When they have this paragraph in their news report

The Republican presidential nominee says all options must be considered to stave off insolvency for the government insurance and retirement program, and top McCain advisers say that includes so-called personal retirement accounts like those President Bush pushed in 2005 but abandoned in the face of congressional opposition.

And don't then say that, contrary to McCain's advisors, personal retirement accounts don't do anything towards helping the solvency of Social Security, it furthers the conservative agenda. It makes McCain's idea look better than it deserves to look, and therefore makes McCain look better than it deserves to look!

Yeah, and just think how much money we all would make on our accounts!!...er....

In fact, the Bush administration itself has admitted that private accounts themselves would do nothing to address Social Security's projected long-term revenue shortfall.

And I believe in my humble opinion that other than Iraq , Bushs economic policies have been even more dangerous to our nations future. AP is wrong in attempting to spin this in McCains advantage.

the question to always be asked is, what happens if you invest your account and you lose part or all of it?  does the government need to step in and help you if you are destitute?  or should you starve?

That's an especially poignant question when one considers what started Social Security. Families could not longer be counted upon to support all their extended relatives - people moved away from their families in the 20th century like never before. Poor houses had stopped being an option, so what was an elderly person to do - work 'til they died?

It was because when families supported their elderly, they were destitute, and when there was no family, they starved. It was determined that as a rich nation, we could do better, and our elderly deserved better.

Because families can be too far away to help, or too destitute themselves, Social Security was developed to be a safety net - it wasn't intended to make anyone rich, or even middle class - it was intended to keep them from starving, to be a security blanket for them. Because that's its mission, it is anathema to the purpose of Social Security to put any of the benefits at risk!!!!! The benefits must never be put at risk. Ever.

To think that private accounts that could put that security blanket at risk would ever be considered is blasphemy! It's because of the risks of being destitute and starving posed for the elderly and disabled that the program was begun!!!

I cannot believe McCain would mention Bush's "private ss accounts. I have watched my ira and other mutual funds take major swan dives lately ---just can;t imagine the panic when people saw their Social Security accounts evaporate.  Truly Gramps has alzheimers setting in.

Bush's own accounting office, in a report a coulpe of years ago admitted that even if we did nothing, Social Security would be fine until 2040 or 2050. ( I can't remember which) After which, if we did nothing, it would then pay 85% of its benefits. So all it needs to be fine is minor tweaking so it will keep paying 100% after 2040 or 50. Removing the cap would be one way.

There's a chance if the economy does well enough over the next 30 years that nothing actually will need to be done - the Social Security evaluators assume that the economy won't do as well as it has in the past. Now, considering how screwed up the Republicans have made it, that assumption might be correct!

there is also the fact that a lot of people indicate that they intend to work either full or part time well past 65.  and that's already happening.  the number of people past 65 working now is already up considerably from 20 years ago.  one of the extra benefits of that is that they can be getting ss benefits on one hand, but be paying income taxes and ss taxes on the income they make, which will help the bottom line of the ss fund.