the push for privatization of Social Security was effectively the beginning of Bush's "lame duckdom", shortly after inauguration '05.

Bush didn't have the "political capital" that so many on the right crowed about. And it was apparent, almost immediately. And things weren't nearly as bad then.

Seriously. Is there anyone here that denies that?

Why in the world would McCain call one of the most successful government programs for retirees, a "disgrace"?

Why would McCain latch onto, yet, another Bush disaster that the people want no part of?

And now that we're neck deep in the financial quicksand of Bush's second term, gambling with a guaranteed "social net" couldn't be a worse idea.

With all the shit that's been going on lately, McCain actually thinks he's going to bring people into the "investor class" now?

Between now and November?

What's wrong with this man?

Again...the "Liberal MSM" sure isn't asking any questions.

When has SS ever failed to make its obligatory payments? And what private enterprise can claim to never miss a payment? SS isn't supposed to be an investment program, it's designed to be a safety net. "Safe" is pretty key to that.

The only problem with SS is the Nixonian habit of borrowing (well to be honest just taking, as there is no repayment plan I know of) excess revenues and considering them general income. The system itself works fine, all we need is for politicians to stop robbing it.

esp for those that think they can depend on SS after retirement to survive on SS checks alone.

If I had the $$$$$$$s paid to SS, would have had the right to invest MY $$$$$$$$$$s, I'd be fully retired, years back.

My main concern with Mac, is his having Gramm on board, that's a real concern of mine, at present. I tp'd proof of the dangers of Gramm below, so truthful, fraylibs run from answering the question, I understand why.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Acy, that gutted the Glass-Steagall Act of the 1930s, signed into law by Clinton, "IS" why banks are falling, this clusterduck, I can't place on Bushy Boy......

cya

McCain is hopelessly out of touch, with everything, including his own voting record. It is not logical to try to separate himself from GWB on the Iraq war, which is a lie, but align himself with another failed Bush policy, Social Security. It speaks to the fact that he has no cohesive plan to govern.

trillions from SS, I'm expecting Bush to have borrowed even more..........................­..

I'll tell you when SS will miss payments, Shortly, baby-boomers will receive IOU's left by previous administrations...............­Bank On It......................

" The system itself works fine, all we need is for politicians to stop robbing it."

Agree, emphatically. If you know anyone in Obama's campaign, suggest that a good start would be confession that SS funds are being diverted and the diversion not counted as deficit. The system can be guaranteed easily with just a little honesty and Congress stopping what is essentially theft from the program.

Smiley1979:

When has SS ever failed to make its obligatory payments? And what private enterprise can claim to never miss a payment? SS isn't supposed to be an investment program, it's designed to be a safety net. "Safe" is pretty key to that.

The only problem with SS is the Nixonian habit of borrowing (well to be honest just taking, as there is no repayment plan I know of) excess revenues and considering them general income. The system itself works fine, all we need is for politicians to stop robbing it.

Never, has it failed.

Cons are whipping up another scare tactic.

That's what they do.

They've f*cked up everything they've done, now they want to overreach and f*uck up things that are working.

And if they get their hands on it, like everything else....they'll make sure is certainly DOES FAIL.

dadawg:

esp for those that think they can depend on SS after retirement to survive on SS checks alone.

If I had the $$$$$$$s paid to SS, would have had the right to invest MY $$$$$$$$$$s, I'd be fully retired, years back.

My main concern with Mac, is his having Gramm on board, that's a real concern of mine, at present. I tp'd proof of the dangers of Gramm below, so truthful, fraylibs run from answering the question, I understand why.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Acy, that gutted the Glass-Steagall Act of the 1930s, signed into law by Clinton, "IS" why banks are falling, this clusterduck, I can't place on Bushy Boy......

cya

Excuse me if I'm a little surprised at the fact that you're not screeching about "the latest crime a 'nigger' committed", or about "baby daddy confusion", or the housing projects.

...over and done with but the so called "liberal" media never trumpeted the statement.

Let Obama say something like that...

Social Security is essentially a "Ponzi scheme.

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that involves paying abnormally high returns ("profits") to investors out of the money paid in by subsequent investors, rather than from net revenues generated by any real business. It is named after Charles Ponzi.

A Ponzi scheme usually offers abnormally high short-term returns in order to entice new investors. The high returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises (and pays) require an ever-increasing flow of money from investors in order to keep the scheme going.

The system is doomed to collapse because there are little or no underlying earnings from the money received by the promoter.

The money taken out of a persons paycheck today is used to pay a current retired persons benefits. The whole idea of a generation leaving debt is not applicable to a program like social security since it is a pay as you go system.

The idea of debt comes in when the Fed borrows against future securities to pay for rising inflation, which is nothing more than controlled puffery.

Frankly, the disgrace is that so many people would think it's no big deal to take other folks' money for so long (just because it is an officail government program). The disgrace is that we can't say, gee, it was never designed to pay folks to fish and golf and goof off for 30 years so let's raise the retirement age - there is NO DISGRACE in working longer to support ourselves...

check out the obits and the numbers of dead 50/60 year old folks that will NEVER see a dime of the SS monies they paid in.........nor will any of their grown adult family members........

yet, the other "disgrace" are the IOU's in the supposed "lockbox" from previous/present administrations.......

btw: it's as we're watching a movie of the 30's (depression) live today, Congress is the actual "disgrace!"

afterall, what's the need of flaming those already miserable?

Liter fluid not needed for self lighting charcoals.............

:)o

You could raise the retirement age - say to 75 - and with the tax savings you could start the personal accounts. Then the folks who die in their fifties or sixties, at least their heirs would get the money from that. And folks could either access that money before 75 to retire early on their own dime or they could save it and spend it as extra cash when they are collecting SS or they could live frugally on the SS and leave the money in there to go to their heirs when they die. And you could maintain a smaller "disability" benefit that folks who get too frail to work in their late sixties (or their thirties) could have. It is a win win win but the lefties will cry foul because it has a private account component.

As for the depression redux, well we ain't there yet but it did start with a loss of confidence in the banking sector. Bush is a a-hole for not managing this crisis better but so far, the government does seem to be putting the money in that will keep folks from running to their healthy bank and pulling their money out to put it in their mattress...

Not to say SS doesn't need a small fix or two...but you are quite simply incorrect in your assertion that no one will see a dime of that money.


<link>

The benefit amount is based on the earnings of the person who died. The more the worker paid into Social Security, the greater your benefits will be.

Social Security uses the deceased worker’s basic benefit amount and calculates what percentage survivors are entitled to. The percentage depends on the survivors’ ages and relationship to the worker. Here are the most typical situations:

A widow or widower, at full retirement age or older, generally receives 100 percent of the worker’s basic benefit amount;
A widow or widower, age 60 or older, but under full retirement age, receives about 71-99 percent of the worker’s basic benefit amount; or
A widow or widower, any age, with a child under age 16, receives 75 percent of the worker’s benefit amount.
Children receive 75 percent of the worker’s benefit amount.
Maximum family benefits
There is a limit to the benefits that can be paid to you and other family members each month. The limit varies, but is generally between 150 and 180 percent of the deceased’s benefit amount.