TPMDC
GOP Voters To House Leadership: Privatize Social Security!
Former President Bush at an event touting his social security reform proposal in 2005.
Share
Send to a friend!
House Minority Leader John Boehner says he doesn't want to "prejudge" any official Republican plan to fix Social Security before voters have their chance to weigh in on a nifty new GOP Web site soliciting their ideas. Boehner won't tip the party's 2010 cards as to whether the unpopular George W. Bush-era plan to privatize Social Security might be on the table if he gets the Speaker's gavel after November.
But after spending some time scanning the "America Speaking Out" Republican site that Boehner said will inform the GOP game plan this fall, it's clear that there are plenty of voters who want the party to push privatization once more.
One suggestion has 168 votes: "We need to Privatize Social Security. If Chile can do it, we can too. At least we should have the opportunity to opt out of the government system."
"Bush was right in 2004 to try and privatize it but nobody wants to say it!," user "Texas veteran" wrote on the site, advocating for young people to move 1 to 2 percent per year into private funds that he believes should be maintained by Berkshire Hathaway. "Then after 25-50 years, the American people would be FREE of this unjust and unfair ponzi scheme and obligation that we were placed under by progressives in the early 1900's! We should be able to keep what we earn NOT spread the wealth!" Texas veteran wrote.
TPM found at least 7 suggestions -- out of an estimated 10,000 submissions-- on the site in which voters recommended full or partial privatization. None of those suggestions were ranked top vote-getters.
There also are plenty of suggestions that are in line with what Boehner suggested in an interview with a Pittsburgh newspaper -- raising the retirement age to 70.
"We should increase the age slowly, with plenty of warning, so that folks close to retirement don't get hurt, but we need to raise it," wrote user Jay Hochberg, getting 18 votes.
Another voter using the handle "UseAConstitution" suggests that only people 50 and older in the year 2010 would get Social Security benefits. People ages 40 to 49 would only get benefits if they don't have an IRA or 401(k) plan. "Americans 39 and younger would not receive Social Security benefits," UseAConstitution wrote. (Only 23 people voted for the idea. By comparison, popular ideas have as many as 1,000 votes.)
With momentum to actually do something big to reform entitlement programs growing on Capitol Hill, this won't be the last you read about Social Security, even if major reforms aren't as popular among GOP voters as rolling back health care reform.
Comments (70) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
hunter
July 7, 2010 1:06 PM
Please, Boehner; make this a top-tier issue this season. Pretty please, with sugar on top.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
July 7, 2010 1:43 PM in reply to hunter
Sounds like a winner, doesn't it?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SQLInjector
July 7, 2010 3:43 PM in reply to hunter
Are you insane?
I'll tell you what the main opposition argument will be for virtually every single race (senate, house, dog catcher etc...):
"My opponent __ is a __." or just "__ is a ___".
This strategy allows each candidate to run AGAINST something that is universally considered bad. Don't think it'll work? The Tea Party tried it ang got a good taste for it in 2008. Now I see they are trying it again, this time with a popular Republican Gov.:
Make no mistake- this false talk of reforming social security is only occurring so that each party can say "I blocked the other party from taking away your benefits!" followed by a "by the way my opponent __ is a __".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
crazycarnypoptart
July 7, 2010 1:18 PM
funny thing, the most popular ideas on the america speaking out website about fiscal responsibility talk about cutting benefits for congress, I notice they decided not to run with that idea.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sharonsj
July 7, 2010 5:26 PM in reply to crazycarnypoptart
to big jonny: Yup, was just thinking I'd like to LOWER the retirement age in Congress to 50--with no benefits, of course. Otherwise we can't get rid of them; they just seem to hang on by their fingernails (or other body parts) until they die.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
1audiofile
July 7, 2010 1:20 PM
The goals of the GOP have nothing to do with helping the middle class. Their goals are to help business reduce the middle class to low class slave labor. Living in company houses and buying food from the company store. In other words, just like the 1930s.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
johnnydoughey
July 7, 2010 1:28 PM in reply to 1audiofile
I don't believe the leaders of EITHER party put much thought into what is best for anyone in this once great nation...
