- ‹ previous
- 2907 of 8922
- next ›
John McCain Thinks Social Security Is A "Disgrace"
On Monday, during a town hall in Denver, John McCain proposed a radical "fix" for the way Social Security is funded. Responding to a questioner who claimed Social Security "will not be there" when current workers retire (which is wrong), McCain said this:
Americans have got to understand that we are paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers in America today. And that's a disgrace. It's an absolute disgrace, and it's got to be fixed.
As anyone who knows anything about Social Security understands, "paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers" is pretty much the functional definition of Social Security. Always has been. That's what John McCain is calling an "absolute disgrace."
Update: The McCain campaign has responded to a question about his "disgrace" comment from ABC's Jake Tapper. We have full coverage here.
Jared Bernstein, the director of the Living Standards program at the Economic Policy Institute, said in an email that he was shocked by McCain's statement:
That is truly an amazing quote. It's like he's saying, "I just found out that taxes come from people...that's a disgrace." It betrays a really quite scary lack of knowledge about basic government.... I know he's not into this kind of stuff, but ... it would be hard not to know about the intergenerational financing of Social Security. It's the biggest government transfer—1/5 of the damn budget. I guess the quote suggests he knows about the financing, but the way he says it, it sounds like he just found out and is shocked.
I can't imagine how this will play if it goes at all viral. Maybe Social Security is no longer the third rail, but to call it a disgrace ought to be seen as over the top. On the other hand, maybe people will agree with him.
Dean Baker, an economist and the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, also weighed in by email, writing, "McCain's position on Social Security is that it is a disgrace. He said so himself."
Now, before you think, "Wow, that must be a slip of the tongue, he can't possibly mean that," please note that McCain said essentially the same thing to John Roberts on CNN this morning. From the transcript:
On the privatization of accounts, which you just mentioned, I would like to respond to that. I want young workers to be able to, if they choose, to take part of their own money which is their taxes and put it in an account which has their name on it. Now, that's a voluntary thing, it's for younger people, it would not affect any present-day retirees or the system as necessary. So let's describe it for what it is. They pay their taxes and right now their taxes are going to pay the retirement of present-day retirees. That's why it's broken, that's why we can fix it. [Emphasis added.]
Here, McCain is saying, again, that the problem with Social Security is that Social Security is Social Security, instead of something else. He's saying the system is broken because young people "pay their taxes and right now their taxes are going to pay the retirement of present-day retirees." But that is the definition of the system. McCain is objecting to the basic structure of Social Security.
That's not all.
McCain's criticism of taxing current workers to pay retirees' benefits implies support for the Right's fantasy alternative: private accounts of the type President Bush advocated in 2005. (Bush's privatization plan failed, in what is now seen as his biggest domestic policy defeat). And McCain's Bush-echoing attack on Social Security isn't just radical. It also contradicts his campaign's stated position. McCain's website says he supports "supplementing the current Social Security system with personal accounts." There's nothing on the website about how the current system is a "disgrace" or how the way it is funded has to be drastically altered. But that's what McCain was saying in Denver.
This is not the first time that McCain has hinted that he will follow in Bush's Social-Security-dismantling footsteps. In a Wall Street Journal interview published in March, he made his intentions explicit:
"I'm totally in favor of personal savings accounts," [McCain] says. When reminded that his Web site says something different, he says he will change the Web site. (As of Sunday night, he hadn't.) "As part of Social Security reform, I believe that private savings accounts are a part of it—along the lines that President Bush proposed.
(Months later, McCain still hasn't changed his website.)
Does McCain really think he can get away with having two different Social Security plans? Well, as ThinkProgress has pointed out, McCain was denying his history of supporting private accounts just last month. It seems he just can't make up his mind. But perhaps having two different positions makes political sense—especially if one of them has already failed.
Don't understand why McCain's Social Security plan doesn't make sense? Try Hilzoy. She has pictures explaining the situation.
The taxes collected go into a FUND. The net PROCEDES from this fund is what was to be used to pay Social Security, and thus the system is self-perpetuating.
