Posted 2 months, 16 days ago in 
Loading ...
Sen. Obama’s speech here in Grand Junction charged Sen. John McCain and Republicans with the current financial crisis. What Hubris.
The media won’t tell you this, but this crisis comes to you almost entirely thanks to congressional Democrats and in three short years Sen. Obama has reaped more campaign funds in three years than other senators have in 20 years from the congressionally created (failed) mortgage giants Fannie and Freddie. The recent failure of the Lehman Investment Fund is traced to the failure of Fannie/Freddie last month and is pressuring other financials including some profitable firms.
Problems with Fannie/Freddie really began to show in the mid ’90s with the appointment of former Clinton administration officials at top levels in these firms including Harold Raines as Fannies’s CEO. Pressure from congressional Democrats to continually lower lending standards were acceded to. When a 2004 investigation of these firms discovered they were manipulating accounting to yield high bonuses for top officials, resignations were forced, including Mr. Raines.
Sen. McCain submitted reform legislation in 2005 publicly warning at that time that these firms would fail without it. He was stymied in this effort by Sens. Schummer and Obama in the Senate and Rep. Barney Frank in the House. The reform need was obvious, yet stymied because of the heavily spread-around campaign contributions from Fannie/Freddie: most went to Democrats and, yes, an average of $1,000 per year went to McCain. In three years Fannie/Freddie gave a whopping $119,000 to Obama.
The press and the Dems tried to lay the Enron debacle at the feet of the Republicans. The cost of the Fannie/Freddie failure is several times over Enron and the eventual effect is not yet known.
It is clear that Sen. McCain is the one we can count on to effect real reform.
ROLAND REYNOLDS
Grand Junction
74 Responses to “McCain will bring real reform”
Posted September 18th, 2008 at 9:50 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
…Keating Five…
…real reform???
Posted September 18th, 2008 at 9:51 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Shhh….we don’t talk about the Keating Five around here.
Posted September 18th, 2008 at 10:10 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Well, since class allows himself to use wikerpeedier, I will also.
“Keating Five
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Alan Cranston (D-CA)
Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ)
John Glenn (D-OH)
John McCain (R-AZ)
Donald W. Riegle (D-MI)
The Keating Five were five United States Senators accused of corruption in 1989, igniting a major political scandal as part of the larger Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s. The five senators, Alan Cranston (D-CA), Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ), John Glenn (D-OH), John McCain (R-AZ), and Donald W. Riegle (D-MI), were accused of improperly aiding Charles H. Keating, Jr., chairman of the failed Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, which was the target of an investigation by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB).
After a lengthy investigation, the Senate Ethics Committee determined in 1991 that Alan Cranston, Dennis DeConcini, and Donald Riegle had substantially and improperly interfered with the FHLBB in its investigation of Lincoln Savings. Senators John Glenn and John McCain were cleared of having acted improperly but were criticized for having exercised “poor judgment”.
All five of the senators involved served out their terms. Only Glenn and McCain ran for re-election, and they were both re-elected.”
*******************
Interesting, is it not, that the sole Republican gets so much hate and discontent for “poor judgment”, 19+ years ago.
Perhaps the reason we don’t want to talk about the Keating 4 is because they were all democrats?
Posted September 18th, 2008 at 10:11 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
So, since he was the sole republican, he gets a pass?
Posted September 18th, 2008 at 10:15 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
No, he gets the same ‘pass’ that Glenn got.
Perhaps you failed to read the entirety of my post?
” Senators John Glenn and John McCain were cleared of having acted improperly but were criticized for having exercised “poor judgment.”
There is a difference between criminal acts and “poor judgment”.
You do understand the difference?
Posted September 18th, 2008 at 10:17 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
So, We agree that McCain has exhibited ‘poor judgement’?
Posted September 18th, 2008 at 10:18 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I forgot, what were the dates of the Glenn presidency?
Posted September 18th, 2008 at 10:19 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Keating 5? If anyone wants to get started on this we can get started on Obama’s relationship to a real estate developer crook in Chicago.
Posted September 18th, 2008 at 10:22 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
His ‘judgment’ was not as “POOR” as say, the judgment of clinton with his political appointments, or jimmy carters economic policies, or lbj’s robbing the Social Security trust Fund in which an estimated 16 trillion dollars has evaporated into a monster debt on all our descendants.
