CNN/FactCheck.Org Not Accurate about the Obama Attacks? MISSING Pages from McCain's Website!!

Recently, this is what FactCheck had to say about Obama's attack on McCain regarding the privatization of Social Security: (P.S., I recently added them as a recommended site - You Decide - As I allow myself to retort!)

Obama would have been correct to say that many workers under age 58 would have had some portion of their Social Security benefits affected by the current market turmoil – if they had chosen to participate. And market drops would be a worry for those who retire in future decades. But current retirees (would not have been affected. factcheck.org September 20, 2008

Well, that would have affected perhaps the millions whom are on disability. Which leads to the fact that THIS part of the statement is true (see below as to how privatization of younger workers AFFECTS the payments of current recipients):

Obama, Sept. 20: And I'll protect Social Security, while John McCain wants to privatize it. Without Social Security half of elderly women would be living in poverty - half. But 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. factcheck.org September 20, 2008

---

And as to this statement:

(From Obama) Millions of families would've been scrambling to figure out how to give their mothers and fathers, their grandmothers and grandfathers, the secure retirement that every American deserves. So I know Senator McCain is talking about a "casino culture" on Wall Street - but the fact is, he's the one who wants to gamble with your life savings. factcheck.org September 20, 2008

Yes, I know many retirees that have investments on Wall Street (such as the holdouts with Microsoft, etc. - I personally told them to dump it this summer). Life savings IS NOT Social Security, so please address the facts of the speech.

That's untrue. All current retirees would be covered by exactly the same Social Security benefits they are now under what the Obama campaign likes to call the "Bush-McCain privatization plan," which Bush pushed for unsuccessfully in 2005. factcheck.org September 20, 2008

Umm, no, but details ARE coming up (Patience is a virtue). McCain IS proposing to cut the amounts of benefits recipients receive, perhaps not 50%, but up to 20% or more. And future cuts would not be out of the question (if his proposals had proven to be favorable).

Bush Plan: Personal retirement accounts would be phased in. To ease the transition to a personal retirement account system, participation would be phased in according to the age of the worker. In the first year of implementation, workers currently between age 40 and 54 (born 1950 through 1965 inclusive) would have the option of establishing personal retirement accounts. In the second year, workers currently between age 26 and 54 (born 1950 through 1978 inclusive) would be given the option and by the end of the third year, all workers born in 1950 or later who want to participate in personal retirement accounts would be able to do so. factcheck.org September 20, 2008

The problem with this - as pointed out by all concerned (i.e. congresses, and why it didn't pass) - IS THAT CURRENT PARTICIPANTS WOULD BE AFFECTED. That's right. But how, you may ask? Because, due to the years of raiding of the Trust Account for other "Emergency Purposes", the system is now a PAY AS YOU GO system. That means, the taxes coming in PAY for the benefits that recipients receive now. Ergo, if you divert the taxes of those born AFTER 1950 (and how many is that you may wonder?), BENEFITS WOULD NOT BE SUSTAINABLE FOR THOSE ALREADY ON THE SYSTEM (even if its only 4% or so). Thanks (though Bush isn't the first to want to raid the fund, others have done it since Reagan).

It is certainly true that the stock market carries risks, as recent events remind us. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is down nearly 17 percent for this year, for example, and despite gains in other years it is still barely above where it was at the start of 2000. But historically there have also been rewards for those who make diversified investments and hold for long periods. When Obama spoke, the Dow Jones average still stood 305 percent higher than it had at the start of the 1990's. factcheck.org September 20, 2008

I will be forthcoming with an article re: the failure of the bailout to actually fix the problem - the predestined crash of the economy. Let's just say, that as the site for Stop the Debt Consumerism, this just doesn't hold true (think housing bubble replaced by stock market bubble).

While McCain has voted in favor creating private Social Security accounts in the past, and endorsed Bush's 2005 proposal (which never came to a vote in Congress), he is not making a strong push for them as part of his campaign. In fact, a search for the term "Social Security" on the McCain-Palin Web site brings up the following: "No documents were found." factcheck.org September 20, 2008

And, On his Web site, McCain says he "supports supplementing the current Social Security system with personal accounts — but not as a substitute for addressing benefit promises that cannot be kept." The Web site does not specify how those accounts would operate. But McCain supported President Bush's plan in 2005 to allow some workers to place a limited amount of their payroll taxes into private accounts, which would have been invested in stock or bond funds. From CNN's Josh Levs September 21, 2008

Well, THAT is the meat and potatoes of my argument. You see, I was facing a few forum debates regarding Obama's pre-nomination status, particularly among VERY disgruntled Hillary supporters. My stance had, and has always been, regardless of whom won the nomination, I would support the candidate BASED ON THE ISSUES, NOT WHETHER THEY WERE A WOMAN VS. A MAN (perhaps race did have something to do with their arguments, but if so, they could not admit it).

