Doesn’t matter. if you are old and unable to work and your income drops to half then it doesn’t matter a bit if three months later it goes back out. Your sleeping on a cot at the union gospel mission by then.
My father didn’t pay into social security…some old exemption about preachers and stuff…so his retirement was all mutal funds. Luckily, he’s still able to work doing counseling and lectures right now or he’d be screwed. His monthly income has dropped significantly.
I believe that the issue is with the “20-year guaranteed gain” not the “10% average compound return” part. Going from the Wikipedia, it took from 1929 crash until 1954 to even out (25 years), for instance.
If I recall correctly, back when the Reps were talking about privatization, wasn’t it just a small percent, two percent, I think?
Yeah, but that was just the cameltoes under the tent flap, the thin end of the wedgie.
Please restate to be either clear or funny. And given your batting average, I hope you strive for the former. Was that the proposal or not?
Problem Solved. The market will correct them out of existence by then.
Sure it was, but it needs to be considered as part of the continuum of batshit pizza rightarded policy, policy that the Goober Norquist branch of the Party has labored mightily to get someone to take seriously. They ended up with the proposal you highlight after having the living snot kicked out of them over other, more ambitious and more reactionary, proposals. And even that modest proposal died a gruesome death.
The Pubbies swear up and down the SS is doomed, doomed! I say… and the most convincing evidence they can offer is the opinion of that most prudent and fiscally responsible Party, themselves.
If they can peer into the future, how come they didn’t see the Shitpile Express bearing down on them? And if they did see it, how come they didn’t do anything about it? What reason can you offer me to trust their prescience and/or their prudence?
Just going on tense of the quoted sentence. “Millions of Floridians who rely on it.” Present tense.
Jsgoddess: You’re correct. And it appears that disability wouldn’t be privatized. It would be cut.
Holy mackerel. Does anyone have other links about this part of that plan?
I think Social Security NEEDS to die.
It’s a bad system that keeps the newest generation under the thumbs of the oldest. When the economy really and truly hits bottom, the “today-pays-for-yesterday” that is SS will feel the pinch in a big, big way. If you’re paying SS today, you’re paying for the people who retire today, your sons and daughters who pay SS tomorrow, will be paying for you. The problem is, because SO many formerly US jobs are now elsewhere in the world, the gap between the needs and the available capital to fund the system will continue to widen. It will take three kids working at starbucks to pay for the SS I’ll be entitled to by the time I retire, and I have a full 31 years before I can collect it, if the current age stays at 67, which it won’t.
I’ve put in FAR more than I will ever get out, even if the trust fund manages to stay solvent.
I say they’re both full of shit, and unless one of them manages to present a decent idea, neither should keep on about it.
Yesssssss. That $1200 a month will keep me in the chips for the remainder of my days, as I suck the life blood from infants to keep my wrinkled ass smooth. ::maniacal old-person cackle::
Out of curiosity, do you have any strong views on life insurance policies?
But back to the OP. I’m an Obama supporter and I basically agree with the OP: Obama was wrong to say that current retirees would suffer if McCain had his way and privatized Social Security. There’s just no way around it, it is just as deceptive as McCain saying that Obama’s going to raise taxes on everyone. It is a strawman argument, plain and simple.
Obama is entirely right that putting Social Security funds into the market would destroy Social Security, as it is a social insurance program, not a retirement benefit. But he didn’t say that, instead he attacked McCain for a plan that McCain does not endorse, namely, taking away the Social Security guarantee for those already retired.
It is worth noting that one of Obama’s three economic advisors, Jeffrey Leibman, supports partial privatization of social security. He was also, incidently, an advisor to Bill Clinton. Privatizatiion is not simply a Republican idea.
Privatization is one of the reasons the government continues to spiral into debt and government services continue to get worse. I worked in the public sector nearly my whole life, both as a government employee and as a contractor. My wife was a property manager for the USG until she quit out of disgust and frustration.
Somehow, the government got the idea that privatizing services and jobs would save money. They were sold a bill of goods. What they get are low-bid contractors who pad their resumes with people who have stellar qualifications. Unfortunately, none of those people end up working on the contract. Instead, contractors often hire the cheapest labor they can find: people who are often eminently UNqualified to do the job they are hired for. My last position with a contractor was as a facilities manager. Now, I’m certainly qualified to do that job, but the contract proposal was for a degreed Mechanical Engineer, which I am definitely NOT. So the contractor got away with hiring someone less-qualified so they could pay less and maximize profits. End result: the taxpayer doesn’t get what he’s paying for.
