Thu Oct 11, 2012, 10:46 PM
DonViejo (4,709 posts)
Ryan: Romney And I Support Social Security Privatization
Source: TPM
-snip- The Wisconsin congressman and House Budget Committee chairman explained his and Mitt Romney’s support of the concept when asked about their backing of President George W. Bush’s failed Social Security privatization plan. “For younger people,” Ryan said. “What we said then and what I agreed is, let younger Americans have a voluntary choice of making their money work faster for them within the Social Security system. That’s not what Mitt Romney proposes. We say no changes for anybody 55 and above.” “The changes we talk about for younger people like myself is don’t increase benefit for the wealthy people as fast as anybody else, raise the age over time,” he said. “It wouldn’t get to the age of 70 until the year 2103, according to the actuaries.” Ryan championed plans in 2004 and 2010 that would shift Social Security funds into the private market. Participants would be permitted to invest one-third of their Social Security taxes in stocks and bonds. Although the plans contained mechanisms to protect payouts against market fluctuations, studies found that it could destabilize the program’s solvency in the long-term. Bush tried and failed to enact a altered version of the plan at the beginning of his second term. -snip- Read more: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/paul-ryan-defends-social-security-privatization.php
|
19 replies, 3463 views
| Author | Time | Post | |
| DonViejo | Oct 2012 | OP | |
| Warpy | Oct 2012 | #1 | |
| SunSeeker | Oct 2012 | #3 | |
| sarcasmo | Oct 2012 | #15 | |
| MiniMe | Oct 2012 | #2 | |
| The Wielding Truth | Oct 2012 | #5 | |
| high density | Oct 2012 | #4 | |
| Dustlawyer | Oct 2012 | #6 | |
| Overseas | Oct 2012 | #8 | |
| Born Free | Oct 2012 | #9 | |
| Tom1960 | Oct 2012 | #17 | |
| Overseas | Oct 2012 | #7 | |
| Art_from_Ark | Oct 2012 | #10 | |
| spiderpig | Oct 2012 | #11 | |
| ffr | Oct 2012 | #12 | |
| harun | Oct 2012 | #13 | |
| sarcasmo | Oct 2012 | #14 | |
| yurbud | Oct 2012 | #16 | |
| JohnnyRingo | Oct 2012 | #18 | |
| louis-t | Oct 2012 | #19 |
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Thu Oct 11, 2012, 10:49 PM
Warpy (69,638 posts)
1. They also want to raise the age to one
|
that no one who does physically demanding jobs will ever achieve.
These ivory tower ideologues don't deserve to be merely defeated, they need to be utterly humiliated followed by tar and feathering and put on a plane to the exile of their choice. I despise those contemptible assholes. |
Response to Warpy (Reply #1)
Thu Oct 11, 2012, 11:34 PM
SunSeeker (5,334 posts)
3. Hell no, they don't get a choice. Fly them to the libertarian heaven of SOMALIA.
|
There, they revel in the utter lack of government. And we can revel in the absence of their stupidity.
|
Response to Warpy (Reply #1)
Fri Oct 12, 2012, 12:16 PM
sarcasmo (13,560 posts)
15. 75 would be my guess Warpy.
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Thu Oct 11, 2012, 11:14 PM
MiniMe (13,699 posts)
2. As soon as people have a choice in privatizing it, Social Security will become bankrupt
|
The reason it works is because new funds come into it constantly.
|
Response to MiniMe (Reply #2)
Fri Oct 12, 2012, 12:39 AM
The Wielding Truth (8,450 posts)
5. Exactly. Again the 1% can get along anywhere,but the 99% under R/r will be decimated.
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Thu Oct 11, 2012, 11:40 PM
high density (13,384 posts)
4. I'm 31 and I already have private social security
|
Last edited Thu Oct 11, 2012, 11:41 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) It's called my 401k, my IRA, and other savings. I also expect the government one that I am currently paying into. I don't know how we can suddenly say that one generation gets it and another one doesn't.
|
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Fri Oct 12, 2012, 01:13 AM
Dustlawyer (1,432 posts)
6. I am 49 and have been paying in since I was 12, that's 37 years I have paid! They cavalierly
|
dismiss that history for people up to 54 years old! It is unconscionable to do this! Especially when they want to increase defense spending, not cut it, at a time when we will hopefully be almost done with these Repug wars. WTF!