I would trust his ‘judgment’ far more than your messiah.
Posted September 18th, 2008 at 10:29 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
So, the “judgement” of going to bat for someone who bilks people out of hundreds of millions, destroying their life savings, is a minor thing to you.
Posted September 18th, 2008 at 10:31 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Perhaps the reason this gets brought up against McCain is because of the five, he is the only one currently running for president.
Just a thought…
Posted September 18th, 2008 at 10:50 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I find it very interesting that you neglected to read and consider this point I made about costing the Taxpayers and Citizens copious quantities of hard earned money.
” lbj’s robbing the Social Security trust Fund in which an estimated 16 trillion dollars has evaporated into a monster debt on all our descendants.”
And scott, it keeps coming up because they have nothing else to attack on.
Posted September 18th, 2008 at 10:53 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Isn’t LBJ dead? And NOT running for President?
Posted September 18th, 2008 at 10:58 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
And I thought we were discussing ‘poor judgment’ from a very long time ago that cost the American People a few measly billion dollars.
Would you care to explain why it is perfectly permissible for the democrats in both the House and Senate to go along with lbj and steal an estimated 16 trillion dollars?
The worst you can claim against McCain is poor judgment.
What do you consider 16 trillion dollar debt that is passed on to our descendants due entirely to democrat deceit?
Posted September 18th, 2008 at 11:06 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
It’s a bad thing, Willis. Like the thousands of American deaths the current President has caused in the name of greed. Entirely due to Republican deceit. Or is that too recent for you?
Posted September 18th, 2008 at 11:08 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Willis,
Oh, I think they can find a few other things.
Posted September 18th, 2008 at 11:45 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mini: “Like the thousands of American deaths the current President has caused in the name of greed. Entirely due to Republican deceit.”
Care to be a little more specific? What greed is that?
Posted September 18th, 2008 at 11:58 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Try this for greed:
“Invitation to Steal: War Profiteering in Iraq”
http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2008/invitation_steal_7236
Posted September 18th, 2008 at 12:03 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Thanks for the link,Daddy-o. Great info about thievery in high places.
Posted September 18th, 2008 at 12:17 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullisfrog states: “Keating 5? If anyone wants to get started on this we can get started on Obama’s relationship to a real estate developer crook in Chicago.”
And, pray tell, would he care to enlighten us as to what that “relationship” was or is. Perhaps bullishfrog has led to sheltered an existence, but some of us have met some some very unsavory characters. The fact that we knew them in one way, does not mean that we subscribed to their beliefs or even knew what they were doing in other areas of their lives. If bullishfrog wishes to present us with ‘hard facts’ as to what type of ‘relationship’ he is talking about, we can only conclude that he is presenting us with a ‘red herring’. And, in this case, that dead fish has been around for so long that it has long ago begun to ’stink to high heaven’.
Posted September 18th, 2008 at 12:29 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullisfrog states: “Keating 5? If anyone wants to get started on this we can get started on Obama’s relationship to a real estate developer crook in Chicago.”
So, don’t bring facts into play, or I’ll threaten to bring in vague allegations.
Posted September 18th, 2008 at 12:53 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
So let me understand this Mini. You believe the president of the United States went to war so that Halliburton could get a no-bid contract in Iraq? Is that right?
Posted September 18th, 2008 at 1:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Nope, bullish; I believe Bush lied about 9/11 and Iraq, and went to war to get rid of a known despot and establish a permanent U.S. presence in the region. The largest cost in American lives has taken place since after the invasion, when his buddies really started making their money. And they still are.
Posted September 18th, 2008 at 1:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mini: “The largest cost in American lives has taken place since after the invasion, when his buddies really started making their money. And they still are.”
So, you believe the US has been in Iraq for several years, following the invasion, so Halliburton could make money?
Posted September 18th, 2008 at 1:11 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I think it’s a BIG reason why, yes. And not just Halliburton. Look up “Blackwater” while you’re at it (Unless you think it’s ok for trigger-happy, undertrained contractors to make in a month what a Marine Infantryman makes in a year). I also don’t believe Bush and/or Cheney give one tiny little damn about the lives that have been lost. They sure don’t act like it.
Posted September 18th, 2008 at 1:14 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Opportunism is the concept, Bullish. Maybe you’ve heard of it?