Social Security Never Really worked that way, although that's the image of it politicians have always liked to perpetuate.
When it was first instituted, they immediately began paying death benefits for people who had NOT paid a cent into it during their working lives. Within just 3 years, they had begun paying retirees.
Where did that money come from?
Why..., current working taxpayers, of course.
(If you trust the wiki: Payments to current retirees were (and continue to be) financed by a payroll tax on current workers' wages, half directly as a payroll tax and half paid by the employer. If you don't trust wiki, you can find the same info at other sources)
There were enough paying workers vs. retirees to fund those few, eligible retired at the time of origin, with little strain as far as workers affording the pittance it was costing them (avg. life expectancy was about 65, which also happened to be the official retirement age set by the gov't. NO coincidence!). And the workers weren't complaining because they had "The Promise" for their own future. Though S.S. was pointed to as the cause of the "Roosevelt Recession" in 1937 and 1938.
As receipts outpaced expenditures, they created a "trust fund".
However, Politicians, being what they are, they couldn't possibly keep their hands off of ANY pile of "Public" money they saw lying around. Here's what wiki has to say about the "trust fund":
Unlike a typical private pension plan, the Social Security Trust Fund does not hold any marketable assets to secure workers' paid-in contributions. Instead, it holds non-negotiable United States Treasury bonds and U.S. securities backed "by the full faith and credit of the government".
The Office of Management and Budget has described the distinction as follows:
These [Trust Fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other Trust Fund expenditures ? but only in a bookkeeping sense.... They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large Trust Fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government's ability to pay benefits. (from FY 2000 Budget, Analytical Perspectives, p. 337)
If you've looked at the Budget Deficit and the National Debt lately, you know what "full faith and credit" is worth.
I.O.W.: All the trust fund has been spent by the government, and replaced with gov't I.O.U.'s (Treasury Bonds & Gov't Securities)
Still all manageable as long as the workforce kept growing at an adequate rate to keep up with the costs of the retired recipients, because THAT'S where recipient payments Really come from.
As Congress began to see political benefit in tacking on more classes of recipients, they did so, and the retirees & survivors were living longer while the rate of US population groth steadily declined.
Problems became inevitable.
What we really need to be figuring out is not "Are we Morally obligated to the people who had to pay into the scheme their whole working lives, accepting the promise that they'd get paid back after retirement. (Quite obviously, we ARE!)
What we need to be discussing is HOW we can manage to fund it with the Boomers now beginning to retire, expecting to live longer than ever, and a workforce growing at Not NEARLY a great enough rate to fund SS, along with it's partner Medicare, short of taking something like half their paycheck 40 years or so from now.
And ChuckA is correct when he says that any Private entity who set up such a scheme would be jailed for running an illegal pyramid, or "ponzi" scheme.
They're illegal because they all eventually collapse, leaving the last ones in high and dry (and out their money).
McCain Morally Bankrupt!
McCain and his wife report their taxes separately. Cindy's reported total income for 2006 was more than $6 million.
McCain's separate income for 2007 was $405,409. While Social Security staggers under the weight of strain and drain, McCain cashed in on a "broken" system, drawing $23,157 in social security benefits in 2007.
Drew $23,157 in Social Security Benefits!
McCain ? morally bankrupt in a lifestyle so luxuriously self-indulgent during a time of recession.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-hansen/a-matter-of-character-mor_b_1...
This is indicative of his fundamental moral character, how can he offer change?
The taxes collected go into a FUND. The net PROCEDES from this fund is what was to be used to pay Social Security, and thus the system is self-perpetuating.
Social Security Never Really worked that way, although that's the image of it politicians have always liked to perpetuate.
When it was first instituted, they immediately began paying death benefits for people who had NOT paid a cent into it during their working lives. Within just 3 years, they had begun paying retirees.
Where did that money come from?
Why..., current working taxpayers, of course.