So, as opposed to relying on various blogs spouting their interpretation based on whom they supported (at that time, yes, Obama was supposed to be a Muslim), in May and June of 2008, I was forced to rely on the economic policies of the respective websites for McCain and Obama.

AT THAT TIME, McCain's plan laid out specifics for Social Security, though it was WELL HIDDEN!! However, Privatization was laid out as a way to shore up the "FAILING" system (note, its not failing yet, people whom were taxed by it - should receive the benefits of it, and if you folks didn't have the money earmarked for other purposes, we wouldn't be having this discussion!!)

The Plan ALSO CALLED FOR A REDUCTION OF BENEFITS - UP TO 20% or more!! The pages were there, they have since been removed from the site (since this would have DEFINITELY brought a loss to the beleagued campaign that needed a Palin nomination to reboot its base). There was not doubt, that the Obama campaign had access to these pages (which went POOF - to bad I didn't save a copy). And, Obama's campaign statements WERE IN FACT, based on the information provided by McCain's Economic plan. (What candidate would NOT be spelling out their position on Social Security in detail - given the Senior and disability Vote - Just check with AARP!!)

---

But wait - we have another OOPS from factcheck.org:

The "price indexing" would have tied the growth to the rate of price inflation, rather than to the growth of wages, as is the case now. Wages have historically risen faster than prices, so the current wage-indexed system pushes benefits for future retirees up faster than the rate of inflation. The "progressive" part would have held down the growth only for higher-income and middle-income workers, while allowing benefits for lower-income workers to rise in line with the current wage-based formula. factcheck.org Updated: September 20, 2008

Where do these guys get this stuff? A mass amount of media and "economic advisers" seem to have the INITIAL calculation for benefits confused with the Annual Increase (COLA) for current recipients. The annual increase in social security is based on the rise of inflation from the previous year for the third quarter indices. In fact, they use the lower CPI-W (wage, clerical workers) vs. the CPI-U (Inflation index for Urban workers, usually referring to management level).

Now, looking at the Social Security site, I can see where everyone is getting thrown off, as in Wage Indexed (which actually refers to the lower wages of Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W)). That is the wage used - which is lower than the CPI-U, as the computation to base for INFLATION purposes.

From the Social Security Website:

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/latestCOLA.html

How is a COLA calculated?
The Social Security Act specifies a formula for determining each COLA. In general, a COLA is equal to the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) from the third quarter of one year to the third quarter of the next.

Computation of 2.3-percent COLA
For the December 2007 COLA, we measure the increase in the average CPI-W from the third calendar quarter of 2006 to the third quarter of 2007. These averages are 199.067 and 203.596 for the third calendar quarters of 2006 and 2007, respectively, and are derived from monthly CPI-Ws developed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/wageindexed.html

Amounts that Increase with Average Wages

Introduction
By "wage-indexed amounts," we mean amounts that increase annually with the the national Average Wage Index. A table of automatic increases lists both cost-of-living adjustments and wage-indexed amounts for recent years. Types of wage-indexed amounts are listed below.

And, http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/AWI.html

Latest index
The national average wage index for 2006 is 38,651.41

Indexed earnings used to compute initial benefits
When we compute a person's retirement benefit, we use the national average wage indexing series to index that person's earnings. Such indexation ensures that a worker's future benefits reflect the general rise in the standard of living that occurred during his or her working lifetime.

The CPI is the Consumer Price Index, http://stats.bls.gov/cpi/, and is used as the basis for computing inflation.

The Consumer Price Indexes (CPI) program produces monthly data on changes in the prices paid by urban consumers for a representative basket of goods and services.

---

I will be sending this post to FactCheck, and see what they have to say. ;')

---

Copyright © 2008 (FIH) FutureInsights All Rights Reserved

Please feel free to Talk Back!!

