McCain: Social Security is a Disgrace

Ziggae_6 · #1 (**permalink**) 07-10-2008, 06:41 AM

McCain talks down one of the most successful government programs of all time. Let's defund this program too and let the old people starve. They don't contribute to society that much anyway. Note to you youngsters, take it away and who's gonna take care of your folks and their medical costs as they age?

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.

The DNC held a conference call today about McCain's comment. It seems smart to pick up on this—it's the real thing. With this comment showing his antipathy toward the fundamentals of Social Security, McCain has indeed touched the "third rail" of American politics. On the DNC call, Ed Coyle, the president of the Alliance for Retired Americans, referred to McCain's comment as "anti-senior" and said he hopes the press will ask McCain to elaborate on what he could have meant. That's a reasonable request.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/...race_spin.html

justabubba · #2 (**permalink**) 07-10-2008, 07:21 AM

i think you overlooked the better story:

Quote:

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.

how would individuals, who invested their social security in the stock market when privatization was first proposed, have fared by now? privitization seems only to be considered when we are in a bull market
and mKKKain demonstrates that he has no grasp of the circumstances which face the social security program. if the funds of new contributors were diverted to private accounts instead of being made available to the social security system, there would be insufficient funds available to pay current social security recipients even faster than will otherwise occur. in short, those new contributions cannot be both spent and saved. we have eaten our social security seed corn; which should be a lesson to ponder before borrowing to provide more tax cuts

TheChief · #3 (**permalink**) 07-10-2008, 07:27 AM

Good social security is a disgrace and we should do away with it! Its ridiculous how there wasting hundreds of billions on old folks who could just live with there kids or actually save money for retirement!!! Bravo McCain! The first of many steps to fiscal conservatism. But I doubt the liberal media will understand!

Whaler17 · #4 (**permalink**) 07-10-2008, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggae_6

McCain talks down one of the most successful government programs of all time. Let's defund this program too and let the old people starve. They don't contribute to society that much anyway. Note to you youngsters, take it away and who's gonna take care of your folks and their medical costs as they age?

Successful? Hardly!!!!

Do you realize that the most Social security pays out annually to anyone is $13,000 +/- a year? Do you know what the current poverty level in the United States is?

Take a look:

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/08Poverty.shtml

So this program is successful because it pays out right at the poverty level (if you receive the maximum)?

Funds paid in by citizens earn a whopping 2.2% interest and Congress had regularly raided the fund to pay for unrelated projects.

Furthermore the program is funded by using current dollars paid in to pay out current obligations. Anyone who has been paying attention lately knows that there is a higher percentage of the population retiring than there is going to work. Do the math!

It is a disgrace for multiple reasons! I guess you haven't heard that it is projected to bankrupt in a few years. Many of us have been paying in for 20 plus years and we will likely receive no benefits at all.

yeah man its a wonderful program alright!

Read up on it!

JavaBlack · #5 (**permalink**) 07-10-2008, 07:44 AM

Yeah, McCain seems to be buying in to the hyper-conservative rhetoric about social security. I agree with the sentiment that he is basically decrying social security for being social security.
This, I think undermines any real attempt to reform.

If we're going to reform social security it should be more social security. It's not the government's concern to ensure that middle class people continue being middle class after retirement.
Social security should supplement retirement income (especially if these useless 401ks that most people don't have replace pensions) and ensure a minimal life... not that you can keep your house- but that you can survive.

It does strike me as ridiculous that social security pays some poor disabled people less than half minimum wage while paying some middle classer that could have saved and invested but refused a lot more.
The structure is flawed and it is the reason for the current assault on it. It looks like a government retirement plan rather than a safety net... so people think of it as such. And then they complain about the poor returns! Of course the privatization would be screwing the disabled, the widowed housewives, the working poor- the people who need it in the first place!

Personally I think we'd be best off taking social security out of general funds and getting rid of the social security tax. Raise regular income tax if necessary (it should still be lower than the current total income tax with social security). No more bickering about the "cap" or trying to make it look like you're getting "your own money" back.
Then when disabled or at a certain age, collect a flat minimal living income (indexed to inflation)... Everyone gets the same. If you made $500,000 a year and managed to squander it, you will need to learn to live like the average retired blue collar worker.