(If you trust the wiki: Payments to current retirees were (and continue to be) financed by a payroll tax on current workers' wages, half directly as a payroll tax and half paid by the employer. If you don't trust wiki, you can find the same info at other sources)
There were enough paying workers vs. retirees to fund those few, eligible retired at the time of origin, with little strain as far as workers affording the pittance it was costing them (avg. life expectancy was about 65, which also happened to be the official retirement age set by the gov't. NO coincidence!). And the workers weren't complaining because they had "The Promise" for their own future. Though S.S. was pointed to as the cause of the "Roosevelt Recession" in 1937 and 1938.
As receipts outpaced expenditures, they created a "trust fund".
However, Politicians, being what they are, they couldn't possibly keep their hands off of ANY pile of "Public" money they saw lying around. Here's what wiki has to say about the "trust fund":
Unlike a typical private pension plan, the Social Security Trust Fund does not hold any marketable assets to secure workers' paid-in contributions. Instead, it holds non-negotiable United States Treasury bonds and U.S. securities backed "by the full faith and credit of the government".
The Office of Management and Budget has described the distinction as follows:
These [Trust Fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other Trust Fund expenditures ? but only in a bookkeeping sense.... They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large Trust Fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government's ability to pay benefits. (from FY 2000 Budget, Analytical Perspectives, p. 337)
If you've looked at the Budget Deficit and the National Debt lately, you know what "full faith and credit" is worth.
I.O.W.: All the trust fund has been spent by the government, and replaced with gov't I.O.U.'s (Treasury Bonds & Gov't Securities)
Still all manageable as long as the workforce kept growing at an adequate rate to keep up with the costs of the retired recipients, because THAT'S where recipient payments Really come from.
As Congress began to see political benefit in tacking on more classes of recipients, they did so, and the retirees & survivors were living longer while the rate of US population groth steadily declined.
Problems became inevitable.
What we really need to be figuring out is not "Are we Morally obligated to the people who had to pay into the scheme their whole working lives, accepting the promise that they'd get paid back after retirement. (Quite obviously, we ARE!)
What we need to be discussing is HOW we can manage to fund it with the Boomers now beginning to retire, expecting to live longer than ever, and a workforce growing at Not NEARLY a great enough rate to fund SS, along with it's partner Medicare, short of taking something like half their paycheck 40 years or so from now.
And ChuckA is correct when he says that any Private entity who set up such a scheme would be jailed for running an illegal pyramid, or "ponzi" scheme.
They're illegal because they all eventually collapse, leaving the last ones in high and dry (and out their money).
McCain Morally Bankrupt!
McCain and his wife report their taxes separately. Cindy's reported total income for 2006 was more than $6 million.
McCain's separate income for 2007 was $405,409. While Social Security staggers under the weight of strain and drain, McCain cashed in on a "broken" system, drawing $23,157 in social security benefits in 2007.
Drew $23,157 in Social Security Benefits!
McCain ? morally bankrupt in a lifestyle so luxuriously self-indulgent during a time of recession.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-hansen/a-matter-of-character-mor_b_1...
This is indicative of his fundamental moral character, how can he offer change?
That fact that this buffoon actually stands a chance in the general election is a truly scary commentary on America.
Hey folks - let me turn you onto a bit of a secret. You see, there are a shit load (a technical term in the world of sociology) of baby boomers and not enough Gen x'ers to cover their bill. The traditional method of funding social security will fall apart since A LOT more needs to go out than come in. On top of that, people live A LOT longer and someone who retires at 65 will collect more than they put in by the time they are 75. If they live to 80 or 85, they are making out pretty sweet on my dime.
So...something does need to be done. The economics and population dmographics just don;t pan out. I propose means testing. No reason to give people who have 2 homes, cars and more than enough money more money that they don't need.
And yes - McCain is an idiot.
It's an "open secret" that Republicans don't want to fix Social Security - they want to scrap it. For one thing, the matching employer contribution sticks in their craw; for another, they want all public monies going to big business, with nothing at all going to the citizens who pay the taxes. But removing everyone but business entities from the government's "gift list" pretty much makes taxation nothing but plunder of the masses by the elites. Just like in the good old days.