There is not much time for that after putting in 100% of their effort into staying in or gaining more power.
Remember... BOTH parties got us into the mess we are in today, not the "other" party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
vasu
July 7, 2010 2:02 PM in reply to johnnydoughey
I wouldn't say both parties. There is one party that is more responsible for this then another. Like the spiraling debt. Not really the Dem's fault, I would honestly point that square at the GOBP since they controlled the senate and the house for more then 10yrs, got us into 2 wars and umm... Pissed away the surplus that was created by giving tax cuts to the most wealthy and 300 dollars to everyone for. Umm... Kicks?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brianm0122
July 7, 2010 2:04 PM in reply to johnnydoughey
Oh BULLSHIT,
I am tired of that false equilivalancy. over the last 42 years, Republicans have run the economy for 28. For only 8 of those 42 years was there any attempt whatsoever at a balanced budget and that was during a Democratic Adinistration. The failre to balance the books, the tax burden on the middle class, and the repeated recessions are part and parcel of REPUBLICAN POLICIES.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Powkat
July 8, 2010 1:56 PM in reply to brianm0122
Amen, brother.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hank
July 7, 2010 2:07 PM in reply to johnnydoughey
A republican offers to give you a penny. A Democrat offers to give you a dime. Which one is better?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Beetlejuice
July 8, 2010 7:51 AM in reply to Hank
I'll take the shiny one
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brianm0122
July 7, 2010 4:03 PM in reply to johnnydoughey
Oh BULLSHIT,
I am tired of that false equilivalancy. over the last 42 years, Republicans have run the economy for 28. For only 8 of those 42 years was there any attempt whatsoever at a balanced budget and that was during a Democratic Adinistration. The failre to balance the books, the tax burden on the middle class, and the repeated recessions are part and parcel of REPUBLICAN POLICIES.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Commie Dearest
July 7, 2010 4:13 PM in reply to johnnydoughey
The Dems gave us the New Deal, which the Republicans have wanted to roll back ever since. They are decidely no equivalent in this realm.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Nancy Irving
July 7, 2010 5:36 PM in reply to Commie Dearest
And just recently the Dems gave us healthcare reform, which the GOP would never have passed in a thousand years.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
traitorjoe
July 7, 2010 5:56 PM in reply to johnnydoughey
Oh, bullshit Johnny. Every time the GOP screws up and does something completely against the interests of the common man apologists like you claim "both parties do it." Sure, like both parties claimed Obama was born in Kenya, both parties claimed health care reform was Armaggedon. Both parties said Saddam was responsible for 9-11.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
July 7, 2010 9:43 PM in reply to traitorjoe
Exactly. NO equivalency.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ws84
July 7, 2010 11:07 PM in reply to traitorjoe
Thank you for that reply!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Captain Dan
July 7, 2010 7:43 PM in reply to johnnydoughey
Wrong! Bush, Chaney and their toady congress got us into this mess! Denying this is either a lie or stupid!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
thomas1
July 7, 2010 1:57 PM in reply to 1audiofile
George Pullman had it right and we need to go back to those thrilling days of yesteryear.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chimpale
July 7, 2010 1:24 PM
The party of slow learners tries once again.
We should let these dumb fucks put their SS payments into the stock market. When they lose it all, they get nothing. No safety net for them in their golden years.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hank
July 7, 2010 2:04 PM in reply to chimpale
Exactly, and once you opt out you cannot ever get back in.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hank
July 7, 2010 2:06 PM in reply to chimpale
Although, they talk big but given the opportunity I bet not one in a thousand of them would actually do it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
thepoliticalcat
July 7, 2010 10:23 PM in reply to Hank
Well, given that a mere seven or so actually proposed such an idea, and assuming that the site has a total of more than seven members, I don't think privatizing Social Security is a popular idea no matter which side of the aisle you sit on, politically.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
July 7, 2010 2:52 PM in reply to chimpale
It would never work that way, and you know it as well as I do. If the market tanked and they lost everything, they'd be the first ones in line for a bailout. And they would probably get one.
