TPMDC
Angle: I Haven't Changed My Mind On Phasing Out Social Security
Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle (R)
Share
Send to a friend!
Sharron Angle further explained her position on Social Security while speaking to reporters on Wednesday -- and said that she hasn't really changed from her previously stated view that the program should be "transitioned out."
Politico reports:
Addressing reporters after her speech, Angle was asked about her old campaign website, which called for a Social Security system that is "transitioned out." Her website no longer carries that language, a fact she's emphasized in the past, including during the primary, when she said the country needs to "phase Medicare and Social Security out in favor of something privatized."
"It's not really a change - a change in language perhaps, but not a change in direction," she said Wednesday. "The change is just because Harry Reid has so distorted and misinterpreted my words that I've had to explain those words, the words are really the explanation of a policy I've had from the beginning."
She said the policy is to "pay back" senior citizens for the money they've put into the system. Going forward, she would give people the option of leaving that "Social Security-type system and go to something more personalized," she said.
As we've noted, Angle has taken a long (and circular) journey on Social Security. She has previously campaigned to have the program phased out, but has now taken to running an ad touting her support of senior citizens and her commitment to protecting the program's fiscal soundness, and saying she would offer people a choice of Social Security or private accounts. On the other hand, she has also talked up the Chilean pension system -- which was enacted under the military dictator Augusto Pinochet -- which requires workers to invest in private accounts, and where the public plan was only continued for retirees and some workers at its outset.
The TPM Poll Average for the Nevada Senate race currently puts Harry Reid ahead by 46.4%-43.8%.
Comments (37) | 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.
Tom
August 19, 2010 12:54 PM
maybe you need to do a RASSMUSSEN pole
to find out if her views are weighted fairly.
Whats with you utter reliance on RASSMUSSEN.
Obama Job Approval (US)
Rasmussen Approve 45.0%
Disapprove 54.0% Obama Job Approval (US)
Rasmussen Conway (D) 41.0%
Paul (R) 51.0% KY-SEN
Rasmussen Favorable 58.0%
Unfavorable 36.0% Rand Paul Favorability (KY)
Rasmussen Favorable 47.0%
Unfavorable 43.0% Jack Conway Favorability (KY)
Rasmussen Approve 36.0%
Disapprove 63.0% Obama Job Approval (KY)
Aug. 17 / Disapprove 45.0% Steve Beshear Job Approval (KY)
Rasmussen
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BigJay
August 19, 2010 1:13 PM in reply to Tom
Rasmussen does daily polls, which tilts most averages toward R as Rasmussen leans R... They are also one of the most covered polls on news organizations BECAUSE they are daily polls...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Boidster
August 19, 2010 1:16 PM in reply to Tom
WTF? Perhaps the word "latest" in the phrase "latest polls" is confusing to you? All sorts of polls show up in that list. You want the full sampling, use the poll-tracker.
Try not spamming every thread with your OT rant. Kthxbai.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
August 19, 2010 1:01 PM
I can scarcely believe it. Is it possible the Republicans have found yet another woman as stupid as Caribou Barbie?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Whenwillthisnightmareend
August 19, 2010 1:31 PM in reply to Peter
I find it difficult to believe they could find one smarter.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
thomas1
August 19, 2010 2:44 PM in reply to Whenwillthisnightmareend
+1
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jsdc007
August 19, 2010 1:25 PM
Keep talking lady. You and your BFF Sarah are the only things that will save us from a GOP takeover this November.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calbearinillinois
August 19, 2010 1:30 PM
There is nothing to pay back. The seniors receiving benefits now are being paid by us, just like they paid for those before them. I hate the canard that seniors somehow are only getting back what they paid in, when the truth is your direct contributions cover less than 5 years of benefits.
I have no problem with the system working this way (although there are some tweaks I'd like to see, like raising the contribution cap and maybe means testing benefits to some degree), but I am sick and tired of senior citizens lying to me about how they are just getting their money back.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Early Out
August 19, 2010 1:51 PM in reply to calbearinillinois
I understand where that idea comes from (when you see rich people getting SS checks, it just seems wrong), but no matter how you try to implement it, I think you'll end up punishing the thrifty, who manage to save money for their own retirements to supplement their SS, and rewarding the profligate spenders, who didn't put aside a dime on their own.
