More McCain distortions

[uscitizen]

"We have to have some straight talk for America. The Social Security system is going to go broke. It will not be there for present day men and women who are working. And we have to fix it and we have to do it in a bipartisan fashion," the Arizona senator said Wednesday during a town hall meeting with running mate Sarah Palin in Grand Rapids, Mich.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080919/D93A2BIO1.html

Many approaching retirement age are still working and will get SS benefits.


the real problem is that the US govt owes around 3 trillion to SS and will have to start paying it back in about 8 yrs or so.

that will have to come out of general funds.

 

[Good Luck]

"We have to have some straight talk for America. The Social Security system is going to go broke. It will not be there for present day men and women who are working. And we have to fix it and we have to do it in a bipartisan fashion," the Arizona senator said Wednesday during a town hall meeting with running mate Sarah Palin in Grand Rapids, Mich.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080919/D93A2BIO1.html

Many approaching retirement age are still working and will get SS benefits.


the real problem is that the US govt owes around 3 trillion to SS and will have to start paying it back in about 8 yrs or so.

that will have to come out of general funds.

It does not matter WHY SSI is going broke (ie: the feds "borrowed" the money to "balance" the budget - and thereby spent it all) The fact is the federal government is NOT going to have the funds to pay back what they owe when they need to do it. SSI is already owed over 3 trillion, and the SSI surplus CONTINUES TO BE BORROWED. ten years from now it will be 5 trillion. 17 years from now, when experts agree the SSI revenues will equal SSI debts, the surplus will be needed to draw on. By that time the debt to SSI with exceed 10 trillion dollars.

This will be true even if we raise the income limit for SSI taxes, because ANY surplus generated is automatically loaned to the federal general fund because law REQUIRES the funds be "invested" (and I use the term loosely) in US Treasury notes.

That has to stop! And McCain wants to stop it. (So did Gore, if you remember....)

 

[Sir Galahad]

Logan's Run anyone?

 

[uscitizen]

McCain amd most of congress just want to get out of repaying what is owed SS.

 

[Good Luck]

McCain amd most of congress just want to get out of repaying what is owed SS.

How do you draw that conclusion? The fact that SSI fund was borrowed and spent is WHY it is in trouble. McCain is saying it is in trouble. YOU are the one in disagreement, as if the money to pay back the SSI fund is going to magically appear from the ether.

 

[uscitizen]

How do you draw that conclusion? The fact that SSI fund was borrowed and spent is WHY it is in trouble. McCain is saying it is in trouble. YOU are the one in disagreement, as if the money to pay back the SSI fund is going to magically appear from the ether.

Magically appear from the ether ? HUH ?
It will appear as needed from the general funds.
That will crimp a lot of other spending.

I would push for a law requiring congress in the future to fulfill the SS needs in the budget before any other spending.

 

[theMAJORITY]

"We have to have some straight talk for America. The Social Security system is going to go broke. It will not be there for present day men and women who are working. And we have to fix it and we have to do it in a bipartisan fashion," the Arizona senator said Wednesday during a town hall meeting with running mate Sarah Palin in Grand Rapids, Mich.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080919/D93A2BIO1.html

Many approaching retirement age are still working and will get SS benefits.


the real problem is that the US govt owes around 3 trillion to SS and will have to start paying it back in about 8 yrs or so.

that will have to come out of general funds.

It is the orgional USA socialized mess--and you support the base philosophy---remember?. It is broke as it was destoned to be. It is a bad investment for people. If it was a good investment, people would invest in it themselfs just like any good investment--and not have to have a gun to their head to invest in it--like our government does. Just like everygovernment run socialized program--it turns into robbery----each and every time. That is what you support---remember?

 

[Good Luck]

Magically appear from the ether ? HUH ?
It will appear as needed from the general funds.
That will crimp a lot of other spending.

I would push for a law requiring congress in the future to fulfill the SS needs in the budget before any other spending.

"Appear as needed from the general fund"?

In case you have not noticed, congress has been singularly unwilling to curb spending in other areas.

