McCain hugs Bush's (dead) Social Security plan

Does this guy have any original ideas? Maybe he can find a running mate with a name like Dick Cheney.

Please say NO to Bush/Mccain Policies!!!

Obama '08

"THE CHAIRMAN SPEAKS"

I'm the "STRICT CONSERVATIVE" for the party.

I will give you "IMMUNITY"

Homeland Security 10 BILLION DOLLAR "PHONY ACHIEVMENT" can go unnnoticed.

We can try to for "MARSHALL LAW SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM" once I give 11 million people a "Z" card.

IDENT VS US-VISIT aka ACCENTURE is still a good idea like the rest of them

SO WHAT IF I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE ECONOMY.

I do know something about the PRIVATE LOBBBYIST ECONOMY.

Being able to invest some of my future retirement income into personal savings accounts is smart and something most Americans do favor. Even with fluctuations in the stock market and down years, in the long run you will be better off.

"...in the long run you will be better off."

In the long run, we'll all be dead. John Maynard Keynes

Ohplease, ohplease, ohplease let McCain run on this idea. This is almost as good an idea as his plan for improving health care. Wait for it...tax rebates!

The Republic party...not out of ideas, they've still got plenty of loony ones left.

Crazy old man McCain has done more than just cave on Bush's dead social security plan, he's also flip-flopped and embraced Prez Chimpy's love of torture and giving tax cuts to the rich white Republiscum cronies.

Johnny McCain = Third term of Bush/Cheney:
http://photobucket.com/mediadetail/?media=http%3A%2F%2Fi130.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fp251%2Fvictorfanucchi%2Fmills650.jpg&searchTerm=mccain%20hugs%20bush&pageOffset=0

Why should AARP be pillaged? Because they stick their nose into busines that isn't theirs. Soc Sec will not be touched for current recipients. The savings accounts are for us younger Americans that want more control (albeit limited). The AARP has nothing to lose with this policy, but they are so in the liberal's pocket that they can't stand to see this liberal pillar program (and extreme sapper of resources) be shaken or modernized in the least.

John D., you're right on.

I did some simple math a few years ago, after Pres. Bush first proposed it. The equities market over the long term does very well. If the Social Security "trust fund" (actually, a pile of IOU's from the Federal government) had done as well as my 401(k), which is invested in a diversified set of equities and bond investments and experienced both the 1987 crash and the post-9/11 free fall, it would be rolling in dough now, rather than being projected to be paying out more than it takes in late the next decade and be broke by 2040.

I can't understand where the opposition to this idea comes from. Is it just because Bush proposed it?

John D. Anyone can currently invest some of their future retirement income in a personal savings account. We all have access to saving in 401Ks. The issue is where are you going to get the money from to fund the Bush proposed personal savings accounts. The current design of Social Security is pay as you go. Should we borrow the money from the Chinese? Decrease SS payments? Increase the retirement age? Bush never explained where the money was coming from. Neither does McCain. More Rebublican borrowing has made our dollar much less valuable. That is the main reason for the high cost of commodities.

McCain has already pointed out he knows nothing about the economy. This proves he wasn't lying about that.

Dave B.,

No one is stopping you from putting more money in your 401(k), I.R.A., the stock market, etc.

Privitizing Social Security is nothing more than the insertion of for-profit money managers who will skim 12%-16% off the top just for managing Social Security money thus negating any profits.

John McCain is selling his soul to the RNC store and it's a sad, pathetic thing to behold.

Being able to invest some of my future retirement income into personal savings accounts is smart and something most Americans do favor. Even with fluctuations in the stock market and down years, in the long run you will be better off.

Posted by: John D | March 3, 2008 3:08 PM

Nothing is stopping you. Invest away. Social Security should never be your only retirement plan.

SS was meant to be and must remain a "safety net". It was never meant to be a major component of retirment planning.

401k's, IRA's, SEP's and other tax deferred, private vehicles are the way to save "your" money for retiremnt.

SS is a "colective" pool of funds and should not be subjected to market risk.

Gosh....wouldn't that just make all those rich stock dealing republicans just happy. Forced to play the game.

DaveB,
Since you seem to think you "get it". Where will a worker who becomes permanently disabled get his benefits if he/she has only contributed for 10 years into the personal account plan you favor? Please try to understand Social Security is not a personal retirement savings plan. It is pooled risk insurance that provides a benefit to the permanently disabled and to prevent retired workers from living in total poverty. That's it nothing more nothing less.

