When “Change” Means “Retain Bankrupt, 75 Year Old Program”
From The New Editor:
Some things never change.
Democrats still demagogue when it comes to the issue of Social Security — even when it comes from the party’s presidential ‘change’ candidate from Chicago, Sen. Barack Obama.
The Chicago Tribune’s John McCormick reports that the Chicago Democrat is practicing the same scare tactics the Dems have engaged in for at least 30 years.
The Tribune’s McCormick quotes Sen. Obama, who was giving a speech before a Florida audience Saturday:
“… if my opponent had his way, the millions of Floridians who rely on it would’ve had their Social Security tied up in the stock market this week. How do you think that would have made folks feel?”
Of course, people who advocate the ‘privatization’ of Social Security, do not propose that retirees have their money in the stock market. By the time people retire, they would have their retirement money in income-producing investments like bonds, annuities, and short-term cash securities.
Someone might want to explain that to the Ivy League-educated Chicago Democrat.
McCormick continues:
During a campaign stop on a university campus here, Obama said millions would have watched as the “market tumbled” and their “nest egg disappeared” before their eyes.
“Millions of families would’ve been scrambling to figure out how to give their mothers and their fathers, their grandmothers and grandfathers, the secure retirement that every American deserves,” he said.
We can be sure that scores of reporters in the mainstream media will point out this blatant misrepresentation of the truth by the Chicago Democrat.
Given that the stock market is more than 40% higher than it was 10 years ago, you’d think that all but the most obtuse among us would recognise the value of switching over from our antique Social Security to some sort of privatised retirement system. People who pay attention to facts tend to move towards favorability on privatisation…those who live in a fantasy world retain their faith in the system as is. Sadly, it turns out that we can translate “most obtuse” to mean “Democratic nominee for President”.
There are so many good reasons to privatise - increased wealth creation; more secure retirment; legacy for heirs; independence from corporate and government America; reduced government power over our lives. Placed in the scales against this is the Democratic desire to control our lives, and to this point this Democratic desire has outweighed reality. Obama is now using the long standing Democratic scare tactic - as if people should feel confident that government management of our money is a good idea, seeing as the quasi-governmental Fannie and Freddie - carefully following government demands - have caused a financial meltdown which will hit the taxpayers for about $700 billion. Get the money away from government, keep it in the hands of the people, and we not only will be wealthier and more independent, but government will lack the funds to set up corrupt systems which will cost us, in the end, so much money.
Hopefully when we get McCain and Palin running the show we’ll be able to cut through the smog of government, corporate and liberal BS which has burdened our nation for so long.
61 comments September 20th, 2008