Jump to: Cats Rule - The Sister Site

From Lipstick on A Pig, to The Economy Is Basically Sound - But at Least, We're Back on The Issues

The love affair with the McCain/Palin has diminished with a rather horrible financial week. So, the pundits jumped on McCain for saying "the fundamentals of our economy are strong", on the same day the Dow dropped over 500 points. So exactly, how is McCain truly connecting with the common person, and our lives in general?

---

In the past, emotional appeals really worked - ads targeted regarding anger, fear, pride, and patriotism, were VERY effective at clouding the issues. These tactics also forebode of hidden agendas, the protectionism of the White House, and general non-accountability to the public the president was elected to serve.

And putting Sarah Palin out as a substitute for Hillary Clinton, will tend to go on the back burner when Wall Street decides to crash. However, riding on last weeks pump from the Convention via his VP nominee, McCain keeps that UPBEAT feel in his campaign, positive track for country, but Maverick for Change (trying to pull that limelight off of Barrack's original message). However, its STILL the same track that Bush took in 2004.

Later, when pounced on his phrasing by the opposition, McCain backpedals to "Well, it's obviously true that the workers of America are the fundamentals of our economy", implying he meant the American Workers are making the Economy Sound. Of course, the Obama campaign was all over this, and pundits had jokes in the Media (wonder what Bill Maher will be bringing up this week.)

---

Well, alright then, let me weigh in. We've got financial institutions dropping like flies swatted on the proverbial Wall. And workers, what workers? Last night I spoke with Customer Service for Vonage due to an inquiry, I was speaking to the Philippines. Symantec Support? India, where the Rep confirmed that College Education is free (and our country competes with this how?) And of course, I seriously believe this had to do with WaMu's demise - the all new Customer Support in the Philippines that spoke worse English than Vonage, and didn't understand a THING about American Financial Matters (i.e. IRS, Loans, etc).

And I am pleading with others to take the emotionalism out of whom they chose for President. I'm not looking for who can humiliate who better, and I'm not afraid of Iran dropping a bomb on my living room. Yes, I'm angry at the Current Administration, that with the Majority caused the deterioration of this Country, and when the Dems became the Majority, first took the Most Veto Action that I have ever seen. Unfortunately, I see McCain as continuing the Veto affair with Congress, since the Dems will remain in power (which is WHY such a hard push for the presidency, the Republicans don't want to LOSE EVERYTHING!!)

And yes, I feel I am an American - because there is no United States of the Republicans, there is no United States of the Democrats, there is Simply the United States of America. And finally, I'm no longer asking What I Can Do For My Country (since My Country Isn't Working), I am NOW asking What My Country can do for me. After all, these folks are our elected servants, meant to REPRESENT US. Since we come as a variety, the need to meet Commonly across both aisles, turning down the Partisan Politics (think Drilling for Oil Here), and lay off the friggin Veto Pen, are all at the forefront of mine and others choice for President.

---

Copyright © 2008 (FIH) FutureInsights All Rights Reserved

Please feel free to Talk Back!!

Jump to: Cats Rule - The Sister Site

How Much Does Age, Race Gender Affect Our Election? The Spiritual Connection

One of the hot topics for this election, are we having another Bradley affect? Is there hidden bigotry among our fellow voters? And how does this really affect the true spirituality of the individual, and the group as a whole?

---

I will take the reflection of spirituality through the eyes of a Christian. However, many religions inhabit the United States, and I don't see vast dissimilarities between the Supreme Beings of a particular sect, or for those just into the Spirituality of Living. Actually, 92% of Americans believe in a Higher Power, and they are no better nor worse than your average agnostic.

Obama, McCain (though Obama led off) - offer speeches of a United America (overcoming partisan politics). However, in activating the Republican base, McCain has vented half that unification message away. While the majority does believe in a Higher Power, Evangelicals believe in a God of their own choosing. They also believe - that somehow, others are less than they when it comes to equal rights (hence the harsh stands on right to life, Creationism, etc.)

By offering a unification message, Obama is actually speaking to the commonality of Human Kind. This is the basis for most of the Democrat Doctrine. And, when it comes to politics, have the Social Conservatives (as they like to call themselves - harking to the rally once Palin hit the scene) forgot some basic principles of the Bible?

