Ouch! Obama, Social Security, Bipartisanship and Getting suckered

[Warpy]

Lately, Barack Obama has been saying that major action is needed to avert what he keeps calling a “crisis” in Social Security — most recently in an interview with The National Journal. Progressives who fought hard and successfully against the Bush administration’s attempt to panic America into privatizing the New Deal’s crown jewel are outraged, and rightly so.

But Mr. Obama’s Social Security mistake was, in fact, exactly what you’d expect from a candidate who promises to transcend partisanship in an age when that’s neither possible nor desirable.

-----snip----
We all wish that American politics weren’t so bitter and partisan. But if you try to find common ground where none exists — which is the case for many issues today — you end up being played for a fool. And that’s what has just happened to Mr. Obama.

Much more from Krugman at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/16/opinion/16krugman.html

[AX10]

1. K/R

I want a real fighter, and I'm sorry, but Obama is not one.
Krugman said it best, once we sedate the extreme right wing, just as FDR did, then we can be "bi-partisan" once again. Once we get certain policies and ideals accepted into the mainstream of this country, then we can have another Eisenhower. Eisenhower was a moderate who worked with both sides to get things done. We are at the same point where we were in the 1930's. If we did not have a warrior such as FDR, the progressive movement would have been crushed and everything that came along with it too. By everything, I mean Social Security, Job-Security, Infracstrucure...etc..

[rocktivity]

2. TORO TURD!--Privatizing Social Security is what panders to the right

At the debate, Obama suggested eliminating the $96K salary cap, Hillary said it would tax the middle class, Obama pointed out that it would tax only the top six per cent of wage earners, Hillary was embarrassed, and now Krugman is trying to clean up after her by claiming that there's nothing wrong with Social Security and that eliminating the salary cap panders to the right.

Bush pushed privatization only because his big-bucks cronies and backers would cash in. The majority of the American public (not a handful of noisy radical "progressives") rejected privatization because they realized it was A STUPID IDEA and A SCAM, not because it would break something that doesn't need fixing. Eliminating the salary cap would allow the middle class to pay a LOWER rate, Hillary. Oh, and Paul, if there's nothing wrong with Social Security, raising or eliminating the salary cap can only make MORE solvent!

:eyes:
rocknation

[papau]

4. Well said - remove the cap and drop the employees portion tax rate by 1.5%

[MasonJar]

3. Excuse me, Rock, but I do not see any reason that Krugman would shill

for any particular candidate. Isn't it just possible that Krugman believes exactly what he says. He is most often right. If one reads the entire article, one finds that he is not criticizing Obama in general, but rather on this one very important issue. I, for one, who has been fortunate enough to hear Obama orate (he's another Winston Churchill) twice, was surprised when he entered the race. At his age I fail to see how getting another 8 years of experience and work for the party behind him would have been a negative.

[depakid]

5. Krugman also understands the program and the various agendas

Remove the cap or do means testing and you turn social security into just another entitlement program.

Which makes it MUCH easier to "reform" or do away with.

[rocktivity]

6. How can it be an entitlement program if you have to work for it?

And look at all the entitlements the non-working rich get!

:crazy:
rocknation