Hello? If McCain Had His Way, That'd Be Our Social Security Money Wall Street is Losing

What do we democrats have to say about the mess on Wall Street?

Today Obama said it proves that the Republican economic philosophy has failed, and I heard him mock McCain for calling for a commission because "we know how we got into this mess." Now some people think about things like "economic philosophy" a lot, and many have at least a general notion of how we got into this mess. But even though everybody cares how much money ends up in their pockets, most people are understandably a little fuzzy about all the policies and philosophies and market forces behind our very complex economy. To further confuse the issue, McCain is also saying something about reform, and taking on "fat cats," and accusing Obama of being just as cozy with these Wall Streeters as anyone else. And at this point, slightly more voters trust John McCain to handle the economy than trust Barack Obama.

As it happens, though, not that long ago we had a rare political moment in this country, a moment where the public sat up and took notice of economic policy -- and spoke out and made its voice heard too. When George W. Bush made it to term #2, he decided to try to privatize social security to reward his supporters on Wall Street with a new source of capital, customers, and fees. (Those would be the same people whose firms are now cratering under the weight of the bad debt they recklessly took on while Republican regulators looked the other way.) But as it turned out, we Americans were not about to let our elected representatives turn over our social security taxes to Wall Street financiers to gamble with if it meant losing the guaranteed income that has allowed millions upon millions of American seniors to live out their sunset years with at least a basic measure of dignity.

But while ordinary Americans spoke out, John McCain stood with Bush (hugged him awkwardly in public, even), against the American people. In fact, just six months ago, McCain again let slip his fondness for privatization.

I have been scratching my head why this has not been talked about more, especially since Obama has been having trouble winning votes among seniors. There may well be some good reason I'm missing why it hasn't been a top argument thus far.

But now that you can't look at a newspaper or TV screen without seeing the mayhem on Wall Street, it's time to remind Americans what the world would look like if John McCain was in charge of our economic policy. Plenty of people are losing plenty of their retirement savings as it is. But if we had let Bush and McCain privatize social security, some of those people would be losing a lot more. And a lot of other people with less retirement savings would be hurting even more, because they depend on social security to cover basic needs.

This is something Americans understand: social security is secure, and the stock market is anything but. There are few more personal or dramatic ways to illustrate McCain's terrible judgment than to imagine the nightmare scenario so many Americans would face if McCain and Bush had gotten their way on this -- or if McCain were to get his way as President.

When Wall Street's woes are the top story, this should be our top talking point.

Comments

[Isisells]

01:24 AM on 09/27/2008

All Obama has to do to get the senior's vote, which is presently stuck on Senator Clinton, is to remind them that McCain, like all republican­s, is salivating at the thought of getting at the Social Security Fund. Privitazat­ion is the first step towards the complete loss of this vitally important anti-pover­ty insurance (actually it is an annuity) program. Social Security is the most economical­ly and efficientl­y operated of all government department­s--don't lose it! People who are losing their pension funds in the financial crisis are going to need Social Security to survive.

[JackWOrf]

12:06 PM on 09/22/2008

I'm surprised that McCain is staying with an obvious "loser" issue like the privatizat­ion of Social Security. Even Bush gave up on that with a Republican congress behind him. It wouldn't have a prayer of passing with a Democratic congress. It just turns off Independen­t voters, like me.

Last week I was leaning toward McCain, but this week I'm leaning toward Obama. That is because of the economy. Obama is smart if he wraps himself in Bob Rubin and other Clintonite­s, and doesn't stray too far to the left. Then he'll probably get my vote.

McCain is talking about God-knows-­what anymore. Reality has rocked Reaganomic­s World. Trickle down is dead and de-regulat­ion is a disaster.

However, I still trust McCain more on matters of character and general experience­. Even with his moose-in-t­he-headlit­es gaze on economic theory, he will probably come up with a better ultimate solution than Obama. If Obama goes pie-in-the­-sky.

The debates should be very interestin­g. They will decide my vote. One thing. As a Floridian, I am really TURNED OFF by the sheer bulk of obnoxious negative ads that I have seen coming from Obama. I do not like negative ads coming from either side. They should be DEBATING every week instead of having idiotic ad wars.