Correct - economics and demographics don't pan out for a reason. If a private company were to put together a system like social security we would prosecute them for creating a pyramid scheme. Just because the government executes the program doesn't make it any better. Without population growth (a potential threat to the environment) Social Security is destined to be a drain on our economic well being. Mutual funds, via IRAs, are the answer as they reunite labor and capital, solving Marx' greatest criticism of capitalism.
McCain polls best among older voters. He may be vulnerable if it is pointed out repeatedly that he views Social Security as a "disgrace".
Social Security is the only thing keeping millions of elderly people alive. And they're not living in luxury. $10,000, $15,000, $20,000 a year.
Not everyone's line of work pays enough to personally sock away hundreds of thousands of dollars for retirement. Even if they do, recessions slash away at their savings.
A fix is easy -- instead of Social Security (payroll) taxes being levied only on income under $102,000, just raise the cap to whatever is necessary. If a father earning $25,000 a year can pay that 6.2 percent tax, Bill Gates can pay the 6.2 percent on his first $300,000 or $500,000 a year.
Or restrict Social Security benefits to people whose other retirement income is under, say, $100,000 or whatever. Does a multi-millionaire really need a Social Security check every month?
We don't want millions of elderly people homeless and begging and dying on our streets, do we?
(Apparently some do.)
Social security is also for those who become disabled before they reach retirement age. SSA is what keeps many disabled people from being homeless. Nobody gets rich off SSA or SSD. It pays enough to just exist on a very bare level.
No, the functional definition of Social Security is not "paying present-day retirees with the taxes paid by young workers". The taxes collected go into a FUND. The net PROCEDES from this fund is what was to be used to pay Social Security, and thus the system is self-perpetuating. Thanks to Congressional mismanagement, that fund is now bankrupt. The payments are now ONLY being met by the taxes collected, and the system is no-longer self-supporting. That is the disgrace that John McCain is referring to.
The taxes collected go into a FUND. The net PROCEDES from this fund is what was to be used to pay Social Security, and thus the system is self-perpetuating.
Social Security Never Really worked that way, although that's the image of it politicians have always liked to perpetuate.
When it was first instituted, they immediately began paying death benefits for people who had NOT paid a cent into it during their working lives. Within just 3 years, they had begun paying retirees.
Where did that money come from?
Why..., current working taxpayers, of course.
(If you trust the wiki: Payments to current retirees were (and continue to be) financed by a payroll tax on current workers' wages, half directly as a payroll tax and half paid by the employer. If you don't trust wiki, you can find the same info at other sources)
There were enough paying workers vs. retirees to fund those few, eligible retired at the time of origin, with little strain as far as workers affording the pittance it was costing them (avg. life expectancy was about 65, which also happened to be the official retirement age set by the gov't. NO coincidence!). And the workers weren't complaining because they had "The Promise" for their own future. Though S.S. was pointed to as the cause of the "Roosevelt Recession" in 1937 and 1938.
As receipts outpaced expenditures, they created a "trust fund".
However, Politicians, being what they are, they couldn't possibly keep their hands off of ANY pile of "Public" money they saw lying around. Here's what wiki has to say about the "trust fund":
Unlike a typical private pension plan, the Social Security Trust Fund does not hold any marketable assets to secure workers' paid-in contributions. Instead, it holds non-negotiable United States Treasury bonds and U.S. securities backed "by the full faith and credit of the government".
The Office of Management and Budget has described the distinction as follows:
These [Trust Fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other Trust Fund expenditures but only in a bookkeeping sense.... They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large Trust Fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government's ability to pay benefits. (from FY 2000 Budget, Analytical Perspectives, p. 337)
If you've looked at the Budget Deficit and the National Debt lately, you know what "full faith and credit" is worth.
I.O.W.: All the trust fund has been spent by the government, and replaced with gov't I.O.U.'s (Treasury Bonds & Gov't Securities)
Still all manageable as long as the workforce kept growing at an adequate rate to keep up with the costs of the retired recipients, because THAT'S where recipient payments Really come from.
As Congress began to see political benefit in tacking on more classes of recipients, they did so, and the retirees & survivors were living longer while the rate of US population groth steadily declined.
Problems became inevitable.