|
Response to Dustlawyer (Reply #6)
Fri Oct 12, 2012, 02:03 AM
Born Free (1,573 posts)
9. Married couples get screwed if one is under 55
|
GOP admits under 55 you get screwed but not to worry if you are over 55. The problem is married couple share expenses so even though the one over 55 is OK the younger spouse gets screwed which screws both because as a married couple they share expenses. It also make it extremely difficult to plan ahead if one is currently over 55 and the spouse is under 55, will it be retroactive? Not everyone has a lot of extra cash, some have very little savings and primarily depend on Social Security & Medicare.
It still makes me angry, I remember the headlines before 9/11/2001 and later how they said no one had to sacrifice for the Iraq war, knowing all we would be expected to pay in the end: U.S. taps Social Security reserves 08/16/2001 http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/august01/2001-08-16-social-security.htm Surplus all but gone, but promises remain 08/27/2001 http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/august01/2001-08-28-surplus.htm |
Response to Dustlawyer (Reply #6)
Fri Oct 12, 2012, 12:32 PM
Tom1960 (63 posts)
17. Well Said
|
One of the weird things about this is:
I'm 52, nearly 53 and I'm supposed to accept that my older sisters (7 and 5 years older) should get it but one of my sisters and myself (52 and 53) should be denied what we paid into our whole lives? How will that play out in families across the country? |
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Fri Oct 12, 2012, 01:52 AM
Overseas (10,886 posts)
7. And RR are so divisive in their approach -- divide the older group from the younger group --
|
and initiate means testing to further divide us.
Instead of letting us have our Social Security as is. Funding its extension by military budget trimming. (Doing more of the work in-house would be my choice, if we're serious about savings. And if Lyan wants to see some cronyism, military privatization has been riddled with it.) |
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Fri Oct 12, 2012, 02:19 AM
Art_from_Ark (17,089 posts)
10. They'll keep bringing this shit up
|
until they finally get their way.
|
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Fri Oct 12, 2012, 03:26 AM
spiderpig (7,422 posts)
11. Go ahead, R&R - keep digging
|
My 401K has dropped by 50% over the years thanks to your fancy market manipulation. If I depended on that I'd be living on handouts under a freeway overpass.
I can't voice the contempt I have for Republicans. Must go look for another bottle of Two Buck Chuck. |
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Fri Oct 12, 2012, 10:51 AM
ffr (1,155 posts)
12. Bill: I don't want to get in the way of this
|
Last edited Fri Oct 12, 2012, 10:52 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1) One thing I'll hand to Ryan, he spelled out clearly that the GOP agenda is to gut SS and a woman's right to choose.
Probably not what the ticket wanted to see him do last night. Ooops! |
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Fri Oct 12, 2012, 10:54 AM
harun (9,767 posts)
13. What could possibly go wrong?
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Fri Oct 12, 2012, 12:15 PM
sarcasmo (13,560 posts)
14. Screwing the working class, Republican style.
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Fri Oct 12, 2012, 12:19 PM
yurbud (31,458 posts)
16. whenever someone says current recipients have nothing to worry about...
|
that means the future ones are screwed.
This is a common union-busting tactic: give the current group just enough to make them happy in exchange for them throwing future groups under the bus. |
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Fri Oct 12, 2012, 12:41 PM
JohnnyRingo (9,341 posts)
18. When someone who "invests their own SS money" fails...
|
...society ends up with a person who needs a safety net.
What happens when some whiz kid who thinks he knows more than anyone how to make his SS payments blossom into a retirement account learns he's not as smart as he thought? What if he gets cheated out of the bulk of it by Wall Street hustlers? Then he approaches old age with nothing, and requires the rest of us to step up and provide social security. Obviously, those who choose privatization will only be allowed to spend the money they put away for themselves. This is a not so clever ruse to extract people from the system to ultimately phase it out for everyone else. Who could have seen that coming, from Republicans no less! Hahaha |
Response to DonViejo (Original post)
Fri Oct 12, 2012, 04:40 PM
louis-t (12,542 posts)
19. Smoke and mirrors.
|
Paul Rand is full of malarkey.
|