Privitizing Social Security is nothing more than the insertion of for-profit money managers who will skim 12%-16%

Posted by: Doug "Hussein" Zook | March 3, 2008 3:54 PM

Just in case you care Doug, i believe there was a 6 % cap.

McCain is 100% correct in his retirement savings accts. The problem is people are too stupid to see that social security is going to be a huge liability in teh near future. People do not want to hear the hard questions. However McCains willingness to tell people the truth and not just what they want to hear is what makes people so fond of him. Social Security can not be maintained under the current system, yet no one is willing to do anything about it.

The McCain ideas are rooted in common sense reality.

No wonder the shrill acolytes of Barack Obama, the Leftmost senator, object.

I can't understand where the opposition to this idea comes from. Is it just because Bush proposed it?

Posted by: DaveB | March 3, 2008 3:36 PM

DaveB. It's really very simple , the democrats will not relinquish their only tools to keep their people in the fold. If they get rid of entitlements, and free this and free that, they will lose their base.
That's why city public school kids are so dumb and getting dumber, the left couldn't care less if the teachers are qualified, and competent, they don't need to be tested, just keep giving the teachers union everything they want , no questions asked. In a nutshell the worst thing you can do to a democrat, is give people a choice.

. Forced to play the game.

Posted by: bill "hussein" r. | March 3, 2008 3:59 PM

bill hussein: If you took the time to read up on the plan you would of learned it was voluntary , your choice bill, then you wouldn't have to post something that's not true...it would almost make you look smart bill.

The issue with Social Security is not whether individual investors are free to make other investments (of course they are) but how to keep the program solvent. IIRC, Bush suggested a partial privatization as a way to gain some of the returns of the equities market, rather than the relatively low ones of the Treasury securities in which the funds are now invested.

About 2017-2018, the money coming in through FICA tax will not be sufficient to pay the benefits, and Social Security will have to start calling in its investments. Where is the money represented by those T-bills? It's spent, which means it will have to be covered by the general revenue funds, read: income taxes. By 2040, those T-bills will be exhausted, and it will be completely pay-as-you-go.

Bush's proposal was intended to stave off those eventualities, but it was completely D.O.A. It didn't even get the courtesy of a discussion, and we're still in the same position with regard to Social Security solvency that we were then. I guess that the Congress would rather talk abot steroid use by baseball players, and investigate, for the umpteenth time, whether there is price fixing in the gasoline market.

And 12-16% off the top? That would be a tremendously inefficient fund; most fund expenses are more like 1% or less. But then, it's a government program, so anything can happen.

But watch: If a Democrat is elected in the fall, he (or she) will suggest the same thing, and it will receive great acclamation from the left side of the aisle. It's all in who says it.

We already have private accounts that we can contribute to if we have the money. If you really need to address SS solvency, how about reducing benefits for people with higher income/asset levels or raising the income cap by $50000 or so.

We already have private accounts that we can contribute to if we have the money.
Posted by: Tom O | March 3, 2008 5:29 PM

Tom: How about if you don't have the extra money, and all you have is the money you paid into the system...shouldn't you have some say so with the money you earned ?
It's a voluntary plan...choice Tom.

And 12-16% off the top? That would be a tremendously inefficient fund; most fund expenses are more like 1% or less. But then, it's a government program, so anything can happen.
But watch: If a Democrat is elected in the fall, he (or she) will suggest the same thing, and it will receive great acclamation from the left side of the aisle. It's all in who says it.

Posted by: DaveB | March 3, 2008 5:20 PM

No Dave, when a Democrat is elected this fall we're going to start paying off that $11 Trillion debt that the "conservative' Republicans ran up between 2001-2006 while letting China pay for their war on Iraq on our credit card.

That tears it. McBush just signed his political death warrant.

We have been over here, and the public at large has been over it a hundred times. I'm not going over it again.

America wants it's SS as it is.

America wants it's SS as it is.

Posted by: C.Morris | March 3, 2008 6:47 PM

There won't be "as it is" in 15 or 20 yrs. , even the Dems. agree on that. There won't be enough workers to pay into it after the boomers pass thru it. Get it CMorris ?

Don B, If you don't have any money to contribute to a 401K or IRA, you're going to need what you get from SS. Where is your safety net if you make a bad choice?

I urge all younger posters to read 'The Grapes of Wrath', and 'The Great Depression'.