Posted September 18th, 2008 at 1:28 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
So, you believe that we have been in Iraq for the last several years so GW Bush could personally enrich himself by giving contracts to Halliburton and Blackwater. I would appreciate any evidence you have that this has, in fact, taken place.
Posted September 18th, 2008 at 1:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Enrich himself? Oh, no…the Bush family needs no such enrichment.
As for ‘evidence’, Bush lied, but the figures don’t. Just follow that link.
Posted September 18th, 2008 at 1:37 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
OK, so let’s recap. You say Bush has been in Iraq for the last several years because of greed. When I ask you to expand on that accusation you bring up Halliburton and Blackwater. When I ask you if that enriched him in any way, you say no. So I get back to my original question. How is greed the reason Bush has kept us in Iraq.
Posted September 18th, 2008 at 1:40 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Okay…I’ll make it clear: To enrich his buddies. Check it out. Or not. Lots of folks are not willing to go down that particular rabbit hole.
Posted September 18th, 2008 at 1:42 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullish, you seem to be trying to deflect this thing. Bush got us into Iraq for a number of reasons. What difference could it possibly make. Some people think he took us there because God told him to. I think we went there because his “freemarket” advisors and his corporate social acquaintances convinced him to. Yes, Greed. Not NECESSARILY his.
Posted September 18th, 2008 at 1:43 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Dick Cheneys’, for sure.
Posted September 18th, 2008 at 1:48 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
So, in conclusion, Mini, you believe that GW Bush has kept us in Iraq, at war, for several years, at a huge cost to this country in both lives and treasury, and to his legacy, in order to enrich his friends.
That is very interesting. Thanks you so much for clarifying this for me. I was not aware of that.
Posted September 18th, 2008 at 1:50 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Yes, bullish, for those reasons, and to exact revenge for Sadaam’s plot to kill his father, GHWB. But, yeah, I don’t believe for one minute he cares about loss of life or damage to the Treasury. He never has before.
Posted September 18th, 2008 at 1:51 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh, and let’s not forget, you also wrote: “Entirely due to Republican deceit.”
So I am assuming that Republicans in general were in favor of keeping us at war so GW could enrich his friends.
I may now need to reconsider my party affiliation.
Posted September 18th, 2008 at 1:52 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
No, they went along with it because there ain’t nothing Republicans love more than a good old fashioned war.
Posted September 18th, 2008 at 1:56 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
“No, they went along with it because there ain’t nothing Republicans love more than a good old fashioned war.”
I see. Thanks mini. That is why this blog is so worthwhile. I provides an opportunity to better understand all points of view. I assume you are a Democrat and an Obama supporter
Posted September 18th, 2008 at 1:57 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Very good. And I assume you’re a Republican and an Obama hater.
Posted September 18th, 2008 at 2:06 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I am a Republican. No, I have no reason to hate Obama.
Posted September 18th, 2008 at 2:49 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Very good job Bullish.
I seem to have a problem getting my posts to stay up, even ones that are innocuous in nature.
Keep hanging in there.
Posted September 18th, 2008 at 3:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Very well, Bullish. I accept your statement that you are not an Obama-hater, and retract that allegation with apologies.
As for Mr. Willis, I imagine his idea of “innocuous” and The Sentinel’s idea of “innocuous” are substantially different.
Posted September 18th, 2008 at 9:43 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
If I may just toss in a rhetorical question here …
Which party has been pushing for years to turn our Social Security over to these private crooks?
Posted September 18th, 2008 at 10:26 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
That is not a rhetorical question, it is an inaccurate editorial comment.
There were some proposals from members of the Republican party were to give citizens the option of investing a small portion of their SS retirement payments into the market. Not even close to “pushing for years to turn our Social Security over”.
Which party has for years distorted the truth surrounding this issue?
Posted September 18th, 2008 at 10:34 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Correct me if I remember incorrectly.
Savings and Loan bailout….$250 billion of taxpayers money.
How much this time , $800 billion?
Phil Gramm… I’m whining.
Posted September 18th, 2008 at 10:41 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
That is the sugar-coated story. In reality it would ABSOLUTELY be a turnover, as those who are stupid and/or rich enough to gamble would take a significant percentage away from the general fund and turn it over to Wall Street, thus depleting the investment power of everyone else.
Posted September 18th, 2008 at 10:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
To clarify I was referring to Sullivan post 44.