What we really need to be figuring out is not "Are we Morally obligated to the people who had to pay into the scheme their whole working lives, accepting the promise that they'd get paid back after retirement. (Quite obviously, we ARE!)
What we need to be discussing is HOW we can manage to fund it with the Boomers now beginning to retire, expecting to live longer than ever, and a workforce growing at Not NEARLY a great enough rate to fund SS, along with it's partner Medicare, short of taking something like half their paycheck 40 years or so from now.
And ChuckA is correct when he says that any Private entity who set up such a scheme would be jailed for running an illegal pyramid, or "ponzi" scheme.
They're illegal because they all eventually collapse, leaving the last ones in high and dry (and out their money).
Isn't journalism by definition politically neutral? This site is dedicated to opinion. I am not sure why you call it journalism at all.
John McCain:
What about the money all of the senior citizens have paid into Social Security???
What about all of the members of the family that died before they could use the Social Security they paid into? Do we have to go to Irag to find that money? John McCain, you have lost the senior citizen vote. You are trying to get the young people, but there are more of the older folks now. Get Lost John McCain. This is written here in Phoenix, Arizona, the City with the worst bus system in the United States. Shame on you John McCain. Get lost again!
Pay back the money the government has taken from Social Security and we will be good forever! Get lost again John McCain. Just get lost!
Social Security is not just for retirees. It also helps many disabled persons, persons that have a physical or mental disability that prevent them from working. Neither Bush nor McCain address how this vital part of Social Security will be funded with their rather facile proposal that privatization is the answer for their claims that the Social Security program is in trouble.
I took a look at the birth records from 1938 to 1998 for another project and suddenly realized I could not see any "boom" over the years. I also connected the dot about birth control and when that happened. As far as I can see there is no baby boom and since birth control, births have been, uh...controlled.
The real problem is that money into the Social Security account was so huge and tempting that anyone who could find a reason to take it out has done so, leaving a pile of I.O.U.s.
A rumor was floated that Bush took out a trillion dollars not long after he took office.
I live at half the poverty level on my benefits. What does the poverty level mean? It can be determined what standard of living is required to renew life every day and move forward. Under the poverty level, life begins slipping away and illness in whatever form begins.
Okay, I'll say it. The theft of Social Security money; oh, I mean the borrowing of Social Security money leaves the system to administer reality: genocide in America.
Some Senators thought it a lark to live on maximum food stamps for a week: three dollars a day. My state flipped off the government and gives me two dollars a day and I've been living on that for 10 years.
Ahhh, yes, the end is in sight.
McCain has been in the congress for 25 years and yet he seems to lack basic understanding in so many areas. This Palin pick is the corker- Is he totally a fool?
John McCain Thinks Social Security Is A "Disgrace"John McCain Thinks Social Security Is A "Disgrace"John McCain Thinks Social Security Is A "Disgrace"John McCain Thinks Social Security Is A "Disgrace"John McCain Thinks Social Security Is A "Disgrace"John McCain Thinks Social Security Is A "Disgrace"John McCain Thinks Social Security Is A "Disgrace"John McCain Thinks Social Security Is A "Disgrace"John McCain Thinks Social Security Is A "Disgrace"John McCain Thinks Social Security Is A "Disgrace"John McCain Thinks Social Security Is A "Disgrace"John McCain Thinks Social Security Is A "Disgrace"John McCain Thinks Social Security Is A "Disgrace"John McCain Thinks Social Security Is A "Disgrace"John McCain Thinks Social Security Is A "Disgrace"John McCain Thinks Social Security Is A "Disgrace"John McCain Thinks Social Security Is A "Disgrace"John McCain Thinks Social Security Is A "Disgrace"John McCain Thinks Social Security Is A "Disgrace"John McCain Thinks Social Security Is A "Disgrace"John McCain Thinks Social Security Is A "Disgrace"John McCain Thinks Social Security Is A "Disgrace"John McCain Thinks Social Security Is A "Disgrace"John McCain Thinks Social Security Is A "Disgrace"John