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.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
This all started in 1992 under the Clinton Administration. The Fed was given orders to inflate the economy and pump up the stock markets and housing markets, increasing the money supply to record heights. How else could the Dow reach 13,000 and homes in California and many other parts of the country sell for hundreds of dollars per square foot?
It takes money and credit to create these kinds of prices. The market is no more than an auction with people with the most credit placing the winning bids. It was all politics and greed which simply got much worse under the "free market" policies of the present Administration.
Check the growth in all monetary instruments (M3) since 1992, if you can find them. Look for high inflation soon which the Fed wil be unable to hide.
Could you be more specific about the orders given to the feds, like maybe the piece of legislation or are you just another rumor mongering Republican? Yes how else could anything be good under a Democrat, it must have been a Clinton conspiracy. I will not try and try and convince you here that would be like arguing with a wall but just google the S&L crisis of the 1980's, pay attention to how inflated real estate played a role, also read where McCain was rebuked by the Senate for poor judgement for trying to impede the investigation of Keating, remember the Keating 5? If you continue to read you will see the country was in a recession during the first 2 years of the Clinton administration. You may be able to convince the Kool-Aid fanatics of your slanted memory but the facts are there, as usual you are counting on the nations ignorance to hand over control of the nation to the Republicans for 4 more years.
Finally!! I've been saying this since the last time the market dipped. Now, it's time for AARP to get off their butts & come out for Obama!! McCain's retirement is handled... he's married to a wealthy woman, he gets a government pension, probably some money as a Disabled Veteran, lots of property (some income property), etc. He's gonna be fine. What about you? your parents? Can they say the same??
If people allow themselves to be fooled again and listen to the rhetoric and vote for
John McCain, I can only say then it is true about the dummying down of America!!
Hey Seniors...
was invested in the Stock Market...J
and if they had their way seniors would be up the creek.
I am amazed at how few people know absolutely nothing about business or investments. Why is it that every retirement plan that is not through social security grows faster than SS. What does SS grow at, maybe 2% a year at best? ( How can you grow money that's not in an account.) I can get better rates with a savings account at a bank. I invest what little money I have have left over after the gov't takes it share away. I get a much better return on my money and will have something to retire on. No I am not a fatcat, I am a independant contracter with a family of 4 and live on 25,000 take home a year, 40,000 gross. (Don't tell me the gov't is only taxing the rich, and if Obama gets elected I am facing an increase of 12,000 in taxes per Obama's own figures, a year more in taxes alone.) The Stock market always winds up ahead in the long run. Remember black Monday. I think the market is well ahead of where it was then. It does have its ups and down but as you get older, you move your money into more secure areas. Then again, I forget that most people are not intelligent enough to save anything at all, let alone figure out how to invest and reinvest their hard earned money.
The gov't truly is better at knowing how to spend your money than you are!!!
Investment returns are conventionally based on the degree of risk. Risk means, the possibility of losses, including total loss of the value of the investment.
Social Security was never envisioned as an "investment", which is why it does not provide returns you may find for investment devices. It is a "security" in the sense that it is guaranteed by the government (legally, if not factually) and risk obviously contradicts the concept of that guarantee.
Simple economics, most people get it instantly.
If you want a real life example of managed investment versus SS, look at the city of Galveston. It's not pretty.
For being so intelligent, you should have been able to figure out that you will have a smaller tax bill under Obama than McCain. Before you criticize everyone else for not saving their money on the income you have, try living in California, New York, even Atlanta on that salary and paying for a decent place to live. Now try saving. Now... think really hard... close your eyes tight... and add in an illness that results in a hospital bill that you cannot afford. Aren't we all just stupid that we cannot deal with that -- or perhaps we need the same kind of healthcare coverage that the rest of the big league players have for their people, instead of the third world system we have.
Just to let you know, I do live in Atlanta. I never said it was easy to put money away on my income but we do. Everything we own is paid off except my home, which does make it a little easier but I hope I don't have to buy a car for awhile. I already know, that SS will be non existent by the time I retire but I don't care. This country gets more socialist everyday and the gov't will take care of me in the future.
Please don't lump me in with Mcain's a great guy. I'm also very disgusted with the republican party!! I'm holding my nose to vote this year. Once again it is the lesser of two evils with the evil getting worse every year. I think the best candidates were knocked out of this election a long time ago so the media could run what I consider the worst two possible candidates ever.
Wow and all the people who lost 20 years of ther hard earned money on Ernon, World Com, Gloable, and others are just silly ?
40,000 gross and 25,000 take home?
That's an annual tax rate of 38%, who's your accountant? I'd fire him.
If your social security was in the market this week you'd have lost 5% of the value.
I guess that's okay, if you're not retiring this week.
If you really feel that way, you must support Ron Paul or Bob Barr, no?
