At this point, he has to be in this to collect as many checks as possible, and really, his heart can't be in it. Not with the tripe that he's been spinning. Nothing new, nothing clear, just a bunch of talking points, some failed, some just recycled, but nothing of substance, because that might require some actual thought on the issues that face us, and the worst thing possible for folks like himself, Bachmann, or even Palin, would be to actually win because then they'd be forced to work for a living...

anyone who's been paying ANY sort of attention to the market over the past decade would be either f*cking stupid or insane to trust their retirement fund to wall street. Reinstate Glass-Steagal and maybe we can talk about Newt's plan....but just turning over all that cash to wall street and expecting them to not screw us over? bad idea.

I invested all my private Social Security money in

Weaver95: anyone who's been paying ANY sort of attention to the market over the past decade would be either f*cking stupid or insane to trust their retirement fund to wall street. Reinstate Glass-Steagal and maybe we can talk about Newt's plan....but just turning over all that cash to wall street and expecting them to not screw us over? bad idea.

The thought process is to return us to the Boom/Bust cycle that we had for so many years. It cleared out the dead wood and substantial ruling families fair often. It was good for the upwardly mobile, and accumulation of power to corporate interests as opposed to just familial. It was great for getting rid of competition, so long as you weren't caught in the bust portion of the show.

Of course, anyone with any sense also fears such integral instability of such markets--but only if you don't have bolt holes and investments spread out internationally. The problem being, that the American markets tie in so much abroad, and so many foreign investors peg much on our markets, that the web of collapses tends to cascade now.

Boils down to it: folks are hoping to get us back to the heady days of the Robber Barons, and are betting that they won't get caught up in a bust--or if they do, that they can bet on the American taxpayer to bail them out. Legislation that has limited this sort of financial adventurism is seen as an impediment, given that they are betting on private profit and public risk.

If we held them accountable for their own failures, we might see more cautious investments and we might see markets that were far less volatile, but that will only occur if we stop allowing the American taxpayer to be their collateral and safety net.

hubiestubert:
If we held them accountable for their own failures, we might see more cautious investments and we might see markets that were far less volatile, but that will only occur if we stop allowing the American taxpayer to be their collateral and safety net.

the weird part of all this is that whenever someone suggests that we STOP using the taxpayers to bail out the failures of wall street, the GOP starts calling you 'socialist'. which is mindblowingly stupid, but there you go.

I hear he's also considering starting a "web log"

Weaver95: hubiestubert:
If we held them accountable for their own failures, we might see more cautious investments and we might see markets that were far less volatile, but that will only occur if we stop allowing the American taxpayer to be their collateral and safety net.

the weird part of all this is that whenever someone suggests that we STOP using the taxpayers to bail out the failures of wall street, the GOP starts calling you 'socialist'. which is mindblowingly stupid, but there you go.

The Red Menace is a great threat still. Socialism means Unamerican in some minds, even though the USSR isn't even around anymore, and China is one of our biggest trading partners. At some point, we need to think up a new Boogeyman...

I thought that constituted Right Wing Social Engineering. At least, that something someone told me once. Oh, that's right. It was Newt Farking Gingrich!

This is the guy who would wipe the floor with Obama in a debate, right?

JerseyTim: This is the guy who would wipe the floor with Obama in a debate, right?

I honestly don't understand why everyone thinks Gingrich is so damned smart. I wouldn't say he's dumb, but he's nothing extraordinary. People are dazzled by his words. But when you listen closely there actually very little substance or coherence to his speech.

jackiepaper: I hear he's also considering starting a "web log"

Can I get that in my electronic mailbox?

Diogenes: I honestly don't understand why everyone thinks Gingrich is so damned smart

In the land of the blind, the three-wived man is king.

Diogenes: JerseyTim: This is the guy who would wipe the floor with Obama in a debate, right?

I honestly don't understand why everyone thinks Gingrich is so damned smart. I wouldn't say he's dumb, but he's nothing extraordinary. People are dazzled by his words. But when you listen closely there actually very little substance or coherence to his speech.

I can't figure out why people think Newt is a paragon of virtue. Nothing in his past shows any hint that he either believes in or lives a 'moral' lifestyle.

Diogenes: But when you listen closely there actually very little substance or coherence to his speech.

Plus when there is substance and coherence, its when he says things like "Child labor laws are truly stupid"

AGAIN, for those who weren't listening like Newt, Social Security is a insurance program, not an IRA or 401k.

If you are disabled or become disabled, you can receive SS payments.

If you die, your spouse and kids can receive SS payments.

If you make it to retirement, you can receive SS payments.

/Perhaps Newt should offer another program strictly for retirement?
//But that would compete with Fidelity, T Rowe Price, etc, wouldn't it?

GT_Frog: I think it's time to bring a law suit to the Supreme Court forcing Congress to live by all of the laws they have exempted themselves from and expect us to live under.

omg why are you yelling

OK, so G-boy admits that don't know what the cutoff will be for current workers. What will happen to people such as myself, who are right in the middle of their lives in the work force and have already paid into Social Security? What about workers who are new to the work force but have already begun paying SS? Also, TFA says there will be guarantees of minimal monthly stipends if the market should collapse. So how do they plan on insuring that? Where is the revenue coming from? It better not be coming from my SS payments.

The biggest question for me is how are these plans going to be regulated? The article mentions regulations that will guarantee diversified portfolios - OK that's fine. But are these plans going to be regulated insofar as when funds can be withdrawn? Is there going to be a minimum retirement age before a withdrawal can be made? Are they going to allow hardship withdrawals? Are they going to allow loans - if so that would be a nightmare!! The problem with private accounts is unless they are regulated up the wazoo (and we know how much the conservatives love regulation) then people are going to decide they want their money NOW and screw up their retirement. I work in the retirement industry, I see it every day. I myself have fallen prey to the allure of a 401(k) loan. This just seems like a very bad idea to me.