ABC News' Anamarie Rebori reports: Sen. John McCain made clear this weekend that when it comes to fixing Social Security, "everything is on the table," including a possible payroll tax increase.

"There is nothing I would take off the table. There was nothing I would demand," McCain told ABC News' George Stephanopoulos in an exclusive interview on "This Week." "I think that’s the way that Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill did it -- and that's what we have to do again."

Political Radar: McCain: Social Security Tax Hike ?On the Table?

I watched the interview. He said that as a way of showing his willingness to compromise and to find whatever solution works best and not just the answer that works best from the Republican or Democratic 'playbook.'

It would be like your saying you would be willing to eat 1,000 raw pig's testicles if it would assure an end to Israeli/Palestinian violence and then some reporter would write:

Mikeyy: Will Eat 1,000 Pig Nuts For MidEast Peace

And there would be people expecting you to do it when actually you were speaking euphemistically to indicate your desire for an accord to be reached between the warring parties.

__________________
But, when all is said and done, Senator McCain has not spent decades aiding and abetting people who hate America. http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell060508.php3

When social security first started, there were 16 people giving in to it for every person taking out...

Now, that ratio is down to 2 people for every 1 person taking out...

The problem isn't with a candidate'ss solutions...It's with what's become of something that once WAS viable but has lost it's luster...

I'm 38 and I don't expect to get SS at all...And no presidential candidate could make me believe otherwise...The practice has wore out it's welcome...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

A change in SS structure is inevitable and it will be painful but the longer we avoid fixing the problem the more painful it will be.McCain deserves some credit for taking a risk on a highly controversial subject.

The problem with that is the Democrats have already mandated the issue of Social Security "The third rail of politics" and will castigate anyone who want to take on the task of fixing it...

Bush attempted to fix it...Look what happened...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

Indeed,it's a political hot potato and consequently we will all pay the price..

The simplest "complex" problem on the table. All it takes is to allow people to invest 25% of what they pay into SSI into funds of their choosing. Then, tax the earnings annually at 15% to help pay for those who are unable to provide for themselves. Throw in means testing (you get SSI if you need it) It provides a huge economic stimulus in the form of investing into our economy directly (creating more jobs & more tax $$) and it provides a much greater rate of return than the current SSI funds receive. People will be able to retire earlier (saving SSI money) and retire better (with means testing you'll have fewer people needing SSI).

Problem solved.

__________________
~
~
~

Our nation has not always lived up to its ideals, yet those ideals have never ceased to guide us. They expose our flaws, and lead us to mend them. We are the beneficiaries of the work of the generations before us and it is each generation's responsibility to continue that work. - Laura Bush

God is a conservative -

Ecclesiastes 10:2--"A wise man's heart inclines him to the right, but a fool's heart to the left."

What if you don't trade? What else should you be able to invest in? Why is it that they want to direct the money toward stocks and the like. Why not investing in what ever you want? And I am for means testing. Social Security should work like insurance. If you have an retirement income of lets say $250,000 a year. I don't think you should get a full SS check. I will likely lose mine in that case. But Its OK with me. I am happy with that. I'm not jealous. I want my fellow Americans to do well. And if they can't I don't mind helping if hey really need it. I'll sirvive.

That would do it, but Dems fear-monger about 'privatizing' SSI, so it won't happen.

Like what, baseball cards?

Can I ask where your $250,000/year retirement income will be coming from?

Besides, I'm calling your bluff. Wealthy individuals always say they aren't taxed enough or would be willing to do without benefits, but as you can see below they never actually do what they say:

If Warren Buffett wants to pay more taxes, he need only tear up the freaking check!

Anyhow I don't agree that payments should be means tested. That's simply hiding a tax from someone for most of their life with them never knowing it. If you were going to do that, at least stop calling it insurance and label it for what it would really be ... a redistribution scheme / welfare program.

__________________

One question. If today there is 2 paying into it while one takes out of it.

Explain how this came about?
Could it be outsourcing of jobs and the buying up of companies and then selling the equipment and the company is dead and workers are left with nothing? Commonly called Corporate Raiding.
And if so that is what you work with to get companies back here employing Americans. On the second process maybe there should be regulations on what one can do once they buy a company. Our economy was based upon these many small companies competing. Look at today and 20, 30, 40, 50 90 years ago. Some advancements aren't so good are they?
Not trying this or that.
To fix any problem you ask WHY has this happened. And then direct your efforts at the problem, not create new problems.