Posted on 09/17/2010 12:56:18 AM PDT by MitchellC
Republican congressional candidate Jeff Miller called on Congressman Heath Shuler to stop running a television ad that says Miller would privatize Social Security, saying the ad is false and scares senior citizens.
[...]
He told the group and members of several local media outlets who were present that when he saw the television ad for the first time on Wednesday, he couldn't believe it.
"I'll never forget reading a story in the Citizen-Times written about Shuler not telling the truth when (reporter) John Boyle called him out and said he (Shuler) flat-out lied about a business deal with the TVA — I thought ‘How could that be?'" Miller said, his voice rising with emotion.
"Then I saw the ad. I can't tell you how mad that made me. Heath Shuler should be ashamed that he's done so little in Washington to stand up to Nancy Pelosi that he can't talk about his own record and instead has to lie about mine. I've spent a lot of my professional life supporting our Greatest Generation and I would never do anything to break our promise to them by hurting Social Security."
[...]
Miller said his work with HonorAir, the program he started that transports military veterans to see war memorials in Washington, D.C., speaks for itself regarding his concern for veterans and senior citizens. The program has flown more than 52,000 veterans to Washington, Miller said.
[...]
"Just because somebody else is a jerk, doesn't mean you have to be," he said, adding that he will be running an ad in response to Shuler's, although he did not specify when it would come out nor what the content would be. "If you come at me with lies and false accusations, I'm coming back."
(Excerpt) Read more at blueridgenow.com ...
How about they institute campaign reform where, if a candidate runs an ad that is demonstrably false, they are removed from the ballot?
I met Miller several days ago. Nice guy. I also note that his campaign has been effective at raising money lately and he will be getting support from an advocacy group in the form of advertising to the tune of several hundred thousand dollars. His campaign is doing nicely.
Don’t we want to privatize social security? At least some part of it.
>> Don’t we want to privatize social security? At least some part of it.
Given the bailouts, why not, where is the risk? /s
One thing you CAN'T do and succeed in the NFL is to blow those ultra-high draft picks and the skins under Cerrato had a history of blowing pretty much all of them, Shuler being the worst case. The skins have since fixed their management problems and are on the rise. The same clearly is not true of North Carolina.
he will be getting support from an advocacy group
____________________________________________________________
Horowitz should start an advocacy group outing those with ties to the extreme left. Guys like Coons in Delaware who said he was a Marxist. Hard core attack ads so that voters know what they are getting if they pull the lever for these freaks. Could have used that in 2008 with Obama for sure, since McCain was too blinkered to fight.
If that had happened when GWB wanted, a whole lot of our money would've ended up with the banks and Wall Street, and a lot of seniors would've been impoverished (just as with their private savings). No, I want the feds to MAN UP to their Social Security obligations, and stop finding more ways to spend money.
For starters, how about scrapping the pharmaceutical program for seniors? If seniors want to be constantly medicated, let them use their social security for that...not mine!
Does any Senior Citizen, anywhere, think that continued Democrat domination will be anything but a disaster for Social Security and Medicare? The Democrat’s reckless actions will destroy both of these systems, and then when all of the support networks are well and truly smashed, they will have the Seniors report to the Death Panels.
The old Republican boogie-men are not a tenth as scary as what the Democrats are doing, day in and day out.
The current PAYGO system is basically a transfer of wealth. It is not that the elderly get what they accumulated. So, the way I see it is either we privatize the social security by relying more on individual savings, or move to fully-funded system where each cohort pay for their own social security when the time comes. Each has plus and minus, but the later part will have a ‘sandwich’ generation where they don’t get transfer like the previous generations did, but has to contribute more to their own.
Is this one of the scare tactics that Obama was condemning Republicans for?
this schuler creep is just as bad a congressman as he was a bad quarterback. Vote him out. His integrity rating is zero.
We might, but the republicans, even most of the conservatives, aren’t supporting it.
And in any case, even the most ardent supporters are only pushing personal control over parts of social security investment, not a privatization.
But a lot of democrats are claiming that general support for Ryan’s budget (which many candidates have said they liked) is really support for Ryan’s PLAN, which calls for some SS money to be invested by people in their own private accounts, in the form of a reduction in their payment of SS taxes. It would be of course voluntary.
But in any case, they are two different things, and even the media has stood up to this tactic by the democrats. Hasn’t stopped democrats from using it, because they are desparate.
But in 2005, when Bush went all-out to push for this, it went nowhere in a republican house and senate. So don’t think there is any chance anybody is going to touch this now.
First, Bush's plan was only for people under 50, and only for NEW CONTRIBUTIONS. So you are wrong, NO seniors would have been impoverished, because they would not have been allowed to participate, or to move any of their current SS "savings" (which don't exist).
Second, Bush;'s plan only accounted for a minority part of the employee "contribution". (something like 2% out of a 7% tax). So even those people who DID take full advantage would have only lost, at most, half of a seventh of the SS money between 2005 and 2010, and would have gotten half of that back, and also benefited by the huge return between 2009 and now with the money they were continuing to put in.
And the only people who would have lost ANYTHING were people who took advantage of the VOLUNTARY program, and then fully invested in stocks, and then left their investments untouched when trouble came -- in other words, people would have had full control over what happened to their own money.
It's the democrats who pretend that the program was to take the entire SS system and drop it into the stock market, and "hurt our seniors". That was not the reality.
The only people who could possibly have been "hurt" were those under 50, for whom the SS system already will be broke when they get to 67 to collect, given how Obama is trashing the economy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.