These are old, quaint scribbling's, like Magna Carte, US Constitution, and English Common Law, but you may find some useful 'analog' information therein.

Every stock sale and every mutual find sale has to be preceded by a prospectus. The prospectus will say that past results are not a guarantee of future performance. We never see the equivalent for "personal accounts."

Bush said several times on his tour that retirees could not in their lifetimes touch their principle, only the "interest." Look at interest rates right now.

The payments to the entire retiree population would be huge. If taken from financial markets they would have a major effect on those markets.

The first step should be an honest analysis of the "personal account" scheme. IF that analysis is done right there won't be any need for a second step.

Re: Bush's proposal didn't get a discussion.

Congressional Republicans were perfectly free to create a draft bill and then have it discussed. In fact, though, not even enough Republicans were convinced by Bush for that to happen. The proposal didn't get much discussion but that's almost entirely because Bush only talked of "castles in the air." Nobody presented draft legislation that described any such plan.

Also, Bush didn't offer any "way" to do anything. All he offered was a "chance" to do better than with Social Security. A "chance" to do better carries with it a "chance" to do worse. If a serious analysis were done (and it's hard to give credence to anyone who would avoid such an analysis) then what Bush proposed would be seen to have several major flaws and the "chance" to do better than SS would be seen to be rather small. The chance to do worse would be large.

If retirees receive a particular level of support then ultimately it is the workers who are providing that support. That's where far more attention should be directed.

Where is your safety net if you make a bad choice?

Posted by: Tom O | March 3, 2008 7:29 PM

Tom, It's not for everybody, some people can choose not to participate if they don't feel financially secure enough , some people may want to venture into it, Anyway it's your money you should have some say so. I don't particularly like the Govt. telling me what's best for me, they might say i should live next door to John E. ...i would have to swallow the muzzle for sure.

Don B,

It's all in the archive. Get it?

There are solutions, including small increases in TAXES over decades, removing the cap, and of course, economic growth in general.

Also, bringing in all those Mexican guest workers and making them contribute would increase the tax base.
Give them their own SSN.

Oddly, you don't seem worried about the 3/4 trillion dollar defence/security budget which is only going up up up. Maybe China needs to stop enabling us?

John McCain is an interesting guy. Social Security and of course his pal Hagee...

Hagee on Women

"Do you know the difference between a woman with PMS and a snarling Doberman pinscher? The answer is lipstick. Do you know the difference between a terrorist and a woman with PMS? You can negotiate with a terrorist."

http://www.democrats.org/a/2008/02/john_mccain_sho.php

John, the scenario you describe, of a person who becomes totally disabled after contributing for only ten years, is what is called a "residual problem." The current Social Security system has a way of treating that problem; it's called "Disability Insurance Benefits," and a revamped system would have to have the same sort of safety net.

The trouble with this discussion, as with so many discussions in this country, is that they get hung up on such residual problems, which affect only a small proportion of the people involved. The abortion discussion gets hung up on rape, incest, and the health of the mother; this one, on disability at a young age, and all discussion stops. The rational way forward is to solve the larger problem, then address the residual problems, but somehow we never get that far.

Don B,
The gvment tells you what to do all the time. They're called 'laws'.

Let's say a future president starts a big, fun old war! But they run out of 'troops', so they send you or yours a 'draft notice'. How would you like that? That would make SS seem pretty 'cool', huh?

Doug and the rest of the Loons on the Left do not like privatizing Social Security because American workers might make some money off it. Oooh, we can't let stockbrokers make money. That is bad. We can't let Americans have a better retirement, that is bad. That is what the Loony Hussein Left believes.
While we can invest money on our own (there are limits as to how much you can invest in 401ks, annuities, IRAs, etc.) the argument that one ends up better off investing that money himself is an argument they cannot deny. The other aspect the Loony Hussein Left does not like is that through privatization, one can pass their investment on to their children when they die, something that cannot be done via Social Security. The Loony Hussein Left hates Americans.

John Mime D's last posting proves the writers strike is over. Terrific comedy writing, buddy. You are in the wrong business.

Back in box Lil' Mime!

I have an idea. Since John D, Paulo, Don B, Terry, Jerry White from Springfield, all hate SSec so much, why not just return their check every month once they start to receive one? They can live their convictions and the system will be extended for the rest of us!

".... correct “any policy paper that I’ve put out that personal savings accounts are not a very important factor."

So 'flip flops' are now 'corrections'?

