McCain: Social Security is a Disgrace - Page 2

Whaler17 · #11 (**permalink**) 07-10-2008, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CptnRodent

On a side note, I noticed you changed your sig, Whaler. Things didn't work out with The Shadow, huh? My condolences.

Can't help it that there are extremely childish people on the board with administration priveledges. But yeah, the Shadow is free for you to pursue a relationship with now. Come on out of that closet and chase your dream!

Whaler17 · #12 (**permalink**) 07-10-2008, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JavaBlack

I don't get it. Are you agreeing with me, disagreeing, or not reading my post?

In reality people who save and invest well benefit NOW. Under this system. The amount they pay into social security is trivial compared to how they live off of savings. Plus they are more likely to get more than they paid for out of social security as they are statistically more likely to have a longer life.
The idiots that waste and think social security will save them end up with a decrease in quality of life... especially compared to if they had saved. They don't live as poorly as those disabled early or who worked for minimum wage- people who could not likely have saved for retirement... but they do end up not living as well as had they saved.

The problem is perception. That needs to change.
But of course the Republicans are feeding off this wrong perception- the very cause of the inefficacies in social security- to create popular support for privatizing it and killing the safety net... thereby screwing the people who actually could not likely have saved for retirement, usingthe fears of many of the middle class idiots who squander their disposable income thinking social security will save them!

I've thought up a way to fight this perception and increase its purpose as a safety net rather than a government retirement plan.

Maybe I didn't read your post in its entirety, my apologies.
The thing is that this system simply cannot survive without the payments being pumped in by those who make a substantial wage. Take them out and it will collapse immediately. The program is poorly managed and poorly conceived! I wuld have to see some cold hard data to believe that those who make a higher income will actually get more out than they pay in. In fact, that simply cannot be true given the projections of the system collapsing before I retire. I will likely get $0 out for all the money I have paid in!

Anikdote · #13 (**permalink**) 07-10-2008, 08:15 AM

I was laughing so hard at the first line from the OP that it was hard to finish reading but i did manage....

SS wasn't set up to be an investment and that's most of the problem with it. There is no SS fund, they simply pay out of current funds to those who are recieving the benefits. If it had been set up wisely, the money from those paying in would have been invested and those currently recieving benefits could be paid out of the interest.

The bottom line is though that people who want to invest for their retirement should:

A. Be able to invest their money in a way that most benefits them
B. Should be able to pass the money they save for retirement on to their family

Social security allows for neither of these. Albeit it was never supposed to.

Decker · #14 (**permalink**) 07-10-2008, 08:18 AM

Quote:

McCain Camp Tries To Spin Away "Disgrace" Comment On Monday, at a town hall meeting in Denver, John McCain said this:

Americans have got to understand that we are paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers in America today. And that's a disgrace. It's an absolute disgrace, and it's got to be fixed.
In this quote, McCain was essentially saying that the problem with Social Security is that Social Security is Social Security, instead of something else. He is attacking the basic funding mechanism for the 75-year-old program. But now, with the McCain "disgrace" comment being picked up all over the web, the McCain campaign is trying to backtrack. ABC's Jake Tapper spoke with a McCain spokesman, Brian Rogers, who said this:

[T]he disgrace is our failure to fix the long-run imbalance in Social Security—a failure of leadership evidenced by our willingness to kick to problem to the next generation of leaders. He’s also describing the looming and increasing demographic pressures confronting the Social Security system and Washington’s utter failure to address it.
In essence, Rogers is claiming that McCain's "disgrace" comment was taken out of context—that he was not applying the word "disgrace" to Social Security's funding mechanism, but rather to the "demographic pressures confronting the Social Security system and Washington’s utter failure to address it."

Unfortunately for the McCain campaign, which is beginning to realize the mistake it made by attacking Social Security, Rogers' argument doesn't hold up under scrutiny. The Denver town hall wasn't the only place McCain attacked Social Security this week. From yesterday's post:

Now, before you think, "Wow, that must be a slip of the tongue, he can't possibly mean that," please note that McCain said essentially the same thing to John Roberts on CNN this morning. From the transcript:
On the privatization of accounts, which you just mentioned, I would like to respond to that. I want young workers to be able to, if they choose, to take part of their own money which is their taxes and put it in an account which has their name on it. Now, that's a voluntary thing, it's for younger people, it would not affect any present-day retirees or the system as necessary. So let's describe it for what it is. They pay their taxes and right now their taxes are going to pay the retirement of present-day retirees. That's why it's broken, that's why we can fix it. [Emphasis added.]
McCain said the same thing on CNN that he did in the town hall: the problem with Social Security—"why it's broken"—is that young people, "pay their taxes and right now their taxes are going to pay the retirement of present-day retirees." That's not out of context. It's what he said. McCain's problem with Social Security is with its basic structure.