McCain Thinks Social Security Is A "Disgrace"John McCain Thinks Social Security Is A "Disgrace"John McCain Thinks Social Security Is A "Disgrace"John McCain Thinks Social Security Is A "Disgrace"John McCain Thinks Social Security Is A "Disgrace"John McCain Thinks Social Security Is A "Disgrace"John McCain Thinks Social Security Is A "Disgrace"John McCain Thinks Social Security Is A "Disgrace"John McCain Thinks Social Security Is A "Disgrace"John McCain Thinks Social Security Is A "Disgrace"John McCain Thinks Social Security Is A "Disgrace"John McCain Thinks Social Security Is A "Disgrace"John McCain Thinks Social Security Is A "Disgrace"John McCain Thinks Social Security Is A "Disgrace"John McCain Thinks Social Security Is A "Disgrace"John McCain Thinks Social Security Is A "Disgrace"John McCain Thinks Social Security Is A "Disgrace"John McCain Thinks Social Security Is A "Disgrace"John McCain Thinks Social Security Is A "Disgrace"John McCain Thinks Social Security Is A "Disgrace"John McCain Thinks Social Security Is A "Disgrace"John McCain Thinks Social Security Is A "Disgrace"John McCain Thinks Social Security Is A "Disgrace"John McCain Thinks Social Security Is A "Disgrace"
John McCain does not have the majority of Americans best interest at heart. He will approve anything that personally suits him and not for the 95% of others out there that don't have 7 houses, or even one at this matter. People are only psyched about him at the moment because he had a boost of interest by recruiting Sarah Palin. But how long will that last???
I am currently one of the "disabled" americans that live on social security because I am unable to work anymore. What exaclt does he expect us to do?
What's a disgrace is the fact that he does not think of us "little" people and he is using Sarah palin to try to reach us. Well they do NOT have my vote. I am voting for the man who has our best interest at heart and is nor a fraud!!!!
Disabled Soccer MOM USA
I think McCains comment about the young paying taxes today and those being paid out through the Social Security benefits are actually correct.
He is going on the basic principal of the system itself.
It was originally designed so that a person pays into an account all their lives so when it came time to be qualified for those funds they paid out what you had invested over a period of time with basic interest.
Almost exactly like an IRA would do.
I find it amusing how instead of commenting on the fact HE has a plan to fix the system you criticizes him on your misunderstanding of his statement.
Rosemary,
Social Security started in 1935 with at 3% of the first $3,000 of income. Now in 2008 we are at 6.2% of $102,000 income. So basically, 80% of Americans are already paying this tax on their entire gross income.
Now, undoubtedly Bill Gates and the super rich could afford a few extra percent to the federal government each year. But if you look at the average income for these top 20% of taxpayers (who bear 70% of the total tax burden), roughly 95% of them make between $100,000 and $200,000 in household income.
By my reckoning, removing the cap affects more middle and upper middle class taxpayers than the rich. That's assuming that even removing the cap alone will fix what seems to be a more fundamentally flawed system.
McCain Morally Bankrupt!
McCain and his wife report their taxes separately. Cindy's reported total income for 2006 was more than $6 million.
McCain's separate income for 2007 was $405,409. While Social Security staggers under the weight of strain and drain, McCain cashed in on a "broken" system, drawing $23,157 in social security benefits in 2007.
Drew $23,157 in Social Security Benefits!
McCain morally bankrupt in a lifestyle so luxuriously self-indulgent during a time of recession.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-hansen/a-matter-of-character-mor_b_1...
This is indicative of his fundamental moral character, how can he offer change?
Drew $23,157 in Social Security Benefits!
Since Democrats tell us, year in and year out, that what we're forced to pay into S.S., literally at gunpoint, is in fact "An Investment", and since true investments are entered into for the primary purpose of getting a return on said investment, isn't it just sort of massively hypocritical to suggest there's something wrong with McCain taking the return he's been promised all his life?
indir
good and beautiful about comments
Great article for my
Great article for my dissertation research on sociology topic.
thank you for this nice
thank you for this nice article..thanx more
شات مجلة حواء مسجات منتديات عالم حواء العاب بنات العاب