Logical, Morris, JE, Tommy,

These 'cons' are pitching them right into your wheelhouse tonight.

I love it that you libs are too chicken to be 100% in charge of your retirement, disability insurance and survivor benefits. For someone with a salary of $50K per year, that would be $6200 extra per year into their IRA/401K. Who wouldn't want that. Even if people invested modestly, folks would be retiring very well off. Also, any amount remaining after death could be passed on.

I thinks libs just can't stand it if someone becomes financially secure - ruins the whole womb-to-the-tomb mentality.

The gvment tells you what to do all the time. They're called 'laws'
Posted by: C.Hussein.Morris | March 3, 2008 9:08 PM

Besides requesting taxes on my earned income, what govt. laws are there dictating what i do with my money C Hussein Morris?

"...the argument that one ends up better off investing that money himself is an argument they cannot deny."

Show me the prospectus.

The market (note: it is a MARKET) goes up in large part because of all the IRA and 401k investment. It's a market. Once retirees in significant numbers start withdrawing from their accounts then selling outweighs buying. What will the market do then? Ans: go down. It must. It's a market.

("It is a MARKET" means "it is not a magic money machine, just a market.")

Don B(in Laden),

Those aren't tax 'requests'. You, me, everyone is required to pay.

They 'dictate' building codes, auto standards, just to name two that cost money, but for good reasons. Heaven forbid you live in a state with a seat belt law. That must really crack your temper.

DaveB,
Social Security is a pooled risk safety net for the "residual problems" you deride. It is meant to give income benefits to those who are deemed Totally and Permanently Disabled. It is meant to prevent retired workers from retiring in complete poverty. IT WAS NEVER MEANT TO BE A PERSONAL RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN.

Terry what percentage has the DJIA gone up since 14 January 2000? 8 years is a good portion of the investment time for a worker to build their retirement funds.

The Stock Market is NOT a guaranteed money maker even in the long term.

Reality - what % has the DJIA gone since March 4, 2008?

Since this is the a retirement plan, let's look at the proper time frame instead of cherrying picking your data.

Even in you hamburger flipping job, if you got you $1000 per year from SS, you could invest and have a nice tidy sum.

Don't be afraid of the market, embrace change - as you canidate so likes to speak.

Afraid to answer the question Terry?

Sorry my friend, but the answer is about 3.5% in the last 8 years. A worker retiring today after a 40 year career has seen negligible growth in his or her investments in the last 20% of their investment time.

You can go on believing your 401k is the magic tree money grows on, but that's just NOT reality.

Thankfully because of Social Security, I wont end up giving you hand outs on the street if your investments don't work out to your utopian fantasy.

Reality - the question is irrelavant. The 40 year duration is the proper time horizon. If you ever studied finance, you would know that.

Reality, I'll have seven figures, all to the right of the decimal, when I retire. You keep your two % return of SS and I'll take my 6+% of the DJIA. Once you learn the concept of compound interest, you'll know what I'm talking about. In the meantime, get a bigger cup for begging for change.

You have to understand, Terry, that you get a 6% return largely because not everybody is investing as you do. If everybody is in the market the return will not be 6%. If allowed (Bush said they would not be) to withdraw principal the retirees, when they begin to significantly withdraw principal, will make the markets go down. The markets will then go down for a very long time because the retirees will be withdrawing for a very long time. If the "personal account" scheme is enacted.

Of course so far the proponents of such a scheme haven't even created draft legislation so if they continue in that mode it can't ever be enacted. If they do create draft legislation wither it (a) will defer all details to a commission to be created to implement the scheme (that is, the nature of the scheme won't appear in the legislation) or they will legislate the details and it will be possible to see how and why the scheme won't work. As they're trying to foist a failed scheme off on the public you can pretty safely bet they'll not reveal the details.

It is a fundamental error to try to use single-investor investment strategy to determine how a global investment program for all workers should be managed. That can't work: if all investors are doing the same thing that changes the market. It is not possible for a huge mutual fund to invest in the same way as an individual investor. If you'll look you will see that many successful mutual funds close the door to new investors. That's because managing the fund to get good returns gets harder and harder as the fund grows. For "personal accounts" we're talking about a fund that includes every worker, a truly huge fund. (No scheme if splitting it into parts removes the overall problem.)

What we need is more analysis and less rhetoric.

Terry-

Past performance is not a guarantee of future performance.

There is plenty of reason to believe that due to the lackluster performance of the past 8 years, that a future 40 year investment profile will not match previous performance.

