CoffeeJitters has moved to coffeejitters.net/blog


Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Real Change




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONM7148cTyc

Monday was the sixth worst day in the history of Wall Street. I am so thankful that Bush and McCain were unsuccessful in privatizing Social Security by turning it over to the likes of the Lehman Brothers. Social Security is in a bad way currently, but privatization would have completely done in our senior citizens that depend on these funds for survival.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CK3Y1KPzW9k
_________________________________________

Subscribe to CoffeeJitters

Add to Technorati Favoritesadd to kirtsy

7 comments:

Tricia said...

Judy, I'm not sure that's true. This horrific failing of the financial sector is a result of the housing market and it began because of Fannie & Freddie...an outrageous greed from the banking/credit industry and from consumers. Many other sectors of the market are providing opportunity, and it's not a death sentence for each market component. The industry deregulation began during the Clinton administration and has continued through the Bush administration. To say that privatization of social security would have failed because of this craziness seems hypothetical. I've been so dismayed by the inaccuracies from each campaign. Just this week I've head several things from both McCain and Obamma that when I started digging, they were inaccurate. I continue to be disheartened by both political parties.

Judy Haley (coffeejitters) said...

So then the privatized social security would have survived despite the fact that the remaining investments in Lehman Brothers failed? What would differentiate and protect the privatized and no longer protected funds that were formerly part of the social security system? What would keep these funds from evaporating along with the remainder of the Lehman Brothers stock?

I recommend factcheck.org for verifying truth from lies rather than any of the news stations. McCain and even CBS have suggested Obama lied in cases where the facts remained the same but his interpretation of the result of that fact was different. Coming to a different conclusion about the results of a plan is different from actually lying about the plan.

For instance Obama said McCain's plan involves taxing medical benefits. This is true, McCain's plan does involved taxing medical benefits. The big difference is whether or not that will involve higher taxes for the average American taxpayer. While calling Obama a liar for saying it will increase taxes, CBS at the end of the segment acknowledged that McCain's plan would significantly increase taxes over time. Obama said McCain's plan will increase taxes. To my knowledge, he did not give a date when the increase would take effect.

scargosun said...

If you look at the financial world, it goes through times like this over and over. it sucks but it's a natural progession. Did things contribute to make it worse, yes, Fannie and Freddie didn't help, nor did gas prices. It wasn't one person on onr political party. It was an abundance of things.

Judy Haley (coffeejitters) said...

I'm not saying one party caused the crash. I'm saying that I'm glad social security was protected from the crash.

The Outlaw Baker said...

I was under the impression that Bush's plan wasn't supposed to affect anyone born before 1950. I was also under the impression that his idea was to not necessarily privatize social security but to instill a voluntary government secured savings plan. At least that is what I got out of his speech on June 8th 2005, you can check it out if you want at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005 But, just like every other politician Bush never really spelled out his plan for social security reform, it seems to change every couple of weeks or so. At any rate even if Bush's plan (as it was described in his speech) had gone into effect today's seniors would still be able to collect their checks even though the Lehman Brothers filed chapter 11 because the plan doesn't apply to them or any one else born before 1950, besides that it's not supposed to take effect until 2011 anyway. I believe the problem that we are facing here is that the US government has aloud Wall Street to metamorphisize from a stock market into a casino. Every one is talking reform. Okay, great. How are you going to do it?

Judy Haley (coffeejitters) said...

If the stock market is truly as you say a casino, why would we place social security in that casino?

And let me reiterate here - I very clearly did not place blame for Monday's crash on either party. I don't believe the crash is the fault of either party.

I just think that privatizing social security is a bad idea and Monday's crash illustrates the danger that social security could be in had that plan actually passed. It was all hypothetical.

The Outlaw Baker said...

Normally I wouldn't retaliate, because normally I don't care... or I don't know enough about the subject to form a semi-educated opinion, but this is a subject that I have studied a little and for some reason I kinda enjoy playing the devil's advocate... The beauty of Bush's plan is that it's VOLUNTARY. You don't have to invest your social security tax in it if you don't want to, and besides it's meant to be a supplement NOT a replacement. But, if you you did decide to invest in it, it would be for the same reason as putting your money into a savings account... to build interest. currently paying into social security gets you nothing. The way it works now, your money goes in and then it goes right back out into some old fogy's hands. It's not like it's just sitting there waiting for you to retire. It makes good sense to invest in something that builds interest, so there will be something there when you need it. That's not hypothetical, that's the real deal. The interest rate that you receive from your bank depends on the current state of the stock market as well. Are you saying that we shouldn't put our money into Banks either? True the state of the stock market is scary, but investing some of your money is still better than hiding it under a mattress. There is no escaping danger, it will find you anywhere, sometimes you have to take a risk to get ahead, the question you have to ask is whether or not the juice is worth the squeeze. I agree that no one party is responsible for the crash of the stock market, I don't believe that I ever even said anything that would lead any one to that conclusion, it is the fault of the U.S. Government as a whole and we as citizen voters. That's my opinion anyway. Or was that a rhetorical question?

© Judy Haley. All rights reserved.

Labels