The messiah lies to old people!!!

[SecPro]

It seems that O-blah-blah The Empty Suit isn't above using some scare tactics too. What's next? Maybe some speeches in the inner cities about how McCain is coming after their welfare checks.

Fact Check

He tells Social Security recipients their money would now be in the stock market under McCain's plan. False.

Summary
In Daytona Beach, Obama said that "if my opponent had his way, the millions of Floridians who rely on it would've had their Social Security tied up in the stock market this week." He referred to "elderly women" at risk of poverty, and said families would be scrambling to support "grandmothers and grandfathers."

That's not true. The plan proposed by President Bush and supported by McCain in 2005 would not have allowed anyone born before 1950 to invest any part of their Social Security taxes in private accounts. All current retirees would be covered by the same benefits they are now.

Obama would have been correct to say that many workers under age 58 would have had some portion of their Social Security benefits affected by the current market turmoil ? if they had chosen to participate. And market drops would be a worry for those who retire in future decades. But current retirees would not have been affected.[/q}

 

[Pens1566]

First, he's right. McCain wanted SS privatized. Second, this is a blatant troll thread. Third, lock it.

 

[sandorski]

Looks like he is wrong. In 40 or so years he miht be right though. Does seem Trollish though.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: SecPro
It seems that O-blah-blah The Empty Suit isn't above using some scare tactics too. What's next? Maybe some speeches in the inner cities about how McCain is coming after their welfare checks.

Fact Check

He tells Social Security recipients their money would now be in the stock market under McCain's plan. False.

Summary
In Daytona Beach, Obama said that "if my opponent had his way, the millions of Floridians who rely on it would've had their Social Security tied up in the stock market this week." He referred to "elderly women" at risk of poverty, and said families would be scrambling to support "grandmothers and grandfathers."

That's not true. The plan proposed by President Bush and supported by McCain in 2005 would not have allowed anyone born before 1950 to invest any part of their Social Security taxes in private accounts. All current retirees would be covered by the same benefits they are now.

Obama would have been correct to say that many workers under age 58 would have had some portion of their Social Security benefits affected by the current market turmoil ? if they had chosen to participate. And market drops would be a worry for those who retire in future decades. But current retirees would not have been affected.[/q}

Is that really the best that you have? I know it's a conscious effort now by right wingers to say "hey look, Obama lies too!" It helps you to justify your support of McCain. Instead, your biggest slam against him is that when he talks about how McCain and Bush's plan would have screwed the elderly... it would be the elderly of tomorrow as opposed to today.

So yeah I guess Obama's wrong on this, but seriously you guys can do better.

 

[Drakkon]

How is this trolling - Obama did the exact same sort of thing McCain has done. Factcheck caught him. Its pointed out on this forum as the countless Mccain ones have been.

 

[Pens1566]

The referral to "elderly women" is :

Without Social Security half of elderly women would be living in poverty - half.

The only problem with the quote is the next part :

But if my opponent had his way, the millions of Floridians who rely on it would've had their Social Security tied up in the stock market this week.

Current retirees wouldn't be at a loss unless they were underage disability type benefits, which of course doesn't account for the numbers he cited. Then :

Millions would've watched as the market tumbled and their nest egg disappeared before their eyes.

Is this not true? Do you have to be at least 62 to worry about your retirement accounts? I'm nowhere near that old and I watch them.

Oh, and lets forget the real issue here .... that McCain absolutely, positively, no doubt about it was 100% in favor of letting SS retirement accounts be privatized and open to this kind of epic meltdown.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: Pens1566
The referral to "elderly women" is :

Without Social Security half of elderly women would be living in poverty - half.

The only problem with the quote is the next part :

But if my opponent had his way, the millions of Floridians who rely on it would've had their Social Security tied up in the stock market this week.

Current retirees wouldn't be at a loss unless they were underage disability type benefits, which of course doesn't account for the numbers he cited. Then :

Millions would've watched as the market tumbled and their nest egg disappeared before their eyes.

Is this not true? Do you have to be at least 62 to worry about your retirement accounts? I'm nowhere near that old and I watch them.