....

McCain's being an alarmist. SS is fine. It'll pay its benefits. In fact, the entire SS program was pre-funded in the 1980s when Reagan signed the largest tax increase in American history to do the pre-funding. That was his little joke though. He knew the SS tax increase money would be used as general revenue (i.e., borrow n spend) so that his irresponsible income tax cuts would not have such a pronounced effect on tax revenue.

Just for a note to all the privatizers out there: We already have a system of private accounts geared towards retirement funding...they're called IRAs.

CptnRodent · #15 (**permalink**) 07-10-2008, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whaler17

Can't help it that there are extremely childish people on the board with administration priveledges. But yeah, the Shadow is free for you to pursue a relationship with now. Come on out of that closet and chase your dream!

I was more hoping to pursue his mistress. But knowing that it was with her that he was cheating on you makes me slightly hesitant. Wouldn't want to cross any social boundaries.

Anyway, what did they hack into your sig the first time?

catzmeow · #16 (**permalink**) 07-10-2008, 08:20 AM

For the record, I DO NOT support privatizing SS. I DO support limiting benefits to those under a certain income, and viewing it as an EMERGENCY support system, not a guaranteed retirement. Furthermore, if we are going to maintain SS, there is no way that retirees should be taking more out of the system than they put into it. And, we have to figure out a way to make the system sustainable, rather than simply relying on the next generation to pay for earlier generations. The benefits that the boomers have created for themselves are simply not feasible.

Anikdote · #17 (**permalink**) 07-10-2008, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Decker

Just for a note to all the privatizers out there: We already have a system of private accounts geared towards retirement funding...they're called IRAs.

Difference is IRA's are mandated and over the same period of time can generate a larger return. Not everyone is smart or has the excess funds to invest for retirement so maybe some sort of safety net should be in place. I think investing current SS payments into any type of secure investment would do a great deal to remedy its issues. However expecting our congress to save and spend responsibly is irrational.

Rebellion · #18 (**permalink**) 07-10-2008, 08:25 AM

McCain is 100% correct. But instead the left prefers to have sunshine blown up its backside and Obama and the rest are more than happy to provide the rays.

CptnRodent · #19 (**permalink**) 07-10-2008, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catzmeow

Furthermore, if we are going to maintain SS, there is no way that retirees should be taking more out of the system than they put into it.

Unless the money that current workers put in is invested in some safe way in order to provide growth. Otherwise, you pay your SS in, you get the same amount out when you retire--and its basically a forced governmental savings account.

JavaBlack · #20 (**permalink**) 07-10-2008, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catzmeow

Furthermore, if we are going to maintain SS, there is no way that retirees should be taking more out of the system than they put into it.

They kind of have to.
Think of people disabled young. They are going to end up taking more than they paid.
Same with people who just live a long time.
It should equal out with people who die young... but who knows?

I would figure to sustain the current system as is we'd need to focus more on the retirement age... but that's tricky. Because there is a really wide life expectancy gap between the well-off and the poor.
I'm thinking that maybe they could do it by placing a larger gap between "early retirement" and retirement age, with a penalty that reduces over time- but most sharply at the line.

That way people with low life expectancies could retire early for drastically lower benefits. People expecting to live long and still expecting to see importance in social security will want to work longer.

I'm sure there are flaws in that though... and I could see it having bad unintended consequences.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
John McCain is an 'Absolute Disgrace'	DemocratsBlog	Political Blogs	0	07-09-2008 09:00 AM
Juan McCain lies about his social security position	tropolis	Elections & Campaigns	1	06-14-2008 07:23 PM
Social Security Needs Changes	JP5	Political Opinions & Beliefs	49	09-07-2007 07:18 PM
Social Security	JOEBIALEK	Social Security	17	10-23-2005 12:45 PM
John McCain on Social Security	JP5	Current Events	26	03-25-2005 01:04 PM