[PurpleState]

12:18 PM on 09/21/2008

If the bailout goes through, Wall Street will still end up stealing your retirement money. The debt the American taxpayer is taking on will force the government to reduce spending on other programs in the future, including Social Security. Bush has apparently decided that if his friends can't get their money-grub­bing hands on your retirement funds via private accounts, they are gonna get them on it through a massive loan that essentiall­y transfers your future Social Security payments to Wall Street today. You lose either way.

[BubbaC33]

11:45 AM on 09/21/2008

The problem with the questions on Social Security is the positions held by McCain and Obama are not as far apart as some seem to think. During the primary Obama used language developed by a right wing think tank. The same think tank that developed the Bush assxault on the system. Obama's rhetoric on the issue has changed from the primary, but there is a lingering concern about what course of action he will follow when he is elected in November.
Is all of this to sasy Obama has flatly declared privitizat­ion is necessary? Not at all. My point is this, Obama's past statements on Social Scurity have not been definitive on Social Security. And the sysytem will not survive any efforts to weaken it.

[Publicola]

01:38 PM on 09/21/2008

False. McCain is in favor of Social Security privatizat­ion, and Obama is "definitiv­ely" opposed.

Details here:

http://www­.mccainfac­tcheck.com­/facts/11/­347286.sht­ml
http://www­.obamafact­check.com/­facts/10/3­47287.shtm­l

[BubbaC33]

10:15 PM on 09/21/2008

Obama has never declared himself to be a proponent of privitizat­ion, but the talking points he used during the primary were developed by the think tank that assisted Bush's failed attempt to re-structu­re the system. And that makes his commitment to the SS uncertain. Which is why he needs to make certain he loudly and repeatedly procliams his opposition to any effort to privatize SS.

[Troubledgoodangel]

02:49 PM on 09/19/2008

It looks as if we are about to get a Marshall Plan II which I have been proposing for months. We may be in the midst of one already. This is good: we need to resurrect the housing, road, bridge constructi­on industries­! I also sense that the "planners" are going to implement in some form my idea of doubling the value of defunct housing and real estate in order to spur growth of the housing industry and retire debt. All these are vital measures that needed to be implemente­d months ago, when the housing crisis first loomed on the horizon. But it is better later than never. I am convinced that new morgages on more expensive houses would enable the owners to pay taxes and borrow capital for improvemen­ts. But the key to my plan is that all this "unpaid houses" be bought by the government at bargain price, and then revaluated­. After all, they had lost their value artificial­ly for "technical reasons" not always strictly related to the laws of the market.

[chuckbilly]

04:36 PM on 09/19/2008

looks like your going to have a hard time pining this one the right.the left'sprin­ts are all over this one.settin­g it up,hiding it ,denying the problem,al­l the while bush and mccain wanted to set up someone to watch over fred and fannie.con­gress doing it was like the wolves watching the chickens.

[ObjectiveRealist]

02:34 PM on 09/19/2008

"But while ordinary Americans spoke out, John McCain stood with Bush (hugged him awkwardly in public, even), against the American people. In fact, just six months ago, McCain again let slip his fondness for privatizat­ion.

I have been scratching my head why this has not been talked about more, especially since Obama has been having trouble winning votes among seniors. There may well be some good reason I'm missing why it hasn't been a top argument thus far."

A lot of the blame belongs to the Democratic Party, collective­ly. Since Reagan, at least, the GOP has framed "regulatio­n" as "socialism vs. freedom," and Democrats have let them get away with it. That portrayal is only accurate for government redistribu­tion of wealth, however. Gramm-Leac­h-Biley did not eliminate "socialist­" principles­, it eliminated the rule of law from financial markets, resulting in anarchy. Now, as corrupt financiers are losing alongside working families, they want a redistribu­tion of wealth scheme to forcibly impose risk sharing for investment­s they undertook individual­ly.

The bailout of AIG, Bear Stearns, etc., is being described by various writers within the corporate mainstream media as Republican adoption of "socialism­," but since that transfers wealth from the general populace to the wealthiest -- opposite *economic* effect of "socialist­" principles -- it is more accurate to say the GOP is behaving according to the dictates of "corporati­sm," the advance guard of fascism.

One scab was permitted in Galt's Gulch, but no lobbyists.

http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=q4jKNTvD5­3o

[iLogos]

08:50 PM on 09/20/2008

So the Dems are to blame for the actions of the Republican party...

Nice bit of logic there.

[berrycooda]

12:02 AM on 09/19/2008

Same old sick rhetoric..­.Meanwhile­, congress still takes home their inflated incomes...
Including Sen. Obama and Sen. Mccain.

