I'm not sure if it was the NYT or Obama, or some pressure group trying to commit Obama by putting words in his mouth.

Whatever, it has got me worried.

I think it's Obama talking. As I recall he resorted to Republican talking points about the looming social security "crisis" already in his campaign. It's a mystery to me why any American voter ever thought he would bring change to the US, in domestic or foreign policy. In economic policy, it'll be bailouts for Wall Street and tax cuts for the rich coupled with budget cuts to the programs that make up the safety net for the swelling numbers of the poor. And social security, too, will be in Obama's sights. The Pentagon and defense contractors will of course continue to do well. In health care policy, it'll be the insurance companies crafting it, as they have been till now. So more skyrocketing costs, waste, inefficiency, profits for the private sector, and increasingly crappy and unaffordable care. Don't even get me started on foreign policy. Just look at his picks, from VP Biden to the latest, Dennis "let's bomb Iran" Ross.

Nope, no change here, folks. Obama is not going to solve America's problems, he will merely preside over their continuation and exacerbation, perhaps to the point of the nation's economic collapse. Which may not be such a bad thing, if it means that the US will be forced through lack of funds to finally curtail its ongoing violence and terrorism (and that of its best friend Israel) against foreign populations.

I would not be a bit surprised to find President Obama going after SS and Medicare benefits. But it's going to be difficult, given that so many near retirees are going to be almost entirely dependent on those benefits for their survival. Neither their houses nor their 401ks will be able to fund their retirement for, say, the next 20 years.

What I find so interesting is that the powers what be (Obama included) rattle on as though 401ks only took a little dip and housing prices would bounce back in a year or so.

It's just another episode in the long-running NYT war on Social Security.

Nothing new here, beyond putting their words in Obama's mouth.

Obama is pure DLC ...

Instead of raising revenue by increasing taxes and closing loopholes for the well to do and the corporations this is what we get: More "on the back foot" rhetoric.

Instead of saying we have to raise taxes to pay for our wars we get entitlement gibberish ...

Obama is going fail miserably ... It's clearly on all the cards ...

Obama is pure DLC ...

Instead of raising revenue by increasing taxes and closing loopholes for the well to do and the corporations this is what we get: More "on the back foot" rhetoric.

Instead of saying we have to raise taxes to pay for our wars we get entitlement gibberish ...

Obama is going fail miserably ... It's clearly on all the cards ...

I think the only conclusion you can draw is that Obama plans to cut entitlements, just the way that Bill Clinton did until the Lewinsky scandal made him back off. Here's something I wrote about Obama's economic advisers, a ghastly bunch if there ever was one:

http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2008/01/09/obamas-economic-advisers/

As I recall Obama said sometime ago, I believe in both primary and general, that he was looking to raise the FICA CAP. Next by overhauling my guess, and it is just that a guess. He is looking at SS and other programs to make them most efficient and cost effective to bring them into the 21st Century. However as Dean said no where has he said he has plans to cut what is paid to the American people from SS.

I'm usually a lemon-sucking pessimist, but it's always possible that the situation will deteriorate in a way that makes Obama see the error of the DLC way. Don't count on it, but it's possible.

Proof! I need to see some links confirming Obama's real position.

He may be DLC, but the DLC when I last looked opposed Privatization.

Obama was responding to a loaded question presented by a reporter from the Wall Street Journal; a Rupert Murdoch owned newspaper representing Wall Street fatcats who slobbered at the notion of privatizing/gutting Social Security.

Take that into context.

Obama's position during the campaign was that he would do nothing to or with social security during any of his possible two terms in office. He proposed introducing fica tax on those making more than $250,000 in 2019, if the mid-range or worse projections regarding the social security accounts comes true.

MiHi and Rosser's clarifications noted, and much appreciated.

Thanks

Just to be more precise, there was a change in Obama's position. At first he was for making the change in fica to happen soon after he took office. However, he later rather quietly changed that position to the one I stated above, of doing it in 2019 if it is needed then (which would be long after he is out of office, even if he serves two full terms). This change may have been influenced by a memo that Bruce Webb and I wrote that got sent to the upper reaches of his campaign last spring.

Obama has never supported privatization or cutting benefits, although who knows, maybe Larry Summers will be pushing such crud as he did under Clinton, one reason I would prefer to see somebody like Jamie Galbraith in that position, or even Jason Furman.

I thought the NYT article had ominous overtones. Baker is absolutely right that the headline and lead might not be accurate representations of Obama's views - but unfortunately, that a pretty weak statement. Neither Baker's quote from Obama's press conference, nor the rest of the NYT article give us much indication of exactly what Obama's position is.

