Obama's Social Security Whopper

Redistribute the wealth? No. Republican tax policy redistributed the wealth upwards. Democrats just want to put it back the way it was. Obama's "whopper"? A minor technicality that only serves to emphasize how devious the Republicans are: the Republican plan was to phase in privatization gradually so current voters wouldn't be hurt - only future ones. The fact that it wouldn't have applied to today's seniors - only to their children and grandchildren - only serves to emphasize how clever Republicans are at gaming the democracy.

So let me get this straight: You're calling it a whopper just because McCain wants to PHASE IN the casino plan so we can screw over our young people when they become seniors rather than starting with today's seniors? I'd call that a minor technicality that doesn't change the basic truth: McCain wants to privatize social security. But in order to get his way politically, he has to screw over the seniors of the future rather than those of today. Today's "market failure" won't be the last one - especially if Republicans continue to get their way!

After what the McCain camp has done in this election, I think Obama is entitled to tell all the whoppers he wants.

Decide for yourself voters:

"We must privatize social security." -John McCain, on CSPAN, 2004

"I am always for less regulation. I am fundamentally a deregulator." -John McCain, in an interview with the Washington Post, March 2008

Gosh, I guess you accidently forgot to mention all the whoppers McCain is running -- like the claim Obama will raise taxes on the middle class -- a big fat lie -- & the claim a black guy who walked into Obama's office once & never saw Obama is his financial adviser. Articles like this & your pro-torture-it's-not-Bush's-fault opinions are why I don't buy Newsweek any more.

I don't think your facts check out. Born in 1954 I would be forced out of SS and into private accounts according to the Bush/McCain plan. Fact check is very misleading by saying leaving the SS plan with the current benefits was an option. You either opted out and were on your own with no guarantees or you had SS Jr. with greatly reduced benefits. If SS is ever going to change it has to be grandfathered in with workers when the earn their first pay with payroll deductions. To change the game in the middle of professional careers is really cheating. Another way would be to buy people out of the SS program with large lump sums they could invest or blow. Then they can go on welfare and medicaid when they shoot the wad. It's about time we realize that we should stay with what we have and increase the caps, raise rates, etc. SS is one of the best programs the US has ever created. It would be stupid to kill it.

Another piece of trash.We all know John Mccain wants to " privatise social security".
What does privatising social security entails?.The question is not whether Mccain will put this age or that age in private accounts.The very idea to put whatever age to private accounts means "investing their hard won benefits in these financial instruments that have buried the US economy into $11.6 trillion dollars of privatised social losses.can this moron offer any gurantee that any 'privatising' from or bush will "gurantee' these accounts??.
What is clear is reaganonomics and deregulation are not the economics for the 21st century.They're old concepts of the ;cold war'.Infact the idea of small government is as redundant as the bush republican administration!!1.

Not so fast there, sonny. I???m an early senior citizen, and according to the Bush plan I???ll continue to collect Social Security for the next twenty years, with any luck. But the Bush plan calls for younger people in the workforce to leave the system and set up their own accounts; so who will pay for my Social Security checks? Bush was pretty quiet about this, because the correct answer is that the federal government will have a huge unfunded mandate and will have to raise taxes massively or plunge further into debt to meet it. If McCain or any like-minded President is in the White House, taxes won???t be increased to cover it. Most likely the feds will start messing with Social Security benefits ??? reducing them net of inflation, taxing them, or something. Or we???ll borrow the money, and the funds that I collect will be in an ever more anemic currency. So much for our plans for foreign travel. Obama has the details wrong, and he should stop making his point that way, but in one important respect he???s right: we???d get screwed.

I don't see any whoppers in Obama's statement. His statement is a what-if hypothetical. Considering that without Social security, half of elderly woman today would be in poverty (a statement of fact), then if their Social security had been invested in the stock market they have seen their funds dwindle as the market tumbled. This isn't a lie it is logical common sense. He did not mention the specifics of any privatization plan; this is an observation
geggeneralo observation

What Obama said about Social Security certainly has more truth in it than McCain continuously saying Obama will raise your taxes. I would bet that the percentage of Americans born after 1950 who would have their Social Security affected by privatization is much higher than the 10 or 15% of Americans who would have their taxes increased by Obama's tax plan.

Obama supporters can't fault FactCheck for holding Obamato the same standard that wish that McCain and Palin were held to.

Admit it - in the strictest sense, what Obama said was untrue. That's simply a true fact.

Just let the public gauge the relative integrity of the the candidates based on their "mistatements."

Obama's mistatement only accelerated the intended result of the privatization plan - to move the Social Security contributions of Americans into the stock market. He said it would be impacting current retirees, and the truth is that it would impact future retirees.

On the other hand, McCain's mistatement of the sex education bill that Obama supported was an obvious attempt to distort. Even through the lens of partisianship, it's preposterous to imply that "age appropriate" sex education means that you teach kindergarteners the same thing that you teach high school kids.

America will also gauge the sincerity of McCain's newfound zeal for Wall Street regulation versus his long history of prclaiming himself to be an opponent of regulation.

The facts speak for themselves.