One of the people quoted in Christina's post thought we should emulate the system in Chile. Really? Because the system in Chile has significant problems, as cited at http://socsec.net/publications.asp?pubid=332
Just one of the overall problems with the system that is listed there:
And note the footnote on that report: The junta exempted the military from participation in the privatized system and allowed them to continue drawing their government pensions. Do you suppose that is what Congress would do, too? Exempt themselves from the rules they impose on everyone else? They've done it before, haven't they?
Now, granted, the report quoted above was from 1999. But a 2004 from the same Century Foundation doesn't indicate that it had gotten any better in the interim. See "Reason #4" here: http://www.socsec.org/publications.asp?pubid=503 .
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
July 7, 2010 3:03 PM in reply to slb
See also this 2005 article from the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/27/business/worldbusiness/27pension.html
And in December 2009, it was being reported that "Chile’s social security faces the prospect of major shortfalls - even bankruptcy - in the coming years. The country has gone further than any other country in privatizing social security, embracing private pension accounts in 1981. But the fund will soon be paying out more than it takes in, and is projected to be exhausted by 2036." http://worldfocus.org/blog/2009/12/10/chiles-privatized-social-security-may-risk-bankruptcy/8842/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Matt Jones
July 7, 2010 3:47 PM in reply to slb
Haven't you figured it out - what's happening in Chile is THE PLAN. Loot people's payments into the system (via "transaction fees" and "management fees" to Wall Street) then, when the whole system comes crashing down cheer, "SEE, I TOLD YOU! GOVERNMENT DOESN'T WORK!".
It's the same plan behind nearly every Republican policy of the last 50 years - loot till the system breaks, then claim it's the system's fault. See also bank deregulation, investing state pensions in mortgage CDOs, the Republican approach to HCR and health care in general, national defense, etc.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
July 7, 2010 5:04 PM in reply to Matt Jones
Except that in Chile what they did was to have parallel systems -- the new one for people who wanted to invest their retirement funds themselves, and the old one for people who wanted to stay with the existing government system. I'm not sure just how they managed to keep people opting for the private system from impoverishing the government one, but the result was that people who stayed in the old government system were getting payouts that were twice as big as the ones at the same pay level that opted for the private system.
Not exactly the ideal model for showing that government plans are always worse than private sector ones.
Part of the problem in Chile was that fees were taking large chunks out of the private sector returns. The UK has seen the same problem with its private pension system, and we see the same thing here with 401k accounts.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
July 7, 2010 5:06 PM in reply to slb
Also, I should point out, the government system payouts in Chile were for life, while the private ones were for a set period of time, like 20 years, which would make it quite possible for you to outlive your pension benefits, especially since women in Chile retire at age 60.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Nancy Irving
July 7, 2010 8:33 PM in reply to slb
I don't know why this point is not emphasized. It's the crux of the issue: SS is *insurance* that will be with you till the day you die.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pv2k
July 7, 2010 8:58 PM in reply to Nancy Irving
+1
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Nancy Irving
July 7, 2010 6:04 PM in reply to slb
"If the market tanked and they lost everything, they'd be the first ones in line for a bailout. And they would probably get one."
Yes. And it wouldn't be only those who lost their shirts in the market. What about those who simply outlived their savings? One of the reasons SS works is that the people who live to be old, and so end up receiving more in SS than they paid in, are balanced out by all the people who pay into the system but die before they receive much, or anything, in benefits. SS is an *insurance* program--not an investment program. And that is what makes it an irreplaceable part of retirement security.
And conservatives fail to see that this insurance aspect of SS doesn't just protect the worker, it protects the taxpayer as well.
Without traditional SS, which compels even the poorest to contribute and guarantees a subsistence income to even the most long-lived, many will be left--whether by their own fault or not--destitute at some point in the old age.
