So Sen. Mccain contradicts himself again, this time on social security(like he has done on most other issues)? Let's just say the man is confused again.

This is the New, Improved John McCain! Now with more Maverick(tm)!

(Your mileage may vary. Early termination fees apply. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Contents are sold by volume, not weight. Ask your doctor if John McCain is right for you.)

Bush held onto this thread an inordinately long time, and if the stock market would have shown better gains in his two terms he probably would have done it. The real problem is marketing. A tactic which works well for them (Medicare D) is to float a completely ambigous bit of legislation, then poll the American people, who are so naturally confused that they vote along roughly equal lines, pro and con. Then they spin those numbers for the 5% edge they need to run it past Congress. COngress passes a completely foggy bill, and the lobbyists and their lawyers make they want of it.

Ultimately it's not an issue, its a marketing ploy. Can Wall Street be trusted with the Social Security Trust Fund? Since they're all good Americans, the answer must be yes. Is the stock market safe? Well with Goldman Sachs and the Federal Reserve backing the markets, you would think so. There is no ideological point of view opposing such a bill, except maybe Al Gore's famous lock box (get ready to hear more about that). To make a cynical point about the safety of those assets, the government has already borrowed against its assets to a point where few of them, even if they were in a lock-box would escape the deliterious effects of poor economic policy.

In the final outcome government will probably have to strip out the entitlements from SSN and try to preserve the retirement benefits. Ultimately if the stock market tanks Social Security will face shortfalls, just like every other government spending program. Wall Street and the US Treasury are now so intricately interwoven, that one cannot prosper without the other. Stock Brokers are the new class of civil servants, and should someone have the political courage to put everything on the up and up, we could regulate the stock market, and control wages,bonuses, and speculation.

But Bush had a list of far reaching Uber-Socialist ideas, which infuriate the core of the Republican party, and privatizing Social Security is really one of them. The plan is not a giveaway to the robber barrons who summer in the Hamptons, the plans brings them into the fold. It shouldn't be a shock to anyone if Democrats buy into it, and a moderate President, such as McCain would be able to get it through, were he elected.

Well played. I wish I could mod you up.

You are not allowed to call him that, because apparently that term has been redefined to deal exclusively with old age. They are now, having rewritten the Constitution, taking on the dictionary. And, of course, the MSM is playing along.

Let's just say this - when it comes to privatizing social security, McCain was "for it, before he was against it, before he was for it, before he was against it".

Whereas with Iraq he was "for it, before he was against it, before he was for it".

If a Democrat campaigned in such an incosistent manner he'd be fininshed by now. Why can the Dems not bury this clown? He is unable to keep track of his constantly-shifting opinions, and he is campaigning as a straight-talker!?!??! He is running an ad against war while vowing to continue it forever if necessary!?!?!

Worst. Candidate. Ever.

Point made: McCain is not good with words. He just isn't.

Larger issue that wasn't addressed by article: THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM NEEDS HELP!!!! How do we solve this apparently intractable problem. McCain's position is actually sensible when faced with this political third rail. You want to pay benefits that were guaranteed but you need to keep the funding source solvent. I'd gladly pay less social security tax now to forego benefits in the future, if I can place that saved money in a safe investement of my own choosing, heck, it can even be government regulated savings, I'm not too picky, it doesnt have to be private. We need to keep the promises to people who depend on fixed income and those of us who want more fiscal independence and personal responsibility should be able to opt into supplimental savings accounts or something like that. And I don't mind paying more taxes than I would in a truly private system if it meant current guaranteed benefits would stand.

I wish the electorate as a whole would pay more attention to the nitty gritty details of political problem solving rather than image and sound bites an PR. But such is life.

why should we trust our savings to the very people (public and private) that have caused our financial mess in the first place? I have yet to see a ceo worth more than a few hundred thousand so why should I help feed their ego driven compensation that could otherwise be use to fund more jobs of people that do real work?

Social Security is a product of the Nanny state. "You're untrustworthy. You spent your earnings instead of saving and buying insurance So we are going to protect you from you own stupidity by taxing you, spending what we take from you to buy votes, but then pay you back a piddling sum if you don't die before the benifits kick in. ANDD we hope that you do. We are big government"

The armed forces are a product of the Nanny State. "You're a wimp. You spent your earnings instead of investing them in a defensive system, weapons, training, and a long-term contract with one of the regional mercenary companies. So we're going to protect you from your own stupidity by taxing you, and spending what we take from you on no-bid contracts to benefit our cronies. We are big government."