An analogy: 100 people in a company participate in a 401k. The more participants, the healthier the plan. But suddenly the CEO decides to let anyone who wants, to take their vested balances out of the fund and throw the money into slot machines instead. Half the employees go for it. Everyone else is left with a weaker plan. Thankfully this scenario is illegal … so far.
Posted September 18th, 2008 at 10:53 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sullivan: “There were some proposals from members of the Republican party were to give citizens the option of investing a small portion of their SS retirement payments into the market. Not even close to “pushing for years to turn our Social Security over””
Here is what source watch has to say on the subject:
“U.S. Social Security privatization is at the top of the conservative agenda, following the reelection of George W. Bush in the 2004 presidential election. Financial institutions which stand to be the biggest beneficiaries of this plan were the largest contributors to the re-election coffers. The President continues to do the bidding of his benefactors, overtly and unashamedly. Nothing could be more plain and simple.”
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Social_Security_privatization
Posted September 19th, 2008 at 1:41 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash, your analogy is faulty. In a 401K what you contribute is yours. In Social Security the retired folks have already taken out their money and are now spending what you are currently putting in. There is no investment for the future, just an increased debt for the next generation. Guys the age of Classof52 don’t want any changes, they just want a way into the younger folks pockets. Currently Social Security is a pyramid scheme with with the Classof52 aged folks sitting at the top of the pyramid. It is anything but healthy.
There has never been a serious proposal for market investment greater than 20%. And there has never been a proposal for a market investment to ever be anything but voluntary. If I am mistaken please show a credible source with some documentation.
Posted September 19th, 2008 at 2:09 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash: “An analogy: 100 people in a company participate in a 401k. The more participants, the healthier the plan.”
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but most 401-K plans that I know of, allow each employee to pick investments from a menu. That menu has a number of investment choices that range from extremely conservative (money market funds) to very aggressive. If 99% of participants choose the most aggressive option (an exaggerated example) it affects not one iota the returns received by the lone participant in money market funds.
The Social Security program cannot remain in its present form. Benefits MUST be reduced, or contributions must be raised, or the retirement age must be raised, or returns on the fund must go up, or there has to be some combination of these. Just saying no is not the answer.
Obama wants to turn the social security program into a welfare program by raising contributions for those above a certain income scale WITHOUT increasing benefits for those making the greater contributions. In other words, income redistribution. That is in line with Obama’s tax plan of raising income taxes on those making more than $250,000 and then using that money to send checks to the 40% who pay no tax now. It is the liberal way of doing things. You probably agree with this, I do not.
Posted September 19th, 2008 at 3:44 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sullivan wrote;
“In Social Security the retired folks have already taken out their money and are now spending what you are currently putting in. There is no investment for the future, just an increased debt for the next generation.”
and
“Guys the age of Classof52 don’t want any changes, they just want a way into the younger folks pockets.”
I am not sure what you are trying to say here but the Social Security payments to retired people are funded from current year revenues which of course are paid by currently working people. But it has been this way since the beginning. We pay our parents and grandparents social security until it is our turn to collect. The people that you are demonizing have been paying into the system for many years. Some die early and some die late so some will win and some will lose with respect to getting out what they paid in.
One of the nasties of the present system is that the excess funds generated every year are put into Social Security Trust Fund via investment in special non marketable US government bonds. The real surplus “Money” that has been collected is then used for deficit spending. The government only guarantees to pay the interest on these bonds not to use them for future Social Security funding. Last year the cumulative value of this “paper” money was around 2.2 trillion dollars.
Posted September 19th, 2008 at 5:59 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
dc states: “Savings and Loan bailout….$250 billion of taxpayers money.”
Actually, that is low-balling the real cost. I believe the $250 billion was only the amount of ‘bad debt’ the government took over. Add in the payout to the depositor insured accounts, etc., the true cost to the taxpayers is, according the latest estimates, closer to 1.3 trillion. And that does not include the money lost by shareholders and those whose deposits were over the guaranteed amount. Thank you ‘laissez faire’ economics.
Posted September 19th, 2008 at 7:49 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sullivan: “Guys the age of Classof52 don’t want any changes, they just want a way into the younger folks pockets. Currently Social Security is a pyramid scheme with with the Classof52 aged folks sitting at the top of the pyramid. It is anything but healthy.”