These people will have to be supported--we are not just going to leave them to starve in the streets, even if conservatives might like us to--and this will have to be paid for out of general revenue, i.e., out of income taxes. The same taxes, that is, that conservatives don't want to pay.
The taxpayer benefits if all workers, including the poorest, are enrolled in what is effectually a forced-contribution pension program.
SS is in fact a very good deal for America's wealthy. It puts a large part of the burden of paying for the retirement of the non-wealthy on the shoulders of the non-wealthy themselves.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Beetlejuice
July 8, 2010 8:00 AM in reply to chimpale
That was my thought s too.
For some strange reason, the republican base really believe the money they put into social security is theirs...they're being forced to give it to the government against their desires. What's odd is they have no idea of the concept of collective good as a whole. They are extremely focused on their self-ego and can't comprehend all ships rising on a high tide...they think their ship should be closer to the deeper waters of the channel so they don't have to wait.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dr. Tettrazini
July 7, 2010 1:32 PM
chimpale has a good idea. Selective withdraw for idiots to test the water with no readmission to
SS. Say bye-bye and good riddance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sparrowhawk
July 7, 2010 2:27 PM in reply to Dr. Tettrazini
Unfortunately, that's exactly why they mandated everyone to buy health insurance in the Health Care bill. If we let people "opt-out" of SS, then everyone else loses money in the system. It only works when we're all paying into it. If enough people were allowed to opt-out, it would crash even faster (in part because of the whole compound interest thing being reduced by enormous margins over the long-run).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JimmyBobby
July 7, 2010 1:38 PM
Can people not do the simple math and calculate where their retirement be today if Bush had succeeded in stuffing it all into the stock market??
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
July 7, 2010 3:06 PM in reply to JimmyBobby
Do the math? Dude, have you been to the supermarket lately? People in this country can't even figure out how to make change any more. If something goes wrong and the cash register doesn't tell them how much change to hand out, most supermarket clerks are completely lost.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
July 7, 2010 1:56 PM
If Chile can do it so can we! What a slogan.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
readytoblowagasket
July 7, 2010 3:11 PM in reply to destor23
Sounds like a winner!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
July 7, 2010 5:13 PM in reply to readytoblowagasket
Indeed.
"It is estimated that roughly 28 to 33 percent one-quarter to one-third of contributions made by employees retiring in 2000 went toward fees."
"That report [by brokerage firm CB Capitales] found that the average worker would have done better simply by placing their pension fund contributions in a passbook savings account."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
July 7, 2010 5:14 PM in reply to readytoblowagasket
Coming from the party that started talking about "Second Amendment remedies" and the urgent need for a military coup about fifteen seconds after they realized their new president was near, it's a just a tad chilling. Maybe that's why they call it "Chile."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
randomname
July 7, 2010 2:03 PM
"Another voter using the handle "UseAConstitution" suggests that only people 50 and older in the year 2010 would get Social Security benefits. People ages 40 to 49 would only get benefits if they don't have an IRA or 401(k) plan. "Americans 39 and younger would not receive Social Security benefits," UseAConstitution wrote."
I'm confused...people can't be this dumb, can they? We don't receive SS benefits until age 65, right? Am I reading the above statement wrong? Is this person really saying that all of us get SS checks right now?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hank
July 7, 2010 2:09 PM in reply to randomname
Exhibit A: Sarah Palin.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Matt Jones
July 7, 2010 2:17 PM in reply to randomname
No, what he's saying is that everyone born after 1970 will be paying SS taxes into a system they'll never see a dime of, and that people born from 1960-1969 will only get benefits (at retirement) if they don't have another plan.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
randomname
July 7, 2010 2:27 PM in reply to Matt Jones
Okay, thank you.
That makes UseAConstitution a dumb fuck for another reason...what a horrible idea. Pay into a system they'll never receive a benefit from. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Nancy Irving
July 7, 2010 8:40 PM in reply to Matt Jones
Actually I think the commenter was proposing this as a schedule for phasing out SS.
This is what he *wants* to happen.