Oh, and lets forget the real issue here .... that McCain absolutely, positively, no doubt about it was 100% in favor of letting SS retirement accounts be privatized and open to this kind of epic meltdown.

No, McCain was (and is) in favor of allowing those under 58 to opt to invest their SS money in the market. In other words, 1) telling elderly that his plan would have affected their SS money is a blatant lie, 2) even if he did support complete privatization for everyone, it's still completely your choice. You get to decide if you want to risk it or not, it's not like someone's taking your money and playing it in vegas without your consent. Sheesh.

Millions would've watched as the market tumbled and their nest egg disappeared before their eyes.

Is this not true? Do you have to be at least 62 to worry about your retirement accounts? I'm nowhere near that old and I watch them.

And this has something to do with McCain? Is he somehow in charge of the stock market now?

Bottom line, Obama is lying through his teeth, just like every politician, including McCain.

 

[ProfJohn]

umm the dow us 18% the past 5 years and 44% the last 10. It is even up over the last month.

Seems like a good place for money to me.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: Pens1566
The referral to "elderly women" is :

Without Social Security half of elderly women would be living in poverty - half.

The only problem with the quote is the next part :

But if my opponent had his way, the millions of Floridians who rely on it would've had their Social Security tied up in the stock market this week.

Current retirees wouldn't be at a loss unless they were underage disability type benefits, which of course doesn't account for the numbers he cited. Then :

Millions would've watched as the market tumbled and their nest egg disappeared before their eyes.

Is this not true? Do you have to be at least 62 to worry about your retirement accounts? I'm nowhere near that old and I watch them.

Oh, and lets forget the real issue here .... that McCain absolutely, positively, no doubt about it was 100% in favor of letting SS retirement accounts be privatized and open to this kind of epic meltdown.

No, McCain was (and is) in favor of allowing those under 58 to opt to invest their SS money in the market. In other words, 1) telling elderly that his plan would have affected their SS money is a blatant lie, 2) even if he did support complete privatization for everyone, it's still completely your choice. You get to decide if you want to risk it or not, it's not like someone's taking your money and playing it in vegas without your consent. Sheesh.

Millions would've watched as the market tumbled and their nest egg disappeared before their eyes.

Is this not true? Do you have to be at least 62 to worry about your retirement accounts? I'm nowhere near that old and I watch them.

And this has something to do with McCain? Is he somehow in charge of the stock market now?

Bottom line, Obama is lying through his teeth, just like every politician, including McCain.

Try re-reading .... I pointed out it wouldn't affect current retirees.

And about the opt in, it's still McCain being in favor of gambling with guaranteed retirement income.

 

[SecPro]

Originally posted by: Pens1566
The referral to "elderly women" is :

Without Social Security half of elderly women would be living in poverty - half.

The only problem with the quote is the next part :

But if my opponent had his way, the millions of Floridians who rely on it would've had their Social Security tied up in the stock market this week.

Current retirees wouldn't be at a loss unless they were underage disability type benefits, which of course doesn't account for the numbers he cited. Then :

Millions would've watched as the market tumbled and their nest egg disappeared before their eyes.

Is this not true? Do you have to be at least 62 to worry about your retirement accounts? I'm nowhere near that old and I watch them.

Oh, and lets forget the real issue here .... that McCain absolutely, positively, no doubt about it was 100% in favor of letting SS retirement accounts be privatized and open to this kind of epic meltdown.

You may want to invest in some Stick'Em. It may be easier to hold onto one of those straws you're grasping at. No need to even respond to what you wrote. The Fact Check article invalidates your entire post.

BTW I love the whining in your first post. It's OK to call McCain everything in the book but evidently the same standard doesn't apply to Obama. Whatever.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: SecPro

Originally posted by: Pens1566
The referral to "elderly women" is :

Without Social Security half of elderly women would be living in poverty - half.

The only problem with the quote is the next part :

But if my opponent had his way, the millions of Floridians who rely on it would've had their Social Security tied up in the stock market this week.

Current retirees wouldn't be at a loss unless they were underage disability type benefits, which of course doesn't account for the numbers he cited. Then :

Millions would've watched as the market tumbled and their nest egg disappeared before their eyes.