You ignore an eight year trend, 20% of your 40 year investment time, at your own risk. Face it friend, the DJIA average is NOT averaging 6% anymore. Not even close. Don't count your zeros before they're hatched.

First a correction to my post - those seven digits are to the left of the decimal place.

First the easy one - Reality. Past performance is no gurantee of future performance- true. However, go back and look at history thru the Great Depression, WW2, the 70's, and take the performance of any 40 year period and find the one with the least return.

Second - read a book called "A Random Walk Down Wall Street"

Third - the performance the past 8 years has been lackluster, but take the 32 years before that - the stock run-ups in the 80's and 90's.

When you have studied finance, please let me know.

Hewhoask - a more intellgent question. The markets will go down as people withdrawal, but their wuill be more investors in the economy than their will be retirees.

"Hewhoask - a more intellgent question. The markets will go down as people withdrawal, but their wuill be more investors in the economy than their will be retirees."

The same ones who were already there. Why, when they see that prices will be going down, should they buy right away?

Those numbers that crawl across the bottom of the screen on financial channels: those indicate the effect of individual sales on market prices.

Nor can the retirees sell stocks and buy annuities (or anything else) to protect against the market decline: those stock sales will cause stock prices to decline.

The Bush scheme (the idea did not originate with him, I'm attaching his name for convenience) is a bubble scheme. The architects of the scheme know it is a bubble. That's why they want to exclde those near retirement form participation (that will give 10 years of artificial market boost, while all workers are buying), that's why Bush repeated several times on his road tour that retirees would not have access to their principal during their lifetimes. (Their principal, at the time they retire, would be all they invested and all the accumulated earnings.) Bush didn't reveal what restrictions, if any, would be imposed on the heirs but if the heirs can sell and do sell then that will drive prices down. It will be a bull market for a long, long time. (You should also realize what investors who could sell would do in the face of that and also anticipate the effect of what they do.)

It would be a beautiful thing for all retirees to have magnificent investment accounts when they retire but wishing doesn't make it so. Also, anyone who looks at all closely at the Bush (and other) language will see that no promise of better performance than SS is made, just a promise of a chance at better performance. Some chance, when the truth is that as soon as retirees in big numbers start selling their holdings start to drop - and keep on dropping. SELL IT ALL to escape the drop. That's a crash, of course.

The Bush scheme won't just destroy retirement security, it will destroy financial markets. Again, not that Bush invented it nor created it, he's just the head cheerleader.

"The markets will go down as people withdrawal, but their will be more investors in the economy than their will be retirees."

And the other investors will be there before and after the retirees start withdrawing. When the retirees start withdrawing their actions will create downward pressure on stock prices: it's a market. Are those other investors going to buy in order to shore up prices or are they going to wait for prices to go down before buying?

All I am asking is that this (the entire "personal account" scheme) be analyzed as an investment and not just be propagandized. It surely has already been done - but the ones who did it don't reveal the analysis, just some results of the analysis. They'll keep workers from within 10 years of retirement from participating so that there will be an apparent 10 years of growth, they'll not let retirees touch the accumulated amounts during their lifeties (they'd get just the "interest," according to Bush.) It's a bubble. In this case, a government-mandated, government-run bubble.

"Where is the money represented by those T-bills? It's spent, which means it will have to be covered by the general revenue funds, read: income taxes."

Yes, it will be necessary to pay back what was borrowed. That is not in any way the fault of Social Security nor the result of any flaw in Social Security. The SS trust fund will have to be paid back just like Treasury Bonds have to be paid back. That's basic: you have to pay back what you borrow. In the case of the US Government it's a constitutional requirement.

That it has to be paid back is utterly, stunningly unremarkable. That the right wing would twist this to be a "reason" to gut Social Security would be astounding, if it weren't so typical.

"I love it that you libs are too chicken to be 100% in charge of your retirement, disability insurance and survivor benefits."

Get real. There would be MAJOR restrictions. Bush already has let the cat out of the bag re retirees being forbidden to touch their accumulated amounts during their lifetimes.

Individuals will not have full flexibility: if they did that would create a hugely dangerous market volatility. Nor will fund managers have much flexibility: huge funds cannot easily make major changes in their investment portfolios (just imagine what would result if a major fund sold 10 million shares of about anything.) If the market starts to slump in most cases the large funds have to sit on their holdings and watch them go down: to sell them would make the drop in price far more severe.