Sheesh.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kawika49
July 7, 2010 2:57 PM in reply to randomname
I think he/she meant, that those who are over fifty are grandfathered, as to benefit eligability.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
donquijoterocket
July 7, 2010 4:52 PM in reply to randomname
Don't forget the other parts of the Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance Act.The part that people usually think of is only a part of the whole. But the GOPers and wingers don't care they'd trash the whole thing just to have their way.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
July 7, 2010 2:07 PM
I note that none of the nitwits ever seem to realize that they get a 100% return on 'their money' when their contribution is matched by their employers' portion of the applicable tax. I suspect that most of them expect to still get that match *even if* they opt out, based on some mistaken assumption that the employer contribution is somehow also 'their money.'
Uh, no. It *would* have been your money had you stayed in the SS system. But you said you could do better in the stock market, so have at it, Rockefeller. Let's see how long it takes you to double your money. Mine's doubled already. Woohoo!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Matt Jones
July 7, 2010 2:09 PM
Of course, Boner and his friends don't mention the *other* part of SS "privatization" as described in the Ryan plan which requires the Treasury to GUARANTEE the returns on the "private" accounts. So if you pick good stocks, you get to keep all the profits tax-free - and if your investment in an expedition to Africa to find pterodactyls to prove Genesis right doesn't turn out, Uncle Sam will make up the losses.
Sounds like a great plan to encourage responsible investment... :)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Phoebe Fay
July 7, 2010 2:54 PM in reply to Matt Jones
Good investments or bad, the stockbrokers and the bankers get paid, and we all know these are the "real Americans" that Boner cares about.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Nancy Irving
July 7, 2010 11:35 PM in reply to Phoebe Fay
Well, they *are* the "most productive members of society." :)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Plotius
July 7, 2010 2:30 PM
If the GOP wants this then it is time for civil war.
I'm serious. I'm stinkin' tired of this right wing horseshit.
Nothing positive ever got done in this country without people dieing. It is time for fanatic right wingers to star catching bullets. I will not let them turn us into the Confederacy. And BTW right winger numbnuts History proves conclusively that the Confederacy was a MISERABLE AND INEPT FAILED STATE incapable of perpetuating it's own existence.State's Rights was the death knell of the Confederacy. Right wingers want to gut the U.S. Constitution till it looks like the Articles of the Confederacy. It is time to forcibly push back or become fascist slaves.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hollywood
July 8, 2010 2:35 AM in reply to Plotius
I am actually with you on this one. In the healthcare debate it was estimated by a Harvard study that about 46,000 Americans die EVERY YEAR from a lack of health insurance. Why do we let ourselves get into a war over the 3000 that died in 911 but we are unwilling to fight to save the 46,000?? It is beyond me how you can sit by and let tens of thousands of people die and not lift a finger but all hell breaks loose over a much smaller number on 911. I thought all human lives were of equal value. I thought if you have a choice to take a single life to save many lives that was the moral basis for war against an aggressor attacking innocents. So why don't we march out and kill off the executive officers of the insurance companies that have become death mills to thousands? Why do we let republicans live when their greedy deeds as whores for profit end up killing so many of our friends and neighbors? I am just asking why liberals do not mind being slaughtered like sheep and never fight back?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Apphouse50
July 7, 2010 2:37 PM
Has he taken up the call for means testing for Social Security? Hah!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sean
July 7, 2010 3:08 PM
If Chile can do it, we can too.
Wow, a slogan if ever I heard one for our hilarious Wide Stance Party's well-ordered 'plan'.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbeats
July 7, 2010 3:18 PM
Wow, do they have any clue what would have happened if their SS money were invested in equities in 2006?
They would have less than half left if they are lucky.
Idiots.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
big jonny
July 7, 2010 3:38 PM
Because private savings did fine over the last ten years or so. None of us know anyone who lost 25% - 30% of their private retirement savings. Nothing could possibly go wrong with this plan.
It's insane. These wackos want to pour their money in gold (or whatever Beck is shilling).