I realize that this comment was directed toward an age group and not directed at me personally. However, I think the statement maligns an age group and stereotypes a whole group of people who must differ radically among themselves over this question. However, let me say that anyone with any brains does not base his/her retirement on the prospect of income from social security. I could easily forego any social security income and not even be aware of the difference because of a lifetime of investment decisions made on my own. But for those not so fortunate, the prospect of the govenment deciding how to invest the SS money in Wall street with their cronys is frightening. The current debacle ought to put that notion firmly to rest. I want the freedom to select just how my money is invested and the government is the last place I would look for leadership in this arena.
Posted September 20th, 2008 at 3:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullish and Sullivan I acknowledge you are right, my 401k plan analogy was faulty.
There is some fringe benefit to having higher participation within a company, as far as the plan manager having more “buying clout” to offer a better variety of choices, etc. But it is not the same as having all of the money in “one pot.”
As far as privatizing Social Security (even a small percentage of it) here’s what would happen: Our “leaders” would use the opportunity to obscenely reward corporations they are in bed with. That is why Bush and Co. have been drooling over the prospect.
Posted September 20th, 2008 at 5:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
ash: “Our “leaders” would use the opportunity to obscenely reward corporations they are in bed with. That is why Bush and Co. have been drooling over the prospect.”
I disagree with you. Even if your conspiracy theory were correct, and I think you are 100% wrong, the choices given to social security participants who decided to invest a portion of their contribution themselves, there is no way they would be allowed to invest in individual companies.
Posted September 20th, 2008 at 8:13 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullish: I respect that you disagree, but my “conspiracy theory” stands.
To date (thanks to the intelligence of the American People IMO) there is no actual detailed proposal … so one can not say how it would look.
I really can’t see everyone being given the chance to choose their own portfolio down to every stock available on the market. Like any IRA or 401k you would have to choose from a menu of some kind that would be pre-arranged.
And lo and behold who would be pre-arranging the menu … the government who needs to reward its bedfellows. Therefore you would have a choice of defense contractors, O&G, tobacco, etc.
Posted September 21st, 2008 at 7:59 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
“And lo and behold who would be pre-arranging the menu … the government who needs to reward its bedfellows. Therefore you would have a choice of defense contractors, O&G, tobacco, etc.”
This is total nonsense. No one is going to have a choice like that. The choices would be index funds that invest in the stock market as a whole and choices in the fixed income sector that are less risky. It would not be anything complicated like industry sector investments. Democrats were so keen in making sure that GW could not have any success in fixing social security that they came up with conspiracy theories that were totally senseless.
Posted September 21st, 2008 at 8:04 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
There is always the possibility that there actually is a better way to mold Social Security.
HOWEVER, it requires taking corruption and politicians out of the mix.
“Chile’s Social Security Lesson For The U.S. by José Piñera (1997 CATO Institute.org)
José Piñera is Chile’s former secretary of labor and social security and is co-chairman of the Cato Institute’s Project on Social Security Privatization.
America’s Social Security system will go bust in 2010. As political leaders scramble to save it, they’ve overlooked an obvious free-market solution that works.
They need only look at Chile.
Pay-as-you-go social security systems destroy the link between contributions and benefits, between effort and reward.
Everyone tries to minimize what he puts into the system while trying to maximize through political pressure what he can get out of it.
That’s why pay-as-you-go plans are going bankrupt all over the world.
Chile faced that problem in the late ’70s.
As secretary of labor and social security, I could have postponed the crisis by playing at the edges, increasing payroll taxes a little and slashing benefits a little. But instead of making some cosmetic adjustments, I decided to undertake a structural reform that would solve the problem once and for all.
We decided to save the idea of a retirement plan by basing it on a completely different concept — one that links benefits and contributions.
Chile allowed every worker to choose whether to stay in the state-run, pay-as-you-go social security system or to put the whole payroll tax into an individual retirement account. For the first time in history we have allowed the common worker to benefit from one of the most powerful forces on earth: compound interest.
Some 93% of Chilean workers chose the new system. They trust the private sector and prefer market risk to political risk. If you invest money in the market, it could go up or down.
Over a 40-year period, though, a diversified portfolio will have very low risk and provide a positive rate of real return. But when the government runs the pension system, it can slash benefits at any time.