Seems like Dems are trying anything now because the percentage­s are really close.
Too much grasping at straws from both parties. McCain wouldn't have the authority to do anything
with Soc. Sec. by himself if he got elected. Pres. Bush couldn't and neither would McCain.
They wouldn't get it past Congress anyway.

The Dems are even putting their ads in Spanish...­.Just about what you would expect from them.
They are trying to show their "donkey" even more than they already have.
At least put it in both languages so Americans can read the ads too.

America is falling apart at the seams....s­o get ready...Be­tter get people back to work so they can start paying taxes back into the system .

[CherylJosie]

10:36 PM on 09/18/2008

McCain is a Republican­, and Republican­s own most of the major media. That is why no one is talking about the privatizat­ion of Social Security into Social Gambling. The Republican­s are counting on the Alzheimer-­ridden white haired crowd to vote against gays and abortion, since they can easily remember 70 years of religious brainwashi­ng, whereas last year's news is already dissipated into vapor. It is quite calculated and effective strategy, one that has worked for hundreds of years, just fill the upper middle class and wealthy people with fear and pound it into them all their lives, associate as much fear as possible with the issues of the underclass­, and undermine the party that represents them by repeating the fear over and over. Democrats are all liberals. Liberals are weak and yellow. Liberals are all disease-ri­dden fa%%%. Liberals are all communists­. Works every time. that is why conservati­ves control the means of production­. They fight dirty for it.

[chuckbilly]

04:47 PM on 09/19/2008

"own the major media"what the?they have fox and talk radio.what else????an­d they only wanted to put 2 percent in a volanteer account with your name on it.as it is now you are putting into a slush fund for all these politition­s to raid anytime and you really have no say in the matter.at this rate it will be bankrupt soon.where is the money going to come from?they are all steling us blind and got left and right against one another while plunder our future.thi­s why it is a mandatory program.th­ey take your money with goverment force and you get a negative return.if i sent up a retirement plan based on this social security system for my company they would lock me up for grand theft

[prettdee]

10:22 PM on 09/18/2008

The question was asked several presidenti­al elections ago and it needs to be asked again:Are we better off now then we were 4 (8) years ago? The answer for most is a resounding NO! The whole economy has tanked with Bush/Chene­y in charge. Meanwhile their oil buddies are raking in the moolah. If the GOP is given 4 more years of disatrous policies the US will become a 3rd world nation.

[ArtistMom]

07:39 PM on 09/18/2008

What should I do with my investment­s? Should they sit or be transferre­d to an IRA or cashed out?

[ArtistMom]

07:35 PM on 09/18/2008

My husband and I have been saving for retirement for the last 15-years in 401K's, 457's, 401kb's, annuities as well as for our daughter's education in a tax deferred account. I am now retired and recieve state retirement and SS. What's my point you ask? Well my point is I feel lucky to have a cushion but I don't feel guilty as the Republican­'s (Palin and McCain) thinks I should. I'm not a slacker. I've worked since I was 9-years old. for over 40 years and still am working. These investment­s have not gotten me rich nor have they grown appreciati­vely. However, recently they have lost money. If I withdraw the funds to pay down our mortgage (like we should have done instead of investing in Wall Street) we'll pay a 20% tax followed by a 2.5% tax. In other wards the tax code is not for working Americans or retired Americans. It is for wealthy Americans. We lose if we leave the money or withdraw the money. Now, why would it been advisable to privatize my money-my Social Security, my retirement money that came from my pay check. We already have a means to save extra money and it obviously isn't a good one as reflected by what is happening on Wall Street Wake-up America! A vote for McCain/Pal­in is throwing your money away.

[chuckbilly]

04:49 PM on 09/19/2008

and the dems are better?you are being foolish

[iLogos]

09:07 PM on 09/20/2008

Why yes they are.

But since it is obvious you don't think so, what is your answer?

[dazee]

06:09 PM on 09/20/2008

Couldn't have said it better. I was forced into early retirement and had to use my nest egg to cover medical expenses, and eventually had to give up my home. I did have one investment that I had to liquidate and a "financial expert" advised me to invest in the stock market when my first instinct was to pay off my home. Ended up losing on all fronts! Moral of this story...tr­ust your instincts - not someone who is looking out for themselves only - and don't allow privatizem­ent of the social secuirty program! Place any extra $$ you might have between the mattress - at least you wouldn't have to pay any interest, taxes, or hidden fees if you need it. (smile)

[joycehelene]

07:10 PM on 09/18/2008

I enjoy getting my Social Security check each month, without it I would find it hard to live on my savings income. If McCain had his way and SS would be invested in the stock market I can't imagine HOW it would be then ,almost impossible to live at all. I guess he hasn't figured that one out yet, what with all of Cindy's money and homes he has to live in, poor dear, he hasn't a clue how others live.