The cost to society that will be brought forward with a concept such as this is frightening.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
condew
July 7, 2010 4:34 PM
A web site is a great way to make the Republican plan to dismantle Social Security sound like a grass-roots mandate.
Wanna bet that "Texas veteran", "Jay Hochberg", "UseAConstitution", along with many other handles, and the creators of "America Speaking Out" are all the same person?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Nancy Irving
July 7, 2010 11:43 PM in reply to condew
Or else they all work for FreedomWorks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
July 7, 2010 5:16 PM
God. The stupid. It burns us.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tinsk
July 7, 2010 6:05 PM
Every person should read the Ryan plan (The road map). The plan to privatize Social Security is typical republicanism. Privatize the gains and socialize the risk and losses.
The Republican Social Security privatizing plan SPECIFICALLY requires the Federal Government, the American taxpayer, to be the guarantor of the private investments made by those who choose to "opt-out" of the current SSI program. In other words, that the American taxpayer will be required by law to bail out those who lose their Social Security investments in the event of market crash, fraud, etc. etc.
The bail out essentially boils down to this. If you lose money on your investments, the taxpayer will make you whole on your capital investments plus interest plus adjusted for inflation. Basically, if you lose your money, the taxpayer will give back to you what you would have had if you kept your money in the federal program. The downside is that none of the investment money went into the SSI kitty. It has evaporated into thin air and the rest of us will have to dig into our pockets to bail out their greed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ericf
July 7, 2010 6:23 PM
Maintained by Berkshire Hathaway? The idiot doesn't get that it's an insurance company which invests in stock of other companies? It's not a brokerage for lots of little accounts!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pcmcgovern
July 7, 2010 7:36 PM
My money is on these "opt out" people being the first people in line for a bailout when their retirement crashes courtesy of the corporate jerks they so love to support. But, the GOP will support bailing out their corporate masters first and they will listen to Glen, Rush and the Boner, and realize far too late that there is no money left for them. Unbelievably, mindbogglingly stupid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
barrelhse
July 7, 2010 7:49 PM
What a swell idea, with the stock market tanking and the economy about to make Tobacco Road look like Easy Street. I want all mine in BP, also.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JimmyBobby
July 7, 2010 9:19 PM
Yeah, right. "Opt out." But when you've blown your retirement on bad investments, guess who's gonna be asked to pick up the tab for your Depends?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MacKenna
July 8, 2010 1:05 AM
GOP stupidity is astounding! If Bush had privatized social security, allowing big corporate finance to "manage" the asset, zillions of pensioners would have no pensions today.
Yes, make this a top tier issue and you'll lose the next election too, IDIOTS.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CarmanK
July 8, 2010 1:32 AM
The true voices of the GOP-TeaPs want to do away with SS, Medicare and Medicaid. As both Paul and Angle have advocated much to the chagrin of the seasoned republican pols. Boehner and the republicans in Washington want to undo all the safety nets established during the Great Depression and after. They have already used their political prowess to enrich the upper 10% at the expense of shrinking the middle class and pushing more into poverty. The GOP is not going to guilt me into reforming SS. The fix is easy and no one has to give up their benefits!! I know now how important SS is since I was laid off and because of health reasons forced to retire early (62). Fix SS and I'll take an IOU from the US government anytime, just like the whole rest of the world.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
trkingmomoe
July 8, 2010 6:40 AM in reply to CarmanK
I am with you. It is an easy fix to raise the ceiling on the FICA payoff, but then the employers would have to pay out more on each employee. GOP is just protecting their $upporters.
Dropping SS or cutting it would send people to the streets with pitch forks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jeffgee
July 8, 2010 10:21 AM
I helped my aunt sign up for Facebook and noticed one of her high school classmates was a fan of the Tea Parties and attended a rally. He's also a fan of Glenn Beck.
He's 78 years old, a beneficiary of Social Security and Medicare for the rest of his life but obviously he thinks he's Taxed Enough Already.
I'd like to ask him if he'd like to give up those socialistic benefits that younger generations are paying for him. Y'know, walk the walk.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?