I'd think that would cut spending, change the way people look at the program, and make it more about social security.

Another possibility is to restrict such benefits to only those who meet qualifications to signify truly needing them (like the disabled or the very poor). Then we can consider mandated or default savings plans through employers that help working people to save for their own retirement.

But until we cover the social security part, I don't see any point to privatizing personal retirement savings. Those are already privatized! Social security is the safety net. Pensions and 401ks are the retirement savings programs (and their lack of availability or utility these days is part of why we need a safety net).

lavell12 · #6 (**permalink**) 07-10-2008, 07:44 AM

He means the handling and the process of SS is a disgrace, and you guys know that.

catzmeow · #7 (**permalink**) 07-10-2008, 07:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ziggae_6

McCain talks down one of the most successful government programs of all time. Let's defund this program too and let the old people starve. They don't contribute to society that much anyway. Note to you youngsters, take it away and who's gonna take care of your folks and their medical costs as they age?

Never mind that the Boomers have voted themselves a slate of retirement benefits that is unprecedented in the entire history of SS. Never mind that the size of the baby boomer population is not going to be sustainable by the wages paid by younger generations at that level of benefits. Never mind that SS at present is resulting in amounts of benefits FAR IN EXCESS of what the recipients paid into the system. Let's just keep the shell game going and pretend there are no problems with our little pyramid retirement scheme.

At least McCain has the cajones to speak the truth about a broken system, even if people don't want to hear it.

Whaler17 · #8 (**permalink**) 07-10-2008, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JavaBlack

Yeah, McCain seems to be buying in to the hyper-conservative rhetoric about social security. I agree with the sentiment that he is basically decrying social security for being social security.
This, I think undermines any real attempt to reform.

If we're going to reform social security it should be more social security. It's not the government's concern to ensure that middle class people continue being middle class after retirement.
Social security should supplement retirement income (especially if these useless 401ks that most people don't have replace pensions) and ensure a minimal life... not that you can keep your house- but that you can survive.

It does strike me as ridiculous that social security pays some poor disabled people less than half minimum wage while paying some middle classer that could have saved and invested but refused a lot more.
The structure is flawed and it is the reason for the current assault on it. It looks like a government retirement plan rather than a safety net... so people think of it as such. And then they complain about the poor returns! Of course the privatization would be screwing the disabled, the widowed housewives, the working poor- the people who need it in the first place!

Personally I think we'd be best off taking social security out of general funds and getting rid of the social security tax. Raise regular income tax if necessary (it should still be lower than the current total income tax with social security). No more bickering about the "cap" or trying to make it look like you're getting "your own money" back.
Then when disabled or at a certain age, collect a flat minimal living income (indexed to inflation)... Everyone gets the same. If you made $500,000 a year and managed to squander it, you will need to learn to live like the average retired blue collar worker.

I'd think that would cut spending, change the way people look at the program, and make it more about social security.

Another possibility is to restrict such benefits to only those who meet qualifications to signify truly needing them (like the disabled or the very poor). Then we can consider mandated or default savings plans through employers that help working people to save for their own retirement.

But until we cover the social security part, I don't see any point to privatizing personal retirement savings. Those are already privatized! Social security is the safety net. Pensions and 401ks are the retirement savings programs (and their lack of availability or utility these days is part of why we need a safety net).

If you want to take away the right to benefits for those who have worked hard, become educated, and saved for retirement, you will need to stop forcing them to pay into this faux "insurance" program!!!

CptnRodent · #9 (**permalink**) 07-10-2008, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whaler17

If you want to take away the right to benefits for those who have worked hard, become educated, and saved for retirement, you will need to stop forcing them to pay into this faux "insurance" program!!!

That's exactly what JavaBlack said. It is a faux "insurance" program, because people view it as, instead of a safety net, a program to keep them at their current standard of living even when they retire. Instead of actually building a savings account and retirement fund, they rely on Social Security to fund them. I agree with the majority of Java's post; the ones who need SS are blue collar workers who need to stay afloat.

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

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whaler17

If you want to take away the right to benefits for those who have worked hard, become educated, and saved for retirement, you will need to stop forcing them to pay into this faux "insurance" program!!!

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.

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