ready on day 1
July 9th, 2008 |John McCain last Monday:
I’d like to start out by giving you a little straight talk. (1)
Under the present set-up because we’ve (2) mortgaged your, our children’s futures, you will not have Social Security benefits that the present day retirees have unless we fix it (3).
Americans have got to understand that. Americans have got to understand that we are paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers in America today. (4) And that’s a disgrace. It’s an absolute disgrace and it’s got to be fixed. (5)
(1) Gag.
(2) "We’ve" as in John McCain, US Senator from Arizona, serving in Congress since 1983.
(3) He says this like a fix for Social Security would be more difficult than putting a man on the surface of the sun. If a fix is necessary it would be easy to do, just like it’s been done in the past.
(4) Yes, I understand how Social Security works John McCain. That’s how it’s always worked.
(5) Uhhh, a disgrace? WTF are you talking about? Are you stating that Social Security as a concept, one of the most successful federal programs in the history of the country, is a disgrace or that the system of funding Social Security, the same funding mechanism that has always been used since the start of the program, is a disgrace?
John McCain, did you just discover how Social Security works?
5 Responses to “ready on day 1”
Uhhh, a disgrace? WTF are you talking about? Are you stating that Social Security as a concept, one of the most successful federal programs in the history of the country, is a disgrace or that the system of funding Social Security, the same funding mechanism that has always been used since the start of the program, is a disgrace?
You have a point in that McCain is as culpable as anyone having served for so long in the Senate.
However, speaking of discovering how it works, you are aware of the fact that changing demographics are going to make the way its always worked start to not work any more right?
I don’t know if disgrace is much more than dramatics. However, the mathematics of the effect the changing ratio of people paying in to people drawing benefits can’t possibly be a surprise to anyone in the Federal Government.
I can tell you that easily 90% of my clients under age 58 or so ask not to have Social Security depicted in their financial plan.
I think this means either they don’t think it will be there or they aren’t willing to bear the burden of fixing it…or both.
However, speaking of discovering how it works, you are aware of the fact that changing demographics are going to make the way its always worked start to not work any more right?
Gee..I would hope that Senator McCain would understand this, too, considering he wants to lead us.
However, speaking of discovering how it works, you are aware of the fact that changing demographics are going to make the way its always worked start to not work any more right?
Which would mean that you would hope that someone who has been in the position to effect this since 1983 might not be waking up to it in 2008.
I don’t know if disgrace is much more than dramatics. However, the mathematics of the effect the changing ratio of people paying in to people drawing benefits can’t possibly be a surprise to anyone in the Federal Government.
Referencing my first two points, what has he done about it over the past 25 years?
I can tell you that easily 90% of my clients under age 58 or so ask not to have Social Security depicted in their financial plan.
Which represents what percentage of the total amount of people living in the United States? What is the demographic slice of people able, or needing, to pay for your services? Is the President simply presiding over your clients, and fuck the rest of ‘um? Also, please provide some data to support your claims. I find it hard to believe that “your clients” believe that our “economic collective” is better off without a mandated economic security fund. Do you discuss these concepts with them?
I think this means either they don’t think it will be there or they aren’t willing to bear the burden of fixing it…or both.
Do you not find it economically prudent for an “economic collective” to have some form of mandated security fund for those living under it, given what we know of a “capitalist” society and what generally happens to people over the course of life?
I think the mistake some have made is to assume, and promote, that Social Security is a retirement plan instead of an insurance plan.
Changes that could, and should, be made to Social Security include means testing, you should not get it if you don’t need it. But, as with all insurance, it is available upon retirement should you need it. In addition, a public education campaign should be made to inform Americans that they should not count on Social Security as their sole means of retirement benefit. It’s insurance. You want money for retirement? Make other plans and save money.
The conservative misinformation campaign has convinced Americans that Social Security is a retirement plan that won’t be available in order to eliminate the program.
Talk about a disgrace.
Let McCain talk about his “alternatives” to Social Security. He is talking about privatization and this is a total loser issue.
Gee..I would hope that Senator McCain would understand this, too, considering he wants to lead us.
I don’t follow. I think he does and that is why he is giving us the “straight talk”, right?
I don’t believe that he would deny that he has been complicit either.
On the other hand, we already know what Obama wants to do. Put a further burden on the economy by raising taxes via raising the FICA threshold. That’s not smart either. Hit the people that employ the rest? For Obama increased taxes and/or government is the solution to every ill.
Which represents what percentage of the total amount of people living in the United States? What is the demographic slice of people able, or needing, to pay for your services? Is the President simply presiding over your clients, and fuck the rest of ‘um? Also, please provide some data to support your claims. I find it hard to believe that “your clients” believe that our “economic collective” is better off without a mandated economic security fund. Do you discuss these concepts with them?
Obviously my observation is anecdotal, but as an advisor I do have access to the perspective of a wide range of client viewpoints. As long as you are asking, how many people do you interview every year about their future and their viewpoint on the future of the Social Security system? What are your financial credentials?
I advise my clients to plan on it not being there because I don’t know one other advisor that does otherwise with a client younger than the mid fifties.
…and not every advisor is a conservative either! Not even close.
Do you not find it economically prudent for an “economic collective” to have some form of mandated security fund for those living under it?
Of course I do but continuing to run and fund it the way it has been done in the past is not going to work. It’s simple mathematics.
from Cato.org:
In 1940 life expectancy at birth was 64 years; it is now estimated at 75.At the turn of the century the birth rate was 3.56; it is now 2.0.As one would expect, the result is a falling support/benefit ratio, as shown in Figure 2. In 1950 there were 16 workers for every Social Security beneficiary; at present there are 3.3, and it is projected that there will be fewer than 2.0 in 2030.
I not convinced that privatization of the system is the answer either, but something has to change so don’t miss the message just because you don’t like the messenger.
Given that the “fix” for the flawed actuarial scales of Social Security is historically to double the tax, count me out on #3, Smithers. Count me out on means testing as well; Roosevelt didn’t get it passed by promising a welfare program, and to make it one actually makes the moral hazard worse.
The main trouble with Social Security is that it destroys its own foundation; by promising that people will be taken care of whether or not they invest or have children, they destroy the tax base upon which the program rests. People stop saving and have fewer children.
That, along with medical advances, is why the tax rate has been doubled three times in its history. You simply can’t keep ahead of a geometric progression when taxation is limited to < 100%.