38% is for taxes, SS, Fica payments, unemployment and all the other taxes a small business has to pay. I actually would be better off working for someone. I do everything above board and pay every cent I am required by law to pay.
The issue is that your own SS dollars aren't invested for you. That would be like a government sponsored 401(k) plan. Instead, they are distributed directly to current retirees. I don't think it's a bad idea to automatically set up government sponsored retirement accounts but the problem is for people who are currently on a fixed income. Once you hit about 55 you need to start to think about moving your investments into safer markets, so you can't be hit too bad by fluctuations in the NYSE. Since I'm in my 20s, I have very aggressive investments, consisting of emerging markets, international stocks, etc. In 30 years, I'll want to move to cash, government bonds, etc. Yeah, my return might be only 5%, unlike the 10% stock market returns of the late 90s, but I know it will remain fairly constant.
A retiree with their money invested heavily in US stocks would be screwed right now unless the feds can figure out a way to efficiently streamline the process of letting every American monitor and manage their own, government-run, retirement accounts. For once, I think individual companies are doing better here. It's not so hard to direct 10% of your income to a 401(k). You almost never miss the money, especially since it's pre-tax dollars. I adjusted my tax withholdings after signing up for my 401(k) and bring home almost the same amount now, after taxes.
There needs to be a balance of personal and government income.
No kidding he needs a new accountant. I'm single, make more money than he does, and I sure don't pay that much in taxes . Also, if he'd check the Tax Center's analyses, he'd see that he'd be paying fewer taxes under Obama's plan than McCain's. Can't understand the Tax Center's run down? Well.....
THE TRUTH!!!!! McCain has been around long time people where was that weak voice?
Somone please get the following ads to the Obama campaign:
Social Insecurity
Voice over: In 2004 George Bush and John McCain tried to have your Social Security invested by Wall Street and Senator Barrack Obama stopped them.
With the recent Wall Street collapse what would have happened to your Social Security had Senator Obama not stopped George Bush and John McCain?
Barrack Obama, ready to lead, John McCain more of the same.
Different crisis same John McCain
Voice over: In 1992 Senator John McCain was faced with another banking crisis in the savings and loan industry. Investigators of the S&L market collapse concluded: John McCain exercised poor judgment in his dealings with the industry.
Now John McCain wants you to trust his judgment with today’s banking crisis on Wall Street.
We can’t afford four more years of George Bush and John McCain.
ROFL at Senator Obama being the one that stopped them. Good god that is priceless.
Helped to stop them would be a bit more accurate.
luved your ads...i've been doing some checking and the privitization of social security, loosening regs on the mtg giants and banking industry were part of that Ownership Society thing that Bush was touting soooooo much a few years ago. I think that then Senator Gram "opened the door" with his deregulation agenda for this society.
Good stuff, only did Obama really try to stop this in 2004? He was just getting his feet wet.
For the Republican trolls who keep saying that John McCain would'nt privatize social security.
http://www
good article.
Thank God the privatizing of social security didn't materialize. I hope that Obama is surrounding himself with financial experts that have solutions. This is all looking more expensive than the original problem of sub-prime mortgages. I still believe that if all sub-prime mortgages were converted to 6% conventional loans a year ago, this would have been less expensive to the American taxpayer. Those that still couldn't afford a home with this low interest rate were in a house that they couldn't afford and those that loaned the money to them, sold it to wallstreet, then sold it to investors and insured it with AIG, deserve to absorb the losses.
Senator McCain wants to privatize Social Security. It is a stance he has repeatedly taken over the past ten years in recorded votes, interviews, speeches, and documents. It is also a position that he will deny in this campaign. In fact he tried to deny it at a June town hall meeting in New Hampshire, when he declared, “I’m not for, quote, privatizing Social Security. I never have been. I never will be.” But the contrary evidence is overwhelming.
As long ago as 1998, several years before the Bush administration sought to promote privatization, he voted to partially replace Social Security with private accounts. He included privatization in the economic platform of his 2000 presidential campaign. He spoke out in support of the White House’s ill-fated push for privatization during the spring of 2005. And when that plan started to sink into oblivion, despite an advertising and public relations budget that exceeded $50 million, he tried to save it.
Another day another half truth. The current POTUS thought it would be better for Americans to invest their Retirement income into different means of making it grow. Instead of the pale 2% we get from the Government. Which by the way is the same amount first offered in 1930.
One of those options was the Stock Market, a highly risky and volital investment place, but where many fortunes have been made. Ask your DNC leaders.
It is today in shambles because of poor investing, speculations and speculators. Now the Dems in Congress want to save it.
Let it crash! Let it burn.
Same for Lehman Brothers, AIG and all of your crooked scam companies.