My wife had full-time government maintenance mechanics working for her. Privatization resulted in her having to deal with a complete crook who hired people that barely knew one end of a wrench from the other. Most of her time in that job was spent threatening and cajoling these assholes to do the job for which they were hired, then having to farm out the more complicated jobs to local businesses. And it wasn’t just maintenance mechanics, it was janitorial, snow removal, security, you name it. In the long run, it costs the taxpayer much more for privatizing.
Well, I can see a “way around it.”
McCain has advocated privatization and Obama was speaking semi-abstractly about privatization in general:
“…if my opponent had his way, the millions of Floridians who rely on it would’ve had their Social Security tied up in the stock market this week.”
He wasn’t saying that John McCain’s legislative record shows him voting for having Social Security tied up in the stock market. He was saying that if the people who support privatization of SS had their way then the Floridians’ money would have been tied up in the stock market.
Another translation:
“If SS accounts were private accounts, then your money would have been tied up in the stock market this week. John McCain has stated that he supports privatization of SS.”
I’d say that “who rely on it” means current retirees by any fair definition. People who haven’t yet retired can’t fairly be called “people who rely on Social Security.” Perhaps they will be some day, but they aren’t.
But that translation isn’t true either. Under McCain’s plan, only younger workers would have their accounts privatized. Unless you magically know that Obama was only talking to people under the age of 50, which to my recollection isn’t the case (IIRC, he was talking to retirees) then even your generous translation is inaccurate. That’s because you’re translating out an important phrase (“people who rely on it”) and still making the mistake that everyone’s Social Security benefits would be privatized. That’s wrong. It’s a strawman.
I’m for 'em, as long as the government doesn’t take money out of my check to buy one for your grandfather, I’m all good.
That’s not necessarily true.
I’m reserving judgment on privatizing social security, but the fact is that different investment strategies make sense at different ages. It’s generally a bad idea for most of the elderly to have many assets in the stock market, but it’s generally a good idea for most of the middle-aged. Risk tolerance and asset allocation should change as people get older.
Well, Mr. Raven, I don’t believe we can reach agreement here, but I’ll take my allotted 30 seconds of counter-rebuttal time.
Earlier in the thread Morgenstern linked to McCain saying, “Without privatization, I don’t see how you can possibly, over time, make sure that young Americans are able to receive Social Security benefits.” To me that’s evidence that we can’t judge McCain’s views on SS solely by the legislation he has supported. It is fair to say he supports privatization.
I’ll stick by my Obama translation of:
“If SS accounts were private accounts, then your money would have been tied up in the stock market this week. John McCain has stated that he supports privatization of SS.”
Obama was talking about the general vulnerability of private accounts. His point was not who exactly would or would not be affected at that precise moment in time by legislation endorsed by McCain.
And now through the miracle of analogy:
If a candidate has said he’s against private ownership of handguns, then his opponent can campaign at a crime scene and say, “If my opponent had his way, these innocent victims would not be able to own guns to defend themselves.”
That would be a fair charge, even if his opponent had never actually voted for a handgun ban. It would also be a fair charge if his opponent had voted for a handgun ban that didn’t apply to those particular victims.
Analogies are sloppy but sometimes useful. Hopefully, you’ll find that one more useful than sloppy.
That’s Mr. man to you. 
I know he supports privatization. He has supported legislation that would privatize accounts for younger workers. Unless you can find some actual evidence that he wants to privatize accounts for the currently retired, you’re just making shit up. Or, in fancier terms, constructing a straw man.
I have been on record before as saying that we should allow politicians some leeway in off-the-cuff comments. Extemporaneous remarks are rarely as accurate as scripted statements. So if Obama was speaking off the cuff, I’ll give him some slack. But he said to the group that millions of Americans would be scrambling to give their grandmothers and grandfathers a secure retirement, and half of elderly women living in poverty. (See OP’s cite.)
Obama was talking about old people losing Social Security benefits because of the market crash. Your insistence that he was only speaking in a general sense about SS is delusional. He referred to retirees several times in just a few lines of his speech.
If you can’t talk about the specifics of what Obama and McCain’s positions are on Social Security, and you must resort to using analogies, you’ve lost the argument. Both Obama and McCain have clear positions on the issue. I think Obama’s is correct. That doesn’t mean that I can misrepresent McCain’s views in order to score political points.