Is this not true? Do you have to be at least 62 to worry about your retirement accounts? I'm nowhere near that old and I watch them.

Oh, and lets forget the real issue here .... that McCain absolutely, positively, no doubt about it was 100% in favor of letting SS retirement accounts be privatized and open to this kind of epic meltdown.

You may want to invest in some Stick'Em. It may be easier to hold onto one of those straws you're grasping at. No need to even respond to what you wrote. The Fact Check article invalidates your entire post.

BTW I love the whining in your first post. It's OK to call McCain everything in the book but evidently the same standard doesn't apply to Obama. Whatever.

Just for you ....

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

And about the opt in, it's still McCain being in favor of gambling with guaranteed retirement income.

Typical liberal hubris, assuming the government knows better what to do with MY money than I do. McCain favors MY ability to direct how MY money is invested for MY retirement. I'm certain I can do better than the crappy 2% SS has historically gotten. Score one for McCain.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
umm the dow us 18% the past 5 years and 44% the last 10. It is even up over the last month.

Seems like a good place for money to me.

Of course it is, with massive help from Uncle Sam. Of course, two years ago frauds like you would be screaming to keep the government out of the markets ("Dead hand of the state":roll, now you can't get enough of it.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: Pens1566

And about the opt in, it's still McCain being in favor of gambling with guaranteed retirement income.

Typical liberal hubris, assuming the government knows better what to do with MY money than I do. McCain favors MY ability to direct how MY money is invested for MY retirement. I'm certain I can do better than the crappy 2% SS has historically gotten. Score one for McCain.

Sure you can do better than that, so can I. So can most people with the time, effort, and information to do so. SS isn't going to matter to those people who have pensions, 401ks, IRAs, etc.. It matters to those that aren't fortunate enough to have that ability.

If this is a "score" for McCain, he's in trouble.

 

[Balt]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
umm the dow us 18% the past 5 years and 44% the last 10. It is even up over the last month.

Seems like a good place for money to me.

You realize that's because of the MASSIVE bailout package announced by the government, right?

As to the original post, it does look like Obama got it wrong this time since retirees wouldn't have been under the system yet.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
umm the dow us 18% the past 5 years and 44% the last 10. It is even up over the last month.

Seems like a good place for money to me.

Uhmmm, your numbers are completely, crazily wrong. The Dow is up about 18% over the last ten years. (if you look at the last 8 years however it has been stagnant. Your money would have been better off in a savings account than in the stock market) Interestingly enough, if you took that same $100 and put it in a savings account that paid a measly 2%, you would have increased your holdings by 22% in the last 10 years.

More importantly, look at the S&P 500. It's actually DOWN about 15% since Bush took office. This means you would have been better off with your money under your mattress. Interestingly enough, if you took that same $100 and put it in a savings account that paid a measly 2%, compounded yearly, you would have increased your holdings by 21% in the last 10 years. So, how shitty does your investment sound now?

I swear that people don't seem to understand the purpose of Social Security. It has nothing to do with making people rich, it exists to reduce poverty. It does this extremely well. If you put this tool into the stock market, then when the stock market is doing well, everything is great. When the stock market tanks, these old people will be once again screwed. You know what's going to happen then? A big government bailout the same way we're seeing right now because nobody is going to allow masses of the elderly to become homeless/destitute/etc. So pardon me if I don't want to take on an extra trillion dollars in debt for the privilege of taking on even more debt in the future at the mercy of boom/bust cycles.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: Pens1566

And about the opt in, it's still McCain being in favor of gambling with guaranteed retirement income.

Typical liberal hubris, assuming the government knows better what to do with MY money than I do. McCain favors MY ability to direct how MY money is invested for MY retirement. I'm certain I can do better than the crappy 2% SS has historically gotten. Score one for McCain.

Sure you can do better than that, so can I. So can most people with the time, effort, and information to do so. SS isn't going to matter to those people who have pensions, 401ks, IRAs, etc.. It matters to those that aren't fortunate enough to have that ability.

If this is a "score" for McCain, he's in trouble.