No. The current POTOS lied and said that we now get a 2% ROI. That's not how Social Security works at all. Our money is not invested for us. It is used to pay current retirees. That's how the system was able to cover the first generation with NO prior savings.
You can argue that's a bad system. It certainly has problems dealing with odd demographic shifts like the retirement of the boomers. Of course, the doomsayers don't mention that once the boomers do start dying off, the demographic situation of SS will probably improve.
In any case, Bush wanted to start investing current workers' money in the stock market (and elsewhere), replacing it with huge amounts of borrowed money to continue paying benefits to current retirees. I guess he intended to pay them with all the extra money that more and more tax cuts would bring in. That's not voodoo economics. It's just lying.
(My 1st blog) The events of the past 2 days are interesting and focus on 1: Our gratitude to Franklin Roosevelt, for 75yrs ago he put in place regulations that prevented this meltdown from being another GREAT DEPRESSION. 2: Asking McCain if the alphabet soup of gov't. regulations that is smothering this country includes the FDIC and the FSLIC that has protected those of us making under $5 million a year. 3: The Republican belief that government programs to bail out the middle class from the crushing burdon of health care are superceeded by the need to bail out the large financial institutions that have been preaching "free market" philosophy
The problem with John Neffinger spin on this issue is that Social Security, as it is set-up, if it were run by a private citizen would be illegal because it is nothing more than a ponzi scheme which as we all know never works out for the "last ones" in.
Also it should be noted Galveston County opted out of Social Security for their workers in 1981. Guess which program has better return on the investment? It ain't the federal retirement program.
http://www
I'm glad you brought this up, John. Not only did the Repubs want to privatize Soc. Sec., but in 2004 and 2005 Bush was more than happy to take credit for the American housing explosion (see the State of the Union Addresses for those years). The Repubs should be very, very quiet for awhile instead of trying to lie their ways out of these messes.
And we have the democratically controlled Congress to thank for looking out for us the last two years, right? Have you noticed the rash of legislation to overhall Social Security? No?
Thank you for pointing that out. Problem is democrats talk alot and rarely do anything.
But you forget the 40 republican votes in the Senate that obstruct most attempts at reform
It is always something with democrats. Have you noticed? Democrats have control of the Congress but the republicans just won't let them do anything. Poor babies. What we need to alleviate their incompetence is an incompetent President to provide balance. Then they can come up with something.
That's getting to be an old line. The facts are that Congress only became a Democratic majority after the 2006 elections and have only been holding congressional votes since 2007 so essentially the so-called 'majority' has only been active for less than a year. But wait, there's more. The 'majority' has only been two votes, one a Joe Lieberman.
Let me see.....th
My mother invested her lump-sum retirement buyout 10 years ago. She's got less than half left. Many peopke would fare well under privitization, but many others would be royally screwed. Investments are a crapshoot. The winners don't justify the losers.
I disagree. If you want to support your mother by paying taxes that would fund her retirement that is of course you business i just happen to think I should be the one who decides how to spend my income.
The issue in a republic (remember the civics class definition of the commonweal?) is that if each person decides, individually, how to spend their income, there would be uneven funding of the military-based upon how safe each person feels, lack of funding for educaton as most people think that they know more than they do, and possibly a lack of frequent garbage collection
How much evidence do you need ...the collapse of the Savings and Loan industry, the burst of the dot.com bubble, BearStearns, Merrill Lynch, AIG, Lehman Bros., to see that the majority of Americans have no idea what they're doing when they enter the market? Sam Donaldson used to warn the shoe clerks to get out of the market, because when those earning +$5 Million/year move, the little guy (those making less than that) get drowned by the undertow
What really bothers me is that the government can come up with hundreds of billions to bail out failing companies but 50 million Americans without health insurance are not worth helping. Also, we need to keep our minds open to the possibility that this entire mess is not a series of blunders but a calculated and deliberate plundering of every dime and if they could have gotten their hands on social security they would have gladly absorbed those funds as well.
Are you not paying attention? Their is no social security funds. Only IOU's. The government has spent the money. Current retirees are being paid by those of us still working. And you guys think it is ok to trust the government with your retirement funds. LOL!!
Well, lemme splain it for ya from the Republican Encyclopedia:
Hundreds of billions in bailouts, subsidies, tax breaks and loans to failing corporations is "free market economics".
A national health insurance program is "socialism" or "communism", depending on which Republican hack you choose.
Taxpayers get stuck with the bill either way.
The difference is that "free market economics" makes a few wealthy people richer and protects them from fraud and colossal business screwups, while "socialism / communism" directly benefits tens of millions of taxpayers.
If you like things this way, Mc.Cain's your guy.
You have it all backwards. True Republicans didn't want any of those bailouts to happen.
"...while "socialism / communism" directly benefits tens of millions of taxpayers. "
yeah, communism has been so successful of late. Notice how many communist countries are still around?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
