrats has been that we need to cling to the core values that make us Democrats, the belief in universal health care, the belief in universal education, and then we should be agnostic in terms of how to achieve those values."

He is clearly advocating his long held, consistent position that Universal Health and Universal Education should be added to the nation's social safety net.

[Guaranteed]

49. I did! Seriously.

This new quote contradicts what he said before.

He said before that ideologues want to take down the New Deal, and that he was against that. This new quote says that he is quite open to it.

And the "*social* safety net" he refers to certainly includes Social Security. That's basically the most important aspect of the safety net constructed in the 30's and 40's.

He says we're defending that safety net "all too often," and that we should be "agnostic," or more open, as to how to achieve our values. I.E., not through government programs.

You guys don't want to see this. But that's what he said.

[never cry wolf]

52. He is saying no such thing

He is saying that it needs to be updated. Look again at his quote from september:

"So let's dream. Instead of doing nothing or simply defending 20th century solutions, let's imagine together what we could do to give every American a fighting chance in the 21st century."

It means the same thing said this week but is stated in a different way. He has been entirely consistent in pushing for a NEW New Deal which includes universal health care and education. He said it in April, 2005, September, 2005 and again in April, 2006.

[Guaranteed]

54. Updated how?

He's saying we need to be "agnostic" as to how to achieve our values.

What does he MEAN by that, especially in the context of cutting out this defense of the "social safety net" set up in the "30's and 40's"?

Is he saying that we SHOULD make universal healthcare and education governmental programs?

Because with the "agnosticism," and the getting down on the defense of the New Deal, it sure doesn't seem that way.

[never cry wolf]

55. By adding universal health and education to the social safety net

He said in the sentence I quoted above: " Instead of doing nothing or simply defending 20th century solutions,..."

It is clear in all of his statements that he wants to expand the safety net to include many things and thinks it's a mistake to merely be satisfied by doing nothing or defending the status quo.

I am an agnostic. It does not mean I don't care. It means that I believe in a higher power, some call him God, some Allah and many other names, I just don't happen to believe that any one organized religion has all the answers, that they are creations of the mind of man. While I agree, it is a confusing use of the term I believe he is saying that we should keep an open mind as to how to achieve the values of Univ. health and Edu.

Here is a similar usage I found:

"Though I am agnostic on what terms to use, I have no doubt that human infants come with an enormous 'acquisitiveness' for discovering patterns" William H. Calvin

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/agnostic

Reread the following 3 paragraphs from his September speech, paragraph one he essentially says that we need to do more than defend a 70 year old program, but fit it to the current needs. Paragraph two talks about lifelong education, or Universal Education, per se. Paragraph three talks about health care and a pension that stays with you always, or Universal Health Care, per se... Entirely consistent with the ideas quoted in the article this week as well as in his speech a year ago, just in different words and in complete thoughts, not a snippet pulled by a reporter.

"So let's dream. Instead of doing nothing or simply defending 20th century solutions, let's imagine together what we could do to give every American a fighting chance in the 21st century.

What if we prepared every child in America with the education and skills they need to compete in the new economy? If we made sure that college was affordable for everyone who wanted to go? If we walked up to those Maytag workers and we said "Your old job is not coming back, but a new job will be there because we're going to seriously retrain you and there's life-long education that's waiting for you--the sorts of opportunities that Knox has created with the Strong Futures scholarship program.

What if no matter where you worked or how many times you switched jobs, you had health care and a pension that stayed with you always, so you all had the flexibility to move to a better job or start a new business? What if instead of cutting budgets for research and development and science, we fueled the genius and the innovation that will lead to the new jobs and new industries of the future?"

[Guaranteed]

57. That he certainly did not say in the quote. nt

[never cry wolf]

58. Exactly the same sentiments

Where do they differ?

"all too often are defending a social safety net that was constructed in the 1930s and '40s. My argument to Democrats has been that we need to cling to the core values that make us Democrats, the belief in universal health care, the belief in universal education, and then we should be agnostic in terms of how to achieve those values."

Just as in the above speech he says we need to advance beyond a 70 year old program, add universal health and add universal education.

[The Magistrate]

39. That Is Not My Reading, Sir

Privatization is hardly the only reform that could be or had been suggested for Social Security, or public schools for that matter. The statement does not in any clear way reference Social Security at all. The only items Sen. Obama specifically mentioned were health care and education.

