It’s been tough getting a straight answer out of McCain as to what he proposes with respect to Social Security, but according to this Wall Street Journal article, he apparently favored Bush-style privatization.
Something to keep in mind as we ponder the stagnant stock market, government bail outs of Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac, and see what the future brings with respect to the likes of Lehman Brothers, and AIG.
Although, at this rate, rather than making social security assets private; we’re going to convert all the private liabilities to public ones. So I guess, one way or another public money is going to get together with private debt. Privatize the profits, socialize the debts.
the status quo is no good either: aside from the insolvency problems, you have that nasty 1.2% real rate-of-return (for the only nest egg available to the working poor) and a negative rate of return for African-Americans (since they die earlier than average)…that’s not much for the government to give back when most people lose about 15.3% of every dollar they should be bringing home!
Social Security is a safety net, nothing more, nothing less. I understand why certain groups want that money tied to the stock market as well. The more money actual workers have tied up in company stocks, the more likely they are to look after the company’s pocketbook instead of their own.
I’m in the age group that privatization is being pushed on the most. I want no part of it. What stock I did own has been sold. I will never again put a penny in the stock market. I will not bankroll these Wall Street weasels and their ‘get rich off scamming workers’ plan.
I find dealing in cash and handshakes is much more secure and a lot less complicated.
I would disagree that SS is a ‘safety net’ . Most of those in my family rely almost wholly on Social Security and Medicare for retirement.I’m assuming those I know are typical.
SS is a safety net for the country in the sense that if not for SS nd Medicare,we would have a momumental poverty problem in this country that would be a great burden on the national coffers. So let’s juxtaposition that against the burden funding SS is and will be.
I have never understood how privitization would not put large numbers of people in great financial jeopardy. Judging from the people I know, SS has been one of this nation’s greatest achievements .
even if one accepts the safety net analogy, it is an extraordinarily expensive safety net– and one whose costs are borne tremendously by the most marginal in our society…
Investing for retirement is, by definition, a long-term proposition – 49 years if we go by Social Security’s guidelines. I fail to see what short-term fluctuations of the stock market have to do its long-term stability. Besides which, you don’t need to invest in stocks beat Social Security. Those of us who started in the Ponzi scheme after 1990 are now GUARANTEED a negative rate of return. I can do better than that with a savings account at my bank.
Yeah, the banks are safe, too! Up to $100,000. Until the FDIC runs out of money. Then we’ll all assume that debt, too.
The point is, the same people who helped our financial system approach meltdown wanted our social security bucks in the markets. If they had had their way, likely with just as poor regulation as the financial and mortgage markets had, then that money would likely be gone, too. Just one company has now posted $600 billion in losses, right? What kind of rate of return is that?
It occurs to me that maybe the economy is like a river. The free market purists are perhaps like the environmentalists that point out that, long term, it’s probably a sounder plan to let the river flood naturally than to throw up levees and dams. Trouble is, with the economy, about 85% of our population live right along side the river and get hit hard when a flood comes; lacking the resources to get out of the way and take advantage when the waters recede.