It isn't really "insurance," and probably can't operate that way, nor is it "welfare." It's a pension system.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steaming Pile
August 19, 2010 2:09 PM in reply to Early Out
And as such, you put your money in, you're eligible to get benefits out, no matter whether you're Bill Gates or some schmoe who used to sell shoes. When you start means testing, it starts to look like a welfare program, and that's when it becomes vulnerable to people like Sharron Angle who would like to kill it for no better reason than to have the pelt on her office wall.
Republicans like to throw that 12.6% number around as the amount of payroll taxes individuals pay for Social Security. They neglect to say that half of that comes from your employer, and you never see it, not even on your paystub. Now, if the Republicans succeed in killing Social Security, Angle wants to refund my money. According to the statement I got from SS in January, total contributions from me and my various employers came to around $106,000. Do I get all of that back, or will they suddenly remember that half of those contributions didn't actually come from me, but from the people I worked for?
And for extra credit, what becomes of the employer's half of the 12.6% if you decide to opt out? Do you get that in your paycheck? Smack yourself smartly upside the head with a 2x4 if you said yes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ann Arbor
August 19, 2010 2:08 PM in reply to calbearinillinois
Another problem with means testing is that once you start doing it, it becomes easier for the right to castigate Social Security as welfare. Repetition of the welfare meme in the echo chamber will damage support for the program.
As long as it's (nearly) universal, people do view it more like insurance or a pension, and are more likely to support it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hunter
August 19, 2010 2:12 PM in reply to calbearinillinois
Isn't that entirely semantic? Money is fungible. They paid in. Now they're getting paid out.
Suppose I walk into a bank and deposit five $20 bills. Then a week later I go in and withdraw one $100 bill. Presumably, someone else deposited that bill in the bank. Does that mean I'm not getting "my" money back? Of course not.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calbearinillinois
August 19, 2010 2:57 PM in reply to hunter
The way Social Security works today is you may have put $20 in, but over the first few years you take out far more than 20 or even 100. It isn't a dollar in, dollar out tracking program, and no real effort made to correllate lifetime contributions to lifetime benefits. The only connection what you make has to what you get later is in terms of the defined benefit size, but you then get that benefit whether you live 1 or 40 years post retirement with no reduction or exhaustion clause.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steaming Pile
August 19, 2010 4:03 PM in reply to calbearinillinois
You must not be getting those annual statements like I get. SS tracks every last penny of your contributions over they years. Those are then used to determine the level of benefits for which you are eligible. You'd find it's all there in the statement, if you bothered to read it.
And that last part is true of most pension plans, annuities, etc. You live to be 100? Lucky you. You get to keep drawing checks. You fail to make it to retirement age? Gee that sucks. It all designed to average out, more or less.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
August 19, 2010 6:23 PM in reply to Steaming Pile
What's more, SSI covers more than just your retirement. You and your dependents are also eligible to get benefits if you're disabled before 65. In fact, 15% of the benefits paid are to people with disabilities and their families. Spouses and dependent children also get benefits after you die even if they never paid a penny into the system. A dependent parent can also collect benefits if you die or are disabled.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calbearinillinois
August 19, 2010 8:12 PM in reply to Steaming Pile
Actually, I do get the statements, but they don't attempt to correlate your lifetime contributions to lifetime benefits - they track the quarters you've earned enough during and estimate your monthly payment upon eligibility. There is no dollar in/dollar out aspect of the equation, which is what people claim (inaccurately) and which Ms. Angle was perpetuating.