In case you haven't been keeping track, the general fund has been boosted using SSI funds since SSI's inception, and was further boosted under Reagan when he increased SSI contributions for the purpose of building a surplus. And somehow that is going to magically reverse itself when the time comes?

Man, you need to share some of those drugs you're on.

SSI is broken, NOT because the foundational principle is out of whack, but because the fund has been woefully mishandled, especially over the last 40 years. If a corporation treated its retirement funds the way the government treats SSI funds, a bunch of CEOs, CFOs, and board leaders would be spending their retirement in Club Fed.

And being SSI is broken, it needs to be fixed. The government should not be able to spend SSI surplus. Those funds should be invested, just as private retirement plans are invested - in a well balanced and diversified plan aimed at maximizing the compromise between security and return. And what is owed the SSI fund needs to be paid back starting NOW while SSI is still pulling in a surplus, so we don't break the government trying to pay it back when SSI runs aground. If the 3 trillion dollars currently owed had been invested properly instead of buying low yield U.S. treasury notes (ie: SPENT by Uncle Sam) SSI would be safe for the next 100 years.

Do you remember that protecting SSI ("Lock Box") was a central plank of Gores campaign? Did you agree with it back then? I'd be willing to bet you did, since you have your head so far up the donkey's ass you can see out his nostrils.

 

[KingRaw!]

Good Luck has no credibility. He thinks pro-choicers are nazis. What are you going to do to stop us from killing 4,000 more babies today? Huh? You gonna kill us evil nazis or blow up our abortion clinics?


Oh wait! You're just all talk......Doing nothing makes you just as bad as us.


McCain can kiss my ass.

 

[KingRaw!]

Nothing Good Luck?.....That's what I thought bitch.


Screw you guys....I'm goin' home!

 

[uscitizen]

It is the orgional USA socialized mess--and you support the base philosophy---remember?. It is broke as it was destoned to be. It is a bad investment for people. If it was a good investment, people would invest in it themselfs just like any good investment--and not have to have a gun to their head to invest in it--like our government does. Just like everygovernment run socialized program--it turns into robbery----each and every time. That is what you support---remember?

History has proven that most people will not save properly for their retirement and old age care on their own.
And if they do not they become a burden on society anyway. I feel than mandatory retirement savings is the best route.

 

[uscitizen]

"Appear as needed from the general fund"?

In case you have not noticed, congress has been singularly unwilling to curb spending in other areas.

In case you haven't been keeping track, the general fund has been boosted using SSI funds since SSI's inception, and was further boosted under Reagan when he increased SSI contributions for the purpose of building a surplus. And somehow that is going to magically reverse itself when the time comes?

Man, you need to share some of those drugs you're on.

SSI is broken, NOT because the foundational principle is out of whack, but because the fund has been woefully mishandled, especially over the last 40 years. If a corporation treated its retirement funds the way the government treats SSI funds, a bunch of CEOs, CFOs, and board leaders would be spending their retirement in Club Fed.

And being SSI is broken, it needs to be fixed. The government should not be able to spend SSI surplus. Those funds should be invested, just as private retirement plans are invested - in a well balanced and diversified plan aimed at maximizing the compromise between security and return. And what is owed the SSI fund needs to be paid back starting NOW while SSI is still pulling in a surplus, so we don't break the government trying to pay it back when SSI runs aground. If the 3 trillion dollars currently owed had been invested properly instead of buying low yield U.S. treasury notes (ie: SPENT by Uncle Sam) SSI would be safe for the next 100 years.

Do you remember that protecting SSI ("Lock Box") was a central plank of Gores campaign? Did you agree with it back then? I'd be willing to bet you did, since you have your head so far up the donkey's ass you can see out his nostrils.

read my posts again Goodluck needed.

I said the borrowing of the SS surplus funds was the most iminent threat to SS. And we would have to start paying it back from the general funds.

But I am glad you are finally catching on.