In the third last paragraph of the article Obama is quoted as saying "My preference would be that the private sector was doing this all on their own." That could be read literally - but as much of Baker's own writing tells us, that may be more of an ideological statement about setting up rules that favor certain interests (wealthy private business) over others. Also, there is the comment from the article in which Obama says the White House will "scour the budget line by line, eliminating what we don't need." This just doesn't sound good. It's possible that this might mean reducing, say, military spending, but it's also possible (and I think more likely given history) that this means going after programs that benefit poorer people. Also, as I believe Baker would point out, it's not necessary right now to reduce the deficit by cutting programs, when the country needs economic stimulus.

I think the thing I'm most worried about is WHO is going to decide "what we don't need" and "what doesn't work" and by what criteria. The people who represent constituencies that are wealthy and pro-business don't need various social welfare programs - and obviously perceive social security as a program that doesn't work (i.e. doesn't work for them).

It's frustrating not to know exactly what's going on. I'm sure everyone hopes that the sense of fear about the economy is not going to be used to ram through changes to social security and medicare that will be detrimental to the interests of the people who benefit from those programs. However, I don't think we have strong evidence that the Obama administration isn't going to try to use the crisis---and importantly the large amount of popular political goodwill---to make pro-business changes to social programs as they "scour the budget line by line."

Tomorrow on Stephanapolis Obama is going to say that he is going to take on Social Security. I have called my Senators. One is a Republican and one is a Democrat who both say to mess with SS right now is the wrong way to go in this economy.

When you hurt Seniors you hurt everyone. If Seniors are volnurable then their children will have to take care of them and families are already stretched to the limit. In one breath Obama talks stimulus and deficit reduction. He wants to make the tax cuts for the rich permanent (3.5 trillion) while talking about cutting Social Security and means testing it. Why because he wants his budget passed by both sides of the isle. This will not satisfy either party.

Re: bottom line,

I caught part of Stephanopolous and Obama. Obama spoke on Medicare, but only Stephanopolous asked (a leading) question on SS. Obama did not pick up on the SS question.

Right now I remain watchful but not cynical.

It seems to me that someone coming into office and bringing with him so many people from the Clinton era is not going to change much except go back to that time. He is showing his non-experience by bringing them in with him. I have feelings that his plans are only going to hurt the poor and help the rich get richer and dammed be the poor who depend on Social security to pay medical bills and utiliy bills just so they can have a roof over therir head and have some simbalence of dignigty in their last years after working hard all their lives and not being wealthy enogh to even have a 401k. Most of us on Social security have worked hard to raise our children and haven'[t been able to save a dime for retirement.

From scouring these posts, it looks like Obama has NEVER suggested he was going to lower social security benefits. We are all trying to read between the lines, and there is a lot of focusing on worst-case scenarios ("He didn't say X, which might be constued as implying Y, etc."). Obama campaigned continually (if vaguely) on helping the poor and struggling--maybe not as much as John Edwards, but it was a recurring theme in his campaign. I think a lot of his supporters would consider it a real betrayal if he made any big regressive moves (like lowering SS benefits), and I don't think he would want to open himself up to that criticism.

It brings up a question. Considering that the baby boomers are on the cusp of retirement and the next two generations perceiving the money they paid in to SS won't be returned, is this why he keeps comparing himself to Lincoln?

As of today this can still be found at the Obama 2008 website (bolding mine)

Obama and Biden are committed to ensuring Social Security is solvent and viable for the American people, now and in the future. Obama and Biden will be honest with the American people about the long-term solvency of Social Security and the ways we can address the shortfall. Obama and Biden will protect Social Security benefits for current and future beneficiaries alike. And they do not believe it is necessary or fair to hardworking seniors to raise the retirement age. Obama and Biden are strongly opposed to privatizing Social Security. As part of a bipartisan plan that would be phased in over many years, they will ask those making over $250,000 to contribute a bit more to Social Security to keep it sound.
Obama does not support uncapping the full payroll tax of 12.4 percent rate. Instead, he and Joe Biden are considering plans that would ask those making over $250,000 to pay in the range of 2 to 4 percent more in total (combined employer and employee).

Thanks to all for the comments..I am in my 40's, am very ill due to not one, but two major illnesses, but used to work a full & part time job at the same time. Now all I have is my SS and truly depend upon Medicare for my hospitalizations (8 in 2008!) If medical is cut, what are we to do? I've been in hospital ER's where there are illegal aliens in there for freakin' PREGNANCY TESTS!! Not kidding, I verified such with the hospital. How much does THAT cost all of us? If Obama tries to take medical care cuts from those of us who truly need it, there is going to be alot of PO'd people in AMERICA. Oh, and how much is this inauguration going to cost on Tuesday? This morning I heard 150M dollars. Could he have said to tone it down due to the state of this nation? Hmmmmmmm........

Stop Dreaming Start Action

What I find so interesting is that the powers what be (Obama included) rattle on as though 401ks only took a little dip and housing prices would bounce back in a year or so.