Persons are free to read whatever they wish into words, of course; indeed, there is a theory of meaning in studies of semantics which holds that what the utterer intends is of no consequence whatever, and the only meaning a statement contains is that taken from it by a hearer. Though an interesting idea, and of some practical use, even, in understanding how communication does, or does not, work, it is a difficult means by which to navigate a conversation. Nothing in it, for instance, would prevent me from reading your comment above as a whole-souled endorsement of Sen. Obama for President in '08, should that be the meaning it seemed to convey to me....

[Radical Activist]

45. Maybe you've gotten the accusation

because you twisted Obama's remarks and put words in his mouth? Its pretty obvious.

[BlooInBloo]

9. I hate him ANYWAY!!!

I don't care what he said REALLY!

I only care about the words I PUT INTO HIS MOUTH, words that HE NEVER SAID!! And THOSE words are EVIL!

I've been looking for reasons to be OUTRAGED with Obama ever since he was elected, and will now MAKE UP reasons!

:sarcasm:

[madfloridian]

19. Defending myself...will quote a Dem and a Repub blog.

I don't like being said to "misrepresent." It is happening a lot lately, and I will defend myself against such.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Cache from Firedoglake expresses some confusion on this issue as well, from 2004. They appear to agree there needs to be clarification.

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:rhsHUHFC3e4J:firedoglake.blogspot.com/2004/12/social-security-obama-and-ford.html+obama,+social+security&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=7

Which seems to have nothing to do with Social Security, and Obama has said in the past he opposes any attempt to privatize Social Security and wants to use Social Security to "insure the solvency of the system, not plug other budget gaps."

Yet when he appeared on Meet the Press on November 14 of this year, Cato and other pirate-izers were cheering when he added fuel to the "Social Security is Sick and Dying" myth:

The Democratic Senator-elect from Illinois, Barack Obama, gave proponents of PRAs cause for optimism when host Tim Russert asked if common ground could be found between Democrats and Republicans on Social Security. Obama answered: I think that when it comes to Social Security, all of us want to make sure that our senior citizens can retire with dignity and respect. And everybody has to be openminded in thinking how do we firm up a system that, in fact, is going to be in difficulty in the coming years. So I absolutely think that it’s possible for us to find common ground.

Parentheses are from Firedoglake: (I have stated my emphatic belief that there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Social Security system, so I won't go into it here. But if you want to, you can read more in here and here.)"

So they were confused as well at FDL in 04.

And this blog is apparently Republican, as it links to Dick Armey's Freedom Works, and they are very impressed that Obama seems willing to work with Bush on Social Security....so I am not the only one confused. Warning, this post is a little ugly toward Democrats in general.

http://www.extremewisdom.com/archives/2005/02/obama_on_social.php

I confess that there is very little chance that I will ever vote for Obama. I'm pro-life and it appears he never will be. On the other hand, he offers the Democratic Party an opportunity to turn away from its collectivist/obstructionist direction and return to a party of ideals. If he takes that opportunity he will have a place in history. If he does not, he will be a replay of Carol Mostly-Wrong - Illinois' most embarrassing Senator.

I confess to holding out hope for the Senator. He voted for Condi Rice and for Class Action reform. He may be a glimpse of a rebirth of the rational wing of the Democratic Party.

When I discussed PRAs with his staff member, I got the sense that they were willing to listen. (unlike the grotesque Durbin - who slavishly follows his hard left benefactors). If it is true that Senator Obama decides this issue on the basis of reason & policy considerations, he will support personal accounts"

I am trying to be fair, but the statement made this year that I posted needs to addressed. Why is he criticizing Democrats who defend the social safety nets from the 30s and 40s. Both blogs are confused on the issue, one from each side of the aisle. And I am confused, and I did NOT misrepresent.

[never cry wolf]

23. Maybe not misrepresent but possibly misinterpret

It is a somewhat confusing quote which the original context from a transcript may very well show he was quite clear in his full statement.

Please don't take it personally, when I say misinterpret I mean that your interpretation of what he meant is vastly different from how I interpret it and until a transcript of the Q&A is found neither can be sure. However, in light of his past statements and speeches on the subject I find it extremely difficult to believe that he is suddenly for privatization and personally cannot see how that statement could be seen that way.

That's why they make chocolate AND vanilla.

Time will tell, but I'll wager Obama will be pushing hard to add to the social safety net and continue to fight tooth and nail against privatization.

[tishaLA]

25. Sen. Obama has always worked against privatization

That some can suggest otherwise is simply a willful misrepresentation of his long-standing position.

[madfloridian]

27. I did not misrepresent...I used his words.

Please don't say I misrepresent. It is not fair. I found other blogs that were very unfriendly to Obama on this issue, and I prefer not to post them...but I don't like to be called untruthful.