 

[roscoe52]

I have two mutual funds, one in which I am still paying into on a monthly basis (and have lost thousands in during the Bush years), retirement plan where I currently work, and military retirement, but I will still need/want my social security when I do retire. Dammit, I've paid into it all my working years, and I want my money back. Can you imagine if social security was "privatized" and we had been investing in the stock market thru the Bush years, Americans would really be screwed, which we probably are any way. And I do not want to hear crap from the neocons about people that are "other than republican/conservative'' that just live off the government dole. I've never been given or taken a penny that I didn't work for. I just want my Social Security money (which I paid in) back.

 

[Good Luck]

Lots of people made money in the stock markets through the Bush years. (Some made record amounts.) Most of those who lost (in the long term) or received diminished ROI were the ones who panicked when things went sour during the Enron/WorldCom fiasco, and again during the current crisis. The only other people who consistently lose in stocks are those who try to make a killing by focusing on a few, very active stocks, rather than diversifying and relying on long term stability.

The trick to using stock investments for things like retirement funds is to keep diversified, don't try to make a killing, and don't panic. For instance, those who sold in the past weeks during the height of the crisis lost because they panicked. Yea, dumping AIG stock made sense, but people were dumping EVERYTHING, and they lost big time by panicking.

Those who held on will recover and see gain in the coming months. Long term stock market investment ALWAYS pays off, as long as people diversify, refrain from gambling on the big kill, and don't panic at down turns. My portfolio is down, and lost a chunk that was invested in AIG and similar areas. But of the total portfolio, that was less than 5%, and I have little doubt it will be back before the new president is sworn in.

Investing the SSI fund would be as long term an investment as they come, and that is exactly the type of investment that the stock market consistently gets better returns than any other type of investment. Losses happen in the short term, but have never happened in the long term. Take a decently diversified portfolio in solid, well established stocks and in 20 years it will show better return than any other type of investment, regardless of whether it has seen a few lean years in that period. Make that portfolio worth several trillion dollars, and the return will be practically unheard of. But we don't need to privatize to do it, just hire some sharp investment counselors and put them in charge of the fund, while keeping it in full government control.

 

[Good Luck]

read my posts again Goodluck needed.

I said the borrowing of the SS surplus funds was the most iminent threat to SS. And we would have to start paying it back from the general funds.

But I am glad you are finally catching on.

First, you started this thread in criticism of McCain, then you are claiming you want to do what McCain basically wants to do. What exactly is your criticism of McCain's talk about SSI being in trouble?

Oh yea, he is a republican.

Second, you stated they need to start paying the fund back in about 8 years. They need to start NOW, because what we owe to the fund will increase by over a trillion dollars in 8 years. Or if nothing else, they need to STOP buying friggin U.S. Treasury notes with the surplus.

Obama has no plans to do anything to protect the surplus fund - all he wants to do is raise the cap to add more to the fund - which will, as is required by current law, be put into U.S treasury notes, which is basically transferring the funds to the general fund to be spent, leaving SSI with little more than U.S. Government IOUs.

McCain, OTOH, wants to diversify the investment of the surplus. Even if they avoid the stock market when investing the surplus funds, it is still WAY better than buying treasury notes. And if investment is limited to surplus only, it can use long term investments which have always had better ROIs than short term.

 

[uscitizen]

Ohh I have always been against spending the SS surplus, just letting it sit in a vault would have been better than spending it.

 

[roscoe52]

The only other people who consistently lose in stocks are those who try to make a killing by focusing on a few, very active stocks, rather than diversifying and relying on long term stability.

The trick to using stock investments for things like retirement funds is to keep diversified, don't try to make a killing, and don't panic. For instance, those who sold in the past weeks during the height of the crisis lost because they panicked. Yea, dumping AIG stock made sense, but people were dumping EVERYTHING, and they lost big time by panicking.

Haven't dumped or changed anything in over 5 years. Supposedly my investments are "low risk" and "diversified". I think that when I receive the next quarterly statement(s) I need to have a long talk with these guys, although communication with them is poor, and I don't have much faith/trust in them. I'd like to change companies but my current employer's wont allow it until I'm 59 1/2 years old, or I find employment elswhere.

 

[Good Luck]

Ohh I have always been against spending the SS surplus, just letting it sit in a vault would have been better than spending it.