Again, you're not grasping the concept. Those who have no knowledge of investing can opt to keep their money "safe". Those who are not stupid will either know or talk to someone who knows such that they can invest their SS money into something that earns more than 2% per year. Simply dumping your money into the S&P 500 gives you a waaaaay better return than 2% over the long haul, you don't need to be investment savy to put your money into the S&P 500 index. It's clearly a winner, but the lefties are deathly afraid of that because it returns choice to the people instead of having it in the hands of the nanny state.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: Pens1566

And about the opt in, it's still McCain being in favor of gambling with guaranteed retirement income.

Typical liberal hubris, assuming the government knows better what to do with MY money than I do. McCain favors MY ability to direct how MY money is invested for MY retirement. I'm certain I can do better than the crappy 2% SS has historically gotten. Score one for McCain.

Sure you can do better than that, so can I. So can most people with the time, effort, and information to do so. SS isn't going to matter to those people who have pensions, 401ks, IRAs, etc.. It matters to those that aren't fortunate enough to have that ability.

If this is a "score" for McCain, he's in trouble.

Again, you're not grasping the concept. Those who have no knowledge of investing can opt to keep their money "safe". Those who are not stupid will either know or talk to someone who knows such that they can invest their SS money into something that earns more than 2% per year. Simply dumping your money into the S&P 500 gives you a waaaaay better return than 2% over the long haul, you don't need to be investment savy to put your money into the S&P 500 index. It's clearly a winner, but the lefties are deathly afraid of that because it returns choice to the people instead of having it in the hands of the nanny state.

No, read my post. Social Security is not intended to be a high return on investment. It is meant to always be there. What do you think will happen if the stock market crashes and all these people who put their money into even 'safe' investments? They will come crawling back for us to save them from destitution, and you know what? We will.

Social Security's only purpose is to reduce poverty among the elderly. It does this fabulously well. Leave it alone please.

EDIT: And at least over the last 10 years a 2% investment has outperformed the stock market and that's without the government throwing a trillion dollars or so into it. A... trillion... dollars.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: Pens1566

And about the opt in, it's still McCain being in favor of gambling with guaranteed retirement income.

Typical liberal hubris, assuming the government knows better what to do with MY money than I do. McCain favors MY ability to direct how MY money is invested for MY retirement. I'm certain I can do better than the crappy 2% SS has historically gotten. Score one for McCain.

Sure you can do better than that, so can I. So can most people with the time, effort, and information to do so. SS isn't going to matter to those people who have pensions, 401ks, IRAs, etc.. It matters to those that aren't fortunate enough to have that ability.

If this is a "score" for McCain, he's in trouble.

Again, you're not grasping the concept. Those who have no knowledge of investing can opt to keep their money "safe". Those who are not stupid will either know or talk to someone who knows such that they can invest their SS money into something that earns more than 2% per year. Simply dumping your money into the S&P 500 gives you a waaaaay better return than 2% over the long haul, you don't need to be investment savy to put your money into the S&P 500 index. It's clearly a winner, but the lefties are deathly afraid of that because it returns choice to the people instead of having it in the hands of the nanny state.

No, read my post.

Social Security is not intended to be a high return on investment.

It is meant to always be there.

What do you think will happen if the stock market crashes and all these people who put their money into even 'safe' investments?

They will come crawling back for us to save them from destitution, and you know what? We will.

Social Security's only purpose is to reduce poverty among the elderly.

It does this fabulously well. Leave it alone please.

eskimospy for President :thumbsup:

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

No, read my post. Social Security is not intended to be a high return on investment. It is meant to always be there. What do you think will happen if the stock market crashes and all these people who put their money into even 'safe' investments? They will come crawling back for us to save them from destitution, and you know what? We will.

Social Security's only purpose is to reduce poverty among the elderly. It does this fabulously well. Leave it alone please.

EDIT: And at least over the last 10 years a 2% investment has outperformed the stock market and that's without the government throwing a trillion dollars or so into it. A... trillion... dollars.