The Chilean system is run completely by private companies. We now have 15 mutual funds competing for workers’ savings.
________________________________________
The whole working population of Chile has a vested interest in sound economic policies and a pro-market, pro-private-enterprise environment.
________________________________________
We guaranteed benefits for the elderly — we told those people who had already retired that they had nothing to fear from this reform. We also told people entering the labor force for the first time that they had to go to the new system.
Today, all workers in Chile are capitalists, because their money is invested in the stock market. And they also understand that if government tomorrow were to create the conditions for inflation, they would be damaged because some of the money is also invested in bonds — around 60%.
So the whole working population of Chile has a vested interest in sound economic policies and a pro-market, pro-private-enterprise environment.
There have been enormous external benefits: the savings rate of Chile was 10% of gross national product traditionally.
It has gone up to 27% of GNP. The payroll tax in Chile is zero. Of course we have an estate tax and an income tax, but not a payroll tax. With full employment and a 27% savings rate, the rate of growth of the Chilean economy has doubled.
That does not mean that we do not have any problems in Chile, but I believe that a society based on individual freedoms — economic, social and political — is a much more prosperous and lively society.
Could something like this be done in the U.S.?
People have said it’s utopian and that nobody in the establishment would support privatization, but I believe the situation is changing.
Recently, I was invited by Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, to testify before the Senate Subcommittee on Securities.
Basically, everyone agreed that a system like this is much more consistent with American values than a system created by a Prussian chancellor in the 19th century.
Of course, that does not mean that the reform will be done in the next month or the next year.
I believe there’s still a lot of education yet to go. But there’s also a great opportunity here, and I think it’s a very responsible thing to give your children and grandchildren.”
************
Now, I know that it’s not a wonderful socialist country that some think would be such wonderful places to live, but their Social Security System isn’t loaded with corruption and politicians, the the recipients are much better off without begging politicians for handouts.
Posted September 21st, 2008 at 10:12 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullish: Post 56.
“The choices would be index funds that invest in the stock market as a whole and choices in the fixed income sector that are less risky. It would not be anything complicated like industry sector investments.”
And you know this how? Like I said, no one knows what it would look like. You think Bush would not have found a way to make sure the Energy SPDR was included in the picture? They can trash the Constitution, torture people etc. right under our noses and get away with it, so anything is possible.
You may think Bush & Co. cares more about America than Exxon Mobil. I do not. Simple difference of opinion.
So back to Social Security. You think if Kucinich were president, the funds would not be top heavy with under-performing social equity and tobacco-free funds, for example? It could go either way.
Posted September 21st, 2008 at 11:19 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash, you are simply making things up. If you are against giving social security contributors a chance to invest a portion of their contributions no matter what the options, then simply state that.
Posted September 21st, 2008 at 12:44 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullish, I thought I was being clear … let me try again.
I am against “privatizing” Social Security because I do not trust the U.S. government to set it up or manage it in a way that would result in more security or financial well being for the citizens who would choose to participate.
I believe our government offers neither the competence nor the trustworthiness to take on such a project. I believe it would all be grievously mismanaged through some combination of blundering and trying to use the opportunity to appease corporate special interests.
I believe this would be true of any administration, past, present, or future … but admittedly my extreme distrust of, and disgust with the current administration has heightened my feelings about the matter.
Posted September 21st, 2008 at 12:58 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash, unusual to hear from a Democrat that they don’t trust government to handle its programs properly. That’s what a Republican might say.
A Republican would agree with you and, therefore, let the individual assume responsibility for his/her success or failure. In this case, offering the individual a choice of fully participating in the current system or, taking a portion of his/her contribution and trying to do better, without affecting other contributors.
Right now the government asks the individual to choose an insurance provider for excess medicare coverage and for the medicare drug plan. Offering a simple menu of social security investments, managed by the private sector, would not be any more difficult.
Posted September 21st, 2008 at 1:21 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullish, as you and I have both demonstrated in the past there is no official “Democrat” or “Republican” definition when it comes down to individual people and individual issues.
One can’t put people in a box and determine what their opinions would be just because of the party they may be registered with or the candidates they tend to support. I am rather surprised to see you (of all people) taking this tack.
Anyhow, the scenario you pose is one where the individual would be able to make all the investment decisions related to the percentage of social security funds he/she is allowed to invest. Do you mean similar to an “active trader” 401k? Do you really see that happening?