So what is your criticism of McCain's stance on SSI? He says it is in trouble - and it is in trouble. Not tomorrow, but sooner than many (especially those who support the current system that transfers surplus to the general fund) want to admit.

McCain says SSI is in trouble because the trouble coming needs to be addressed SOON, not later. He said it is GOING broke, not that it IS broke. People NEAR retirement age (as you indicated in your original post) probably have little to worry about, but what about people with 20-30 years to go before retirement? If things are not changed soon, those people will not see any of their SSI contributions returned to them. If SSI continues the way it has, it WILL run out of money, and the burden on the general fund will NOT be sustainable.

McCain wants to move investment of surplus funds to the same areas private retirement accounts use, so it is not transferred to the general fund and spent. He does NOT propose privatizing SSI, as many critics claim, since the fund would still be maintained by the government. The only thing that would change is it would be invested (as in TRULY invested) as opposed to being spent.

So I ask again, what is your criticism of McCain on this issue? After all, you started this thread with a comment that at least seemed to indicate you disagree with his statement.


My criticism of Obama on this issue is he simply wants to increase the surplus revenues by lifting caps, but has no plans to stop spending the surplus as fast as it comes in.

 

[Good Luck]

Haven't dumped or changed anything in over 5 years. Supposedly my investments are "low risk" and "diversified". I think that when I receive the next quarterly statement(s) I need to have a long talk with these guys, although communication with them is poor, and I don't have much faith/trust in them. I'd like to change companies but my current employer's wont allow it until I'm 59 1/2 years old, or I find employment elswhere.

By what criteria do you base the earlier claim that you "lost thousands" in your mutual fund during the Bush years? My retirement portfolio has been chugging right along. I haven't been making money hand over fist with it, but I have definitely made gains over the last 8 years (about 16%/annum average). In comparison, I was making around 18% during most the 90s, but only pulled 14% in '99.

The recent trouble, after the bounce back late in the week, hardly touched me. The Enron/WorldCom fiasco hit me harder because I the consultancy my fund is with tends toward technology related stocks. Actually had a hefty chunk of WorldCom stock that lost almost half its value before my financial consultancy was able to dump it. That was a multi-thousand dollar hit. But overall, because of diversification, I have done quite well, as have many (most as far as I know) others.

But in relating events to SSI funds, investing them in the same areas as private accounts makes sense, even with the recent crisis still a bad taste in our mouth. Investment of SSI surplus (I say again: SURPLUS) is a long term situation, and even in the face of crises like Enron and Lehman, long term investment in stocks has always paid far better than the 2.5-5% offered by T-notes. Additionally, stocks are not the ONLY ways to invest outside of T-notes, many of which also have better returns. AND, the money invested would actually BE there, whereas T-notes are just federal IOUs, which get continually turned around into more IOU's, INCLUDING the supposed interest.

 

[uscitizen]

So what is your criticism of McCain's stance on SSI? He says it is in trouble - and it is in trouble. Not tomorrow, but sooner than many (especially those who support the current system that transfers surplus to the general fund) want to admit.

McCain says SSI is in trouble because the trouble coming needs to be addressed SOON, not later. He said it is GOING broke, not that it IS broke. People NEAR retirement age (as you indicated in your original post) probably have little to worry about, but what about people with 20-30 years to go before retirement? If things are not changed soon, those people will not see any of their SSI contributions returned to them. If SSI continues the way it has, it WILL run out of money, and the burden on the general fund will NOT be sustainable.

McCain wants to move investment of surplus funds to the same areas private retirement accounts use, so it is not transferred to the general fund and spent. He does NOT propose privatizing SSI, as many critics claim, since the fund would still be maintained by the government. The only thing that would change is it would be invested (as in TRULY invested) as opposed to being spent.

So I ask again, what is your criticism of McCain on this issue? After all, you started this thread with a comment that at least seemed to indicate you disagree with his statement.


My criticism of Obama on this issue is he simply wants to increase the surplus revenues by lifting caps, but has no plans to stop spending the surplus as fast as it comes in.

Has McCain supported or submitted a bill to quit spending the surplus ?
or is it just all empty rhetoric ?