I agree with you regarding the purpose etc, and the fact that if people become destitute we (as a society) would bail them out. However, when you talk about SS, you're talking long term -- decades. Sure, the market has ups and downs, but over the long haul the stock market will always outperform the measly return SS gets. You could always add a restriction that once someone reaches xx years (whatever that number is), investment options become a little more restricted to prevent a big reduction in funds right before retirement. The other thing people seem to forget is that those who want to be completely save can -- and should -- opt out of self directed investment.

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: Pens1566
Second, this is a blatant troll thread. Third, lock it.

you do realize if we used that standard here then we'd have about 2 or 3 new threads a day.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: Pens1566

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: Pens1566

And about the opt in, it's still McCain being in favor of gambling with guaranteed retirement income.

Typical liberal hubris, assuming the government knows better what to do with MY money than I do. McCain favors MY ability to direct how MY money is invested for MY retirement. I'm certain I can do better than the crappy 2% SS has historically gotten. Score one for McCain.

Sure you can do better than that, so can I. So can most people with the time, effort, and information to do so. SS isn't going to matter to those people who have pensions, 401ks, IRAs, etc.. It matters to those that aren't fortunate enough to have that ability.

If this is a "score" for McCain, he's in trouble.

Again, you're not grasping the concept. Those who have no knowledge of investing can opt to keep their money "safe". Those who are not stupid will either know or talk to someone who knows such that they can invest their SS money into something that earns more than 2% per year. Simply dumping your money into the S&P 500 gives you a waaaaay better return than 2% over the long haul, you don't need to be investment savy to put your money into the S&P 500 index. It's clearly a winner, but the lefties are deathly afraid of that because it returns choice to the people instead of having it in the hands of the nanny state.

No, you're not grasping the concept. SS is a safety net for a huge part of the country. I hate to say it, but the ones you cite that have no knowledge of the market and should opt to keep it "safe" are also more likely than not to blow $100 a paycheck on powerball.

Given current events, this subject will absolutely be a negative for McCain.

And I see eskimospy has already responded to this as well. It seems we are in agreement at least.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble

Originally posted by: eskimospy

No, read my post. Social Security is not intended to be a high return on investment. It is meant to always be there. What do you think will happen if the stock market crashes and all these people who put their money into even 'safe' investments? They will come crawling back for us to save them from destitution, and you know what? We will.

Social Security's only purpose is to reduce poverty among the elderly. It does this fabulously well. Leave it alone please.

EDIT: And at least over the last 10 years a 2% investment has outperformed the stock market and that's without the government throwing a trillion dollars or so into it. A... trillion... dollars.

I agree with you regarding the purpose etc, and the fact that if people become destitute we (as a society) would bail them out. However, when you talk about SS, you're talking long term -- decades. Sure, the market has ups and downs, but over the long haul the stock market will always outperform the measly return SS gets. You could always add a restriction that once someone reaches xx years (whatever that number is), investment options become a little more restricted to prevent a big reduction in funds right before retirement. The other thing people seem to forget is that those who want to be completely save can -- and should -- opt out of self directed investment.

You haven't yet grasped what eskimospy so eloquently and simply described.
1. SS is a not an investment program.
2. It's returns have beaten the stock market in the last 18 years - a fairly long haul. Even if viewed as an investment it is a better deal the way it is.
3. It's all very well to get potential rewards but SS eliminates the risk which is something the stock market cannot do.

You're free to invest more money in the stock market if you believe you can do better. That only increases the money you have later in life. But most people do not understand the stock market, specially today with all the various complicated instruments. Heck even wall streets insiders are losing their shirts and High end Girlfriends! . At least with SS you are getting basic subsistence which is virtually guaranteed.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
umm the dow us 18% the past 5 years and 44% the last 10. It is even up over the last month.

Seems like a good place for money to me.

You are truly, hopelessly clueless about the stock market, yet you feel fully free to splatter this forum with your ignorance.

Seriously, have you no shame?

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
umm the dow us 18% the past 5 years and 44% the last 10. It is even up over the last month.

Seems like a good place for money to me.

You are truly, hopelessly clueless about the stock market, yet you feel fully free to splatter this forum with your ignorance.

Seriously, have you no shame?

He is truly, hopelessly clueless about the politics, America, and life in general, yet he feels fully free to splatter this forum with his ignorance... so why not