[tishaLA]

29. BTW, the FDL post supports Obama

and says that RWers have been misrepresenting him. LOL! How funny! They say CATO was excited because they misrepresented him as supportive of privatization--but that CATO's position wasn't supported by the facts! They say that Obama's "sympathy" is a invention of the conservative media! LOL! And that they chose a quotation from Sen. Obama about tax credits on IRAs and 401(k)s to bolster their opinion that he was saying something about privatizing SS! How funny!

In fact, FDL says, "Over and over again, the conservative media -- fueled by the Cato Intitute, whose Project on Social Security Choice works tirelessly for the privatization of social security -- refer to Barak Obama (D-Ill) and Harold Ford, Jr. (D-Tenn) as two Democrats sympathetic to the privatization cause."

FDL is not sympathetic toward Rep. Ford, however, who actually DOES have a spotted history on privatization, unlike Sen. Obama.

[madfloridian]

34. Not exactly.

It is pointing out that his interview caused confusion. Which is what I am doing about his statement this week. It is confusing.

[tishaLA]

35. They say the conservative media is confused

Not Obama. They say he should speak out against the misrepresentations, though, as potential future leaders of the party. LOL! How funny that piece critical of the conservative media's misrepresentation of Sen. Obama's position is itself misrepresented! And on a Democratic message board!

[madfloridian]

38. Ok.

If that is how you prefer to read it.

How do you read this statement from the new Rubin initiative on the economy...should we define "old tired ideologies"? Or not.

"The Hamilton Project, which will be based at the Brookings Institution, a think-tank, will be run by Peter Orszag, an economist and senior fellow at Brookings. Policy papers unveiled yesterday proposed vouchers for summer schools and giving teachers tenure based on standards for effectiveness. “That is not consistent with certain orthodoxies we are familiar with. I think that’s a fairly controversial proposal. I wouldn’t say that’s a yawner,” said Mr Altman.

The white paper also called for entitlement reform but acknowledged the political constraints that helped stall Mr Bush’s drive to reform Social Security. “The principal problem is one of political choice and will and what is most needed is a bipartisan approach for deciding among the options,” it said.

Barack Obama, a Democrat senator from Illinois, welcomed the initiative as a way of transcending “tired ideologies”."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x855506

You need to read the whole article about Rubin's plan. He is criticizing Democrats who argue with foreign ownership of our assets.

Although the board, which includes Wall Street executives and academics, is dominated by Democrats, Mr Rubin denied that the project was driven by purely partisan motivations.

The initiative defended open competition and trade at a time when some Democrats have become more hostile to the foreign ownership of US assets, but it called for a stronger government role in helping those affected by globalisation. Mr Altman said more inclusive economic growth could “blunt the political

This is what Obama is on board with, and I question some of his statements while much respecting him. Continue to bash me, continue to ignore, but think about what is happening.

[tishaLA]

40. That's not how I "read" it

That's what it says. You misrepresent something that critiques the conservative media's misrepresentations of Sen. Obama's positions! It's almost the definition of irony.

For the record, the blog posting on FDL actually DOES criticize Rep. Ford. But not Sen. Obama.

[never cry wolf]

32. From Kos last September

Time for Obama's Message - Social Darwinism

I believe Barack Obama was extremely accurate in his Commencement Address at Knox College that the issues we face now are due to one fundamental issue:

Social Darwinism

* Zergle's diary :: ::
*

I want to start with a quote from Mr Obama's speech:


Like so much of the American story, once again, we face a choice. Once again, there are those who believe that there isn't much we can do about this as a nation. That the best idea is to give everyone one big refund on their government--divvy it up by individual portions, in the form of tax breaks, hand it out, and encourage everyone to use their share to go buy their own health care, their own retirement plan, their own child care, their own education, and so on.

In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society. But in our past there has been another term for it--Social Darwinism--every man or woman for him or herself. It's a tempting idea, because it doesn't require much thought or ingenuity. It allows us to say that those whose health care or tuition may rise faster than they can afford--tough luck. It allows us to say to the Maytag workers who have lost their job--life isn't fair. It let's us say to the child who was born into poverty--pull yourself up by your bootstraps. And it is especially tempting because each of us believes we will always be the winner in life's lottery, that we're the one who will be the next Donald Trump, or at least we won't be the chump who Donald Trump says: "You're fired!"

snip---------

This is the message that the Democrats need to grab onto with both hands and get across to the nation. Right now. Make sure people understand what today's "conservative" values actually are. What they really mean by "Ownership Society". Barack Obama is the perfect person to get this message out. He can relate to African Americans in a way very few politicians could. He understands the plight of not just African American's, but American's as a whole. He speaks clearly and his message resonates.

snip-------- (emphasis is original)
more from the speech, link to it is at Kos:

So let's dream. Instead of doing nothing or simply defending 20th century solutions, let's imagine together what we could do to give every American a fighting chance in the 21st century.