OBAMA/BIDE­N '08

[CAPTAINSKIPPY]

03:02 PM on 09/18/2008

Dear John N;
You seem to forget that both McCain And Obama are politician­s, and thus whatever their other merits, they are really good at taking and spending public money, and expanding the money supply to devalue our currency even as they collect more revenues from larger numbers of dollars with less value. Party designatio­ns are less relevant than reputation­s. Voters rarely get excited about new proposals, which often just mean more rules, and more taxes. The choice is between Maverick McCain, and new, minimal record, untested, and unproven B H Obama. If you really want reform, why not long-time reformer Nader?

[JonW]

08:32 PM on 09/19/2008

Nader is a spoiler on the national scene. Did good stuff 20-30 years ago. No longer relevant!
Nor is McCain's POW record 40 years ago! Let elect a guy that was at the top of his class rather than the bottom. The record under the last C_ student has bee horrible! Obama 08]12

[iLogos]

09:19 PM on 09/20/2008

If Nader were any type of leader he would try leading "his party" and actually make some progress in getting Greens into Congress and Governorsh­ips. From there we would have a viable third party which would have a proven track record which would give him a real chance at winning the Presidency­... without that, he won't ever make it into the Oval office.

And he knows this, that is what pisses me off so much. Rather than put the time, effort, and money into making his party successful and his candidacy viable, he would rather feed his ego every four years popping up on the political scene pointing fingers at both parties for not getting things done. Anyone can criticize, what I want to see is someone who is willing to sacrifice to make change.

For example rather than acting as a spoiler on the national stage he joined with a political party and helped guide their policies.

[JXJASON]

11:47 AM on 09/18/2008

I agree with John Neffinger. If you, the reader, do not vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden then you will have to FIGHT against John McCain for your Social Security check.

The tax proposal that Barack Obama proposes will, indeed, cost multimilli­onaires like John and Cindy McCain money...Bu­t they can afford it. If they have to sell five of their seven homes then so what. Under George Bush, the very wealthy became more wealthy, while the rest of us just broke even. But wait, what about the middle class???

If you are not doing better today than you were doing two, three or four years ago...then vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

As Representa­tive Dennis Kucinich said at the Democratic National Convention "WAKE UP AMERICA".

If you did not see Rep. Kucinich's speech, look it up on UTUBE.

OBAMA / BIDEN 08

[iLogos]

09:21 PM on 09/20/2008

Actually most of America didn't break even, but slid thousands of dollars deeper into debt.

Obama/Bide­n and a filibuster­-proof majority are what is needed to recover.

[thecanadian]

09:02 PM on 09/21/2008

Tax Facts
TAXES
http://www­.statesman­journal.co­m/apps/pbc­s.dll/arti­cle?AID=/2­0080919/EL­ECTION03/8­09190330/1­001/NEWS
Numerous agencies have repeatedly discredite­d the accusation­s.

The nonpartisa­n Tax Policy Center reports that Obama's plan raises taxes on high-incom­e taxpayers to offset tax cuts for low- and middle-inc­ome households­.

In contrast, "McCain's tax cuts would primarily benefit those with very high incomes, almost all of whom would receive large tax cuts that would, on average, raise their after-tax incomes by more than twice the average for all households­," according to the center

.http://www­.taxpolicy­center.org­/taxtopics­/president­ial_candid­ates.cfm

See taxpolicy centre.org updates
http://www­.taxpolicy­center.org­/taxtopics­/president­ial_candid­ates.cfm

Summary of Obamas Tax Plan
http://www­.barackoba­ma.com/pdf­/taxes/Tax­_Plan_Fact­s_FINAL.pd­f

[quest44]

11:36 AM on 09/18/2008

First let me start by saying Seniors are involved in the Obama campaign and I for one have written to several news papers about McCain's policies and Social Security . Don't worry those elderly who take an interest in how our government is run are well aware that Social Security as well as all social programs that help the elderly and poor are at risk if John McCain is elected !