---

Bigotry is a SIN. Messages from the Bible (and most other religions), include phrases such as Love Thy Neighbor, and - God creates every human in his image. But the flip side - God is not black, white, man, woman, or human. So what is this image? It is the Spiritual Image that we speak of, the essence that connects us to Our Higher Power.

As we approach the elections, however, some media have covered the aspect of our First African American to be elected. Reports abound as to folks that just can't bring themselves to that vote. They have disguised these pretexts with He won't wear the American flag, He's really a Muslim, etc. etc. Even some Democrats seem to have problems with this. Many excuses are used - most often is being upset that Hillary Clinton lost the race. (When it comes to the issues, this shouldn't even be a factor).

And the Democrats are not opposed to a little mud slinging themselves. While it may be true that McCain chose a woman to be his Running Mate for political purposes, declaring that if Obama had chosen Hillary for his VP, would that have changed McCain's stance? So we have bipartisan political bickering, swirled in with "Can I vote for a Woman", "Can I vote for a 72 yo", and "Can I vote for a Black Man?"

---

Bigotry on the basis of Race, Age, Gender (and I might add Disability) - dehumanizes the person whom one is considering in the election. But the Media has recently fanned tons of attention to Sarah Palin, whom doesn't really want to interact with them (Hmmm, methinks this is a strategic decision), as opposed to when they fanned Obama with attention. They are hoping to pick up those disgruntled Democrats, independents (even though Palin's views differ from 60% or more of the women in the United States). But many just can't seem to get over the African American issue. While many African Americans hold office at various levels - why is this entering Presidential Politics? Are we in such dire need of a slightly aged, good looking Man, with an Armani Suit, to Head our Country? Regardless of what direction he will lead us in? And how well has that worked for the last 8 years?

Besides the Golden Rule of calling on everyone's common Humanity, we should hold each and every one of these Candidates to Individual Responsibility - Barrack Obama, John McCain, Joe Biden, and Sarah Palin. Remarks from guys that she's gorgeous (Palin) via the Media does not help the case. People who have been Hurt, will want to Hurt other people, Basic Psychology 101. I'm glad some folks have grown where the past is the past (Obama's experimentation with Drugs, Palin's hubby and Dui, etc). I mean, our culture has truly grown, and by now, whom hasn't lived through the 60's, and 70's, learned, and passed along lessons learned from this culture to our children?

---

Yet in this country of stress and strife, where previous elections were run on the basis of fear, and whether you truly loved the country if you opposed the war, we still have emotions running our choices. Take me for example. I want Bush out of office. That person has made so many mistakes, only by stepping up to the plate during our last two hurricanes can he even remotely gain an iota of my respect. And his politics are so anti-Christian, there's not enough room in this article to defend that position. But I knew where my heart lay with the issues. If Clinton had received the parties nomination, I would have voted for her. Since Obama won the nomination, I will vote for him. I personally think Hillary would have made a great VP, but I don't think she wanted the spot. I WANTED Hillary to be the VP very badly. Biden? Oh well. But I don't throw the baby out with the proverbial bath water.

Our emotionalism, evangelical thinking (harkening back to the Puritan era?), is leading folks to vote within their comfort level, and what feels emotionally fit. We then develop a label for our favorite, and those we oppose. This is the dehumanizing affect of bigotry. The blogs spread myths regarding a person's identity, who they are (or whom the author THINKS they are), and separates these people, our candidates running for office, from the Main Stream Human Factor. This is where they become larger than life, and more often than not, aren't recognized as the public servants they were meant to be.

---

Conclusion: voting for someone because of emotional fit, race, religion, age or gender, dehumanizes that individual, and leads the voter down a path that is not rational. They only hear what they want to hear, and stop at examining the facts at hand. My applause goes out to the AARP commercials for DividedWeFail.org, since they are pressing folks to focus on what is important to them, and make sure the candidates meet the criteria of their issues with more than talk.

We need to focus on the difference between the Identity (black, woman, old, etc.) and the Integrity (experience, value set, and standing on the issues) of the individual. Of all these, the ISSUES are the most important. You may want to vote African American for culture sake, or Vote McCain/Palin for Hillary's sake, but what is that going to do for you over the next 4 years? Remember, a Democracy should drive the Church (freedom of religion), not the Church drives the Democracy (We tell You what to believe in).

---

Copyright © 2008 (FIH) FutureInsights All Rights Reserved

Please feel free to Talk Back!!

Jump to: Cats Rule - The Sister Site