What if we prepared every child in America with the education and skills they need to compete in the new economy? If we made sure that college was affordable for everyone who wanted to go? If we walked up to those Maytag workers and we said "Your old job is not coming back, but a new job will be there because we're going to seriously retrain you and there's life-long education that's waiting for you--the sorts of opportunities that Knox has created with the Strong Futures scholarship program.

What if no matter where you worked or how many times you switched jobs, you had health care and a pension that stayed with you always, so you all had the flexibility to move to a better job or start a new business? What if instead of cutting budgets for research and development and science, we fueled the genius and the innovation that will lead to the new jobs and new industries of the future?

end of snips---------

Seems to me there is a recurring theme here about improving the social safety net, rather than defending the status quo...

Just some more context...

edit to add link: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/9/6/11354/20408

[Ms. Clio]

28. Thanks very much for posting that

I think I did misjudge him on this issue - his words here are very heartening.

[Czolgosz]

42. Shouldn't that be: Breaking - Obama's vote matches his rhetoric (for once)

[Radical Activist]

44. I'm sure what he REALLY means

is that he wants to privatize and destroy the safety net. Just read between the lines!!! :eyes:
Thanks for debunking some of the recent Obama BS.

[madfloridian]

46. Obama supports the savings accounts put forth by the DLC....

which would only work when there is a surplus, as there was in 1999 when the DLC and Clinton came out with this program.

Sadly this is the way we are going to go, and no one is thinking of the harm to those on Social Security already...and those who are about to retire.

This is another way to get the government out of the safety net program. It is called by the DLC itself, "partial privatization." A first step.

Here is what he presented in July 04.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Barack_Obama_Social_Security.htm
$2000 tax credit for Working Families Savings Accounts

Obama today proposed Working Families Savings Accounts to increase
retirement security and give families a greater incentive to save. "The best
way for our government to help ensure that every American can retire with
dignity is to provide incentives for middle-class families to save for the
future," said Obama. "My Working Families Savings Accounts plan gives
working men and women earning up to $50,000 per year the opportunity to put
money in a retirement plan, whether it's an IRA or an employer based 401(k),
and have that money matched with a 50 percent tax credit for contributions
up to $2,000."

Here is the DLC write-up on the Universal Savings Accounts...which is the same thing Obama proposed. This sounds good, and it means well, but it was done when there was a surplus. Now there is a huge deficit, just as there was in 2004.

http://www.ppionline.org/ndol/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=125&subid=165&contentid=695

"One of the major reasons the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) has supported a two-tiered or partial privatization approach (one that maintains a government-provided retirement "safety net" while moving towards private savings accounts for individual pensions) to Social Security reform is to give the poor a means for accumulating income-producing wealth for retirement. In the past, we have praised the Moynihan-Kerrey proposal to carve out a portion of the Social Security payroll tax to seed private accounts, in part because that may be the only way to get low-income families onto the savings ladder.

President Clinton did not embrace the carve-out approach in announcing his proposal for extending the solvency of the Social Security system early this year. Rather, the President's proposal for private savings, Universal Savings Account (USA), would be an add-on to Social Security. It would give all lower- and most middle-income families an annual $600 federal tax credit to seed a tax-free personal retirement savings account. Most importantly, the federal government (through a refundable tax credit) would match private savings up to $700 per year per couple for low-to-moderate income families. That means an eligible household where the husband and wife each saved $350 per year would wind up with $2,000 a year placed in their USA account."

This statement is in the words of the DLC, yet people still are attacking me for misrepresenting...I am using their own words. So bring it on, I guess.

partial privatization approach (one that maintains a government-provided retirement "safety net" while moving towards private savings accounts for individual pensions) to Social Security reform is to give the poor a means for accumulating income-producing wealth for retirement.

I am sorry, but in their own words they are saying they are moving toward privatization. Obama introduced this in July 2004, and I am misrepresenting?

[never cry wolf]

47. From FDL

The same page as you quoted above, Obama's proposal has nothing to do with SS.

"Is there any truth to these allegations? Well, in the case of Obama, it seems that they are referring to is his proposal for Working Families Savings Accounts. According to the AP:

said his plan would give people making less than $50,000 a year a 50 percent tax credit for contributions of up to $2,000 to an IRA or 401(k)....

Which seems to have nothing to do with Social Security, and Obama has said in the past he opposes any attempt to privatize Social Security and wants to use Social Security to "insure the solvency of the system, not plug other budget gaps."