SS is not an annuity or true insurance in a classic sense, despite the name. An annuity requires an up front purchase whose price is based on a number of factors SS doesn't take into account. Ditto anything like LTD insurance. Things like health, nature of employment, family history, etc. One of the changes that you could make to rationalize Social Security would be to adjust for the data that such plans take into account, but that political firestorm would make "death panels" look like a day in the park.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
August 19, 2010 4:19 PM in reply to calbearinillinois
And, indeed, the first generation of beneficiaries had paid zero, zip, nada into it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
simplygeorge
August 19, 2010 2:08 PM
Why does thiw woman have a platform? She believes she was "chosen by God" and that she is like the Founding Fathers.
http://suspiciouspackaging.blogspot.com/2010/07/idiot-of-day-sharron-angle-rape-is-part.html
http://suspiciouspackaging.blogspot.com/2010/07/idiot-of-day-sharron-angle-tea-party.html
She is delusional.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joel
August 19, 2010 2:59 PM
Privatized Social Security = Unfettered Corporate Corruption and Screwed Elderly Americans
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GOP
August 19, 2010 3:19 PM in reply to Joel
Unchanged Social Security and Medicare = National Bankruptcy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
August 19, 2010 4:31 PM in reply to GOP
Yeah. If your ideology says so, it must be true, no matter what those pesky actuaries say.
Sigh.
If we do nothing, then the "trust fund" we've been piling so we can pay full benefits to the big demographic aneurysm known as the Boomers," will run out. Under some models, when it does, we will only be taking in enough to pay 76% of promised benefits and we'll either have to have a modest tax increase or cut benefits. Under other models, we won't have to do either. Under no one's model, except for the GOP "I don't need no actual information I just know, because its soshulism and therefore nothin' good can come of it" model will Social Security bankrupt us.
Medicare could be a real problem if we don't get health care costs under control. You guys used to be for that before you were against it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GOP
August 19, 2010 6:14 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Enough! Got any we in ya? The SS problem is huge and worse every moment we tolerate your blather. You speak poorly of ideology and rant your own, of the need for info and provide none. Raise the bar or be quiet.
You do know the Social Security "Trust Fund" has already “run out”, it’s empty, right? And even if it wasn't, last I checked it's $2.5 trillion won't cover the actuaries’ calcs of $18.6 trillion in present value unfunded liabilities.
“Modest Tax increase”? $18.6 trillion is > 7 times annual federal revenue of $2.5 trillion. So every taxpayers share is 7 times their annual SS & Income Taxes, due TODAY. (No problem for the ½ the country that doesn’t pay FIT. Which group are you in?) At just 3% growth that’s a 50% increase in SS & income taxes today, just to keep it from growing.
Thanks for acknowledging Medicare as even a bigger problem, that Obamacare didn’t even spit at. The whole thing was a lie with an agenda. And 99.9% of our elected officials just sang the tune. Here’s hoping you man up before the fat lady sings.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
crazycarnypoptart
August 19, 2010 8:01 PM in reply to GOP
thats a lie dude. currently SS has a surplus of 3.6 trillion dollars, or should if the GOP didn't raid the program to pay for wars and tax cuts.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GOP
August 19, 2010 9:54 PM in reply to crazycarnypoptart
What’s a lie!?!? Here’s the Social Security Admin website with a nice chart showing you’re wrong. The trust funds are $2.5 trillion and they’re empty. Pretending the Dems didn’t participate with spending the trust fund over the last 20 years is a nice carny tale, and you’re a little less reliable than you used to be. How about you, got any we in ya?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
crazycarnypoptart
August 19, 2010 8:04 PM in reply to GOP
now as far as medicare it is a lote more insolvent but I assume that you support alan graysons bill to make medicare available to all. This will make it a lot more solvent. Now if you don't support it then you are just a lying fearmonger trying to make people think that we should give up our own benefits for the rich. if thats the case you are going to burn in hell for all eternity for your selfish greed. So have a nice trip.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GOP
August 19, 2010 10:24 PM in reply to crazycarnypoptart
Based on your “that’s a lie dude” post and this one my guess is no, but have you even looked at the numbers? The Chinese have. The GAO says Medicare is $90 trillion unfunded. Federal annual revenue is $2.5 trillion. Simple math: $90T / $2.5T = 36x. Federal revenue is funded by our annual Social Security & Income taxes. So, every taxpayer owes 36x their annual Social Security & Income taxes, due TODAY, just to get us back to even on our existing Medicare commitments! To paint it even clearer, 2.5% interest/inflation on the $90 trillion is $2.25 trillion. So we have to nearly double our federal taxes today (SS & FIT) just to keep the $90T from growing. The picture is even worse when you add federal debt and Social Security’s underfunding.