Posted September 21st, 2008 at 1:26 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
OK reading back I see you have said a simple menu of investment options.
Who gets to put that menu together?
Posted September 21st, 2008 at 1:53 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash, I would assume that the menu decision would be part of a comprehensive program change. Let me ask you this, what would you include in such a menu that would make you comfortable?
Posted September 21st, 2008 at 3:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I don’t know. I have had portfolios with Mass Mutual and Oppenheimer and thought they were very good.
But my discomfort with the U.S. government making and managing the arrangements remains. I would have to see an actual proposal and know who would be pulling the strings before even thinking about being OK with anything.
Posted September 21st, 2008 at 6:11 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
C52
“I realize that this comment was directed toward an age group and not directed at me personally.” In all honesty it was a little bit of both.
“I could easily forego any social security income and not even be aware of the difference because of a lifetime of investment decisions made on my own.” I have a hard time reconciling this statement with an earlier one that called a military pension “cushy” when it went to a veteran that had received a 100% disability from being wounded in combat.
Posted September 21st, 2008 at 7:20 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sullivan:
“I have a hard time reconciling this statement with an earlier one that called a military pension “cushy” when it went to a veteran that had received a 100% disability from being wounded in combat.”
I have not the foggiest notion of what point you are trying to make here, not do I remember the earlier statement or its context. It must have been months ago. Do you keep a file of my comments on your hard disc to dredge up when you want to be argumentative?
Posted September 21st, 2008 at 7:47 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Changing the subject slightly. The bailout may be turning into a farce:
Wall Street is already looking to profit on the giveaway;
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/business/22lobby.html?hp
Foreign banks want to get in on the action;
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/business/22global.html?hp
And look at section 8 of the bailout draft proposal;
“Sec. 8. Review.
Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.”
Shades of Patriot act, Iraq war?
Any comments?
Posted September 21st, 2008 at 8:30 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
rm,
Our elected officials need to stop this freight train. I smell a rat the size of Henry Paulson. We are being set up. I say call their bluff and see if the financial industry will really shut down. They are trying to get this done before congress wises up.
Posted September 21st, 2008 at 8:40 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
check this from truthout.org
William Greider | Paulson Bailout Plan a Historic Swindle
http://www.truthout.org/article/paulson-bailout-plan-a-historic-swindle
William Greider, The Nation: “Financial-market wise guys, who had been seized with fear, are suddenly drunk with hope. They are rallying explosively because they think they have successfully stampeded Washington into accepting the Wall Street Journal solution to the crisis: dump it all on the taxpayers. That is the meaning of the massive bailout Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has shopped around Congress. It would relieve the major banks and investment firms of their mountainous rotten assets and make the public swallow their losses - many hundreds of billions, maybe much more. What’s not to like if you are a financial titan threatened with extinction?”
Posted September 21st, 2008 at 8:46 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
That’s right. Let the government stay out of it. Let’s see if we get another depression. Small risk. They shouldn’t have bailed out the S&Ls either in 1990. Just let the economy collapse. Let the unemployment rate go up to 20%. Good for apple sellers. Brother, can you spare a dime?
Posted September 21st, 2008 at 9:16 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The terms of this proposed bailout are suspicious. The bailout is necessary, but not on Treasury Secretary Paulsons terms. There has to be pain, oversight, and accountability. None of which appear in the initial bailout draft proposal. In fact section 8 specifically eliminates accountability.
Posted September 22nd, 2008 at 10:47 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
To get back on topic, here are some questions to ask yourself (Answers conveniently supplied by David Brin): Which four nations are vastly better-off after eight years of Republican US leadership?
Iran
Saudi Arabia
Russia
China.
Which once-dominant world power has plummeted in power, strength, influence and by every conceivable measure?
The United States of America.
And the “maverick” has submitted meekly to his neo-con masters–the very same ones who have wrought destruction on every aspect of our once proud nation.
Posted September 22nd, 2008 at 11:24 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
First of all, tooaonuu, how do you measure progress in Iran? Because they are coming closer and closer to acquiring a nuclear weapon? And you blame Republicans for that? You care to explain?
And you blame Republicans for whatever improvement you see in Russia and Saudi Arabia? Is it the fault of Republicans that oil prices sky rocketted?
And you have a problem with the growth in China’s economy?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.