Glenn Kessler: The DNC’s ridiculous attack on Mitt Romney’s Social Security stance

[alp227]

(Yes I know that people will be dissing him as a conservative, but Kessler goes after inaccurate rhetoric on BOTH the left and right.)

“Mitt Romney would privatize Social Security and allow Wall Street brokers to gamble away on the stock market, and he said so repeatedly. . . . Privatizing Social Security is an absolute nonstarter for them . Romney supports plans that would drastically change or end programs that have delivered for seniors for generations, preserved the safety net for senior for generations, and Mitt Romney would dismantle it. The American people rejected privatization of Social Security when George W. Bush tried to get it done as president, and they will reject Mitt Romney for trying it, too.”

--Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, Oct. 5, 2011

(...)

The Facts

When we asked the DNC for evidence, they sent us a few clips from 2007—when Romney first ran for president.

In these clips, Romney does express interest in Bush’s stillborn plan to divert some of the payroll tax contributions from Social Security to create private accounts.

In a debate on Oct. 21, 2007, for instance, he spoke of “four major options” for improving Social Security’s finances, listing the private account option as one that “works” better than the other ideas. In a town hall before students on June 6, 2007, he also called Bush’s plan a “good idea.” His remarks, however, did not strike us as overly enthusiastic for the private account option—and he made clear in the debate that he would “protect these programs for seniors.”

(...)

It’s not entirely clear if Romney was a fervent supporter of private accounts four years ago, but his position now is clear. He has adopted a plan that is virtually identical to the position of the Democratic standard-bearer in 2000—and, contrary to Wasserman Schultz’s claims, rejects the idea of diverting payroll taxes to create such accounts.

Rating: Three of four Pinocchios

full: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-dncs-ridiculous-attack-on-mitt-romneys-social-security-stance/2011/10/05/gIQAsFHJOL_blog.html

(Kessler also gave such a rating to "the Executive Branch has 219 new rules in the works that will cost our economy at least $100 million" and saying that in-state tuition would keep college students brought to the US illegally as kids off welfare.)

[OHdem10]

1. Since the Republicans have shown over and over thay cannot

govern because and they admit THEY ARE CONTROLLED
by the TEA PARTY. Republicans will say we sould
do some of these things but the Tea Party will not
let us--we must assume the TEA PARTY WILL DICTATE
To THE NEXT REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT. The DC TEA PARTY
want to Privatize everything.

Romney, if he gets nomination will have to do the
Tea Party Bidding.

[Enthusiast]

2. Republicans can't be trusted with social security.

Hell, Democrats can't be trusted with social security.

[libinnyandia]

3. Dem or Rep

If I had to choose, I would choose the party which created SS, not the one which hates it. Only some dems would cave in.