Feel free to ignore this, it’s just fearmongering. Like I said, got any we in ya?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
crazycarnypoptart
August 20, 2010 3:34 AM in reply to GOP
your right lets completely lift the cap so you are charged ss on all income. Thats a great idea dude glad you support taxing the rich.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GOP
August 20, 2010 10:45 PM in reply to crazycarnypoptart
You realize you're batting 0, right?
Seemed like a sarcastically hollow idea, but silly me I looked it up. So tell us crazycarnypoptart,
- Were you talking about removing the SS taxable income limit on employers as well?
- What percent of the problem would removing the SS limit address?
- And what might the side effects be to increasing the 80% of all FIT taxes paid by the top 10% returns (and remember that includes all those with AGI just over $100k)?
P.S. you not apologizing for claiming I lied is pretty revealing too, no?
So you going to up your game ASAP, or should everyone here randomly alternate between ignoring your posts and tarring your clueless rear?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
crazycarnypoptart
August 24, 2010 5:33 AM in reply to GOP
well its nice to see it took you 4 whole days to respond. I guess that shows your intelligence. and the fact that you refuse to support common sense solutions that would strengthen the program and instead support things such as slashing benefits and privatization you have proven you are a lying republican troll with no desire to make america abetter place. so enjoy your facist views fuck face becuase no one agrees with you. so I guess your the one batting 0. But as I have said before you purposely want to take money away from innocent people and give it to the corporations so you will burn in hell, have a nice trip. Bye bye assface (and I call you assface becuase of the shit you spew). Carny out.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GOP
August 26, 2010 7:54 AM in reply to crazycarnypoptart
Wow! Did we hit a nerve? Can’t answer even a single question? Let’s see, every one of your points were refuted with facts and no counter, and they’re still ‘common sense solutions’? Contrary to your critique, I’m pretty sure in this stream that I didn’t support any solutions. Where you grew up isn’t cussing childish? I know the tar on your rear smarts, but there are still some of us silly enough to keep giving second chances. Every day’s a new day. So when you’re up to it, man up, raise the bar, and help make this a better place to live…
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
crazycarnypoptart
August 26, 2010 10:28 AM in reply to GOP
once again took you 2 whole days to come up with a response. but fact is you are a worthless corporate schill so I am going to quit feeding the trolls bye bye now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
windowpane
August 19, 2010 3:05 PM
The Republicans brought the football down to the Democrat's 5 yard line but Sharron Angle fumbled. big time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ironcomments
August 19, 2010 3:23 PM
American conservatism = Christian fascism
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tom
August 19, 2010 5:19 PM
Hey Boidster
Look to the right of the front page.
There are 7 polls referenced.
How many are Rassmussen you damn fool.
6 of them.
What impression does that leave you with -
are you a math robot idiot. You must be an engineer.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dfgs
August 19, 2010 9:42 PM
you can find many cheap and fashion stuff.
(NBA NFL NHL MLB j-e-r-s-e-y)
( lv Chanel Gucci Coach h-a-n-d-b-a-g)
(cha nel w-a-l-l-e-t)
(D&G s-u-n-g-l-a-s-s-e-s)
(ed har dy j-a-c-k-e-t)
(B-i-k-i-n-i Ed-hardy,polo)
Free S-h-i-p-p-i-n-g.
The price on our website are including everything.
welcome to ( http://www.pointingtrade.com/ )
YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cha
August 19, 2010 9:55 PM
Dear customers, thank you for your support of our company.
Here, there's good news to tell you: The company recently
launched a number of new fashion items! ! Fashionable
and welcome everyone to come buy. If necessary, please
input:
http://www.newgoing.com/
T-shirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $14
New era cap $10
Air jordan(1-24)shoes $30
Handbags(Coach,ed hardy,lv,d&g) $35
Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $35
Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini)$14
Bikini (Ed hardy,polo) $18
http://www.newgoing.com
fbtr
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Leftflank
August 19, 2010 11:00 PM
If you skip all the middle, Sharon hasn't changed her mind much. If you take into account each of the flips & all of the flops you come to the conclusion that she has no mind to change.
Phase out ignorance, that should be her mantra.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?