So, he wants to give a tax break to lower middle income families and below to help them contribute to an IRA. That is NOT privatization.

on edit:

Yes, you ARE misrepresenting. Obama's proposal has nothing to do with the DLC proposal. He does not in any way want to connect it to SS, merely help middle and lower income families start their own account with their own money, not SS money, by giving them a tax break.

Has Obama any time, any where endorsed the DLC plan or even commented on it? I do know that at one time the DLC had him listed as a member and he informed them of their error and requested his name be removed.

To say that because Obama's plan and the DLC plan have a couple of details that sound similar means that he endorses the DLC plan IS a gross distortion.

on second edit: Here is the last statement in your above post, and it is extremely misleading:

"I am sorry, but in their own words they are saying they are moving toward privatization. Obama introduced this in July 2004, and I am misrepresenting?"

The justaposition of saying the DLC in their own words are moving towards privatization with noting "Obama introduced this in July 2004," seems to imply that Obama introduced the DLC plan moving towards privatization. It is along the lines of the admin starting a sentence with "Sadaam" and ending it with "9/11." The two simply have nothing to do with each other.

[Radical Activist]

59. Thanks for clearing that up.

I can only guess why madf is so desperate to slander Obama with the most twisted misinterpretations.

[never cry wolf]

60. I can only guess also

I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt as to the motive but that last sentence is so obviously misleading it surely must be intentional.

And you're quite welcome.

[tishaLA]

48. Yes, you're misrepresenting. Again.

He supports a TAX CREDIT for people making under $50K to help with retirement. Why? Because it is difficult for families making under $50K to contribute to 401(k) and IRA accounts and it will make it easier for them when they retire.

It is not part of "privatization" or "partial privatization," but part of keeping working class people out of poverty when they start collecting SS. Too many formerly middle/working class people become impoverished when they retire because they couldn't save for retirement. This provides a bonus to them in the form of a tax credit; it does nothing to increase privatization.

And it has nothing to do with the DLC at all.

[madfloridian]

50. Ok.

They sure do sound a lot alike. FDL was right, it confused CATO and that is one smart institute...so I don't feel bad about being confused. That plan sure does sound just like the partial privatization on the way to privization...but I said that didn't I?

Come on, guys. Let's be fair. Ok? I really like Obama, but he needs to be clear on stuff. That plan sounds just like the other one.

But if you say it isn't, I guess I am wrong again...maybe. Actually I believe our party is totally on board with personal accounts, and when push comes to shove it will show. I believe they are all on board, not just Obama...and they have been humoring us by pretending not to be.

:shrug: :shrug:

[tishaLA]

51. No, CATO is an ideological institute

hell-bent, as FDL points out, on demonstrating false bipartisan support for something Sen. Obama has repeatedly NOT supported.

And no, it doesn't sound like partial privatization as a way to privatization, something Sen. Obama has repeatedly spoken out against. Instead, it sound like a tax credit to encourage savings among working/middle class families so they don't fall into poverty at retirement, as so many middle and working class families do. After all, as even FDR said, SS is not supposed to be the only retirement plan; it is supposed to be part of a comprehensive puzzle that works alongside pensions, etc. Sadly, pension funds have been gutted by corporations, which makes tax credits (i.e., Sen. Obama's plan) even more worthwhile.

[madfloridian]

53. Media Matters corrected right wing media when they said that about FDR.

I found the link for you so you would not have to do it.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200502100009

What you quoted is wrong, and I am correcting you on it. This is a long write-up, but worth reading.

I am sorry you find it more important to find me wrong than to question when our Democratic leaders are not speaking clearly.

[tishaLA]

56. That's not what I said

I said that FDR believed that SS was only one component in retirement, not the whole answer (to quote myself: "as even FDR said, SS is not supposed to be the only retirement plan; it is supposed to be part of a comprehensive puzzle that works alongside pensions, etc."). The Media Matters article addresses something else completely, which is the conservative media's contention that FDR advocated eventual privatization, something he obviously did not and something I never addressed. Indeed, as the Media Matters piece says in the first paragraph, "Roosevelt advocated voluntary contributory annuities...to supplement guaranteed Social Security benefits" <emphasis added>; those are things like 401(k)s (which did not exist then to my knowledge) and IRAs, which Sen. Obama recommends giving tax credits for. In other words, Media Matters agrees with me although you want to pretend it disagrees with me.

I'm sorry you find it more important to misrepresent not only Sen. Obama but also me and that you continue to say we are not speaking clearly when the words are perfectly clear.

ETA: closing quotation mark