"Democrats Pound Republicans Over Their Push to Privatize and Cut Social Security"

Of course with partial privatization you can do something with SS that you own that you cannot do now, that is leave what is left to your survivors. Instead of the government's money, it becomes yours instead.

 

Why discuss an article in PoliticusUSA. It's not like they ever have anything knew and no one but fools read the nonsense, anyway.

 

Therefore, if it's an "can opt in" program, that type of plan should not be pushed upon everyone or even considered for implementation for all Americans at large by Republicans as they are trying to do in an effort to Change or restructure Social Security from what it is now. Like I say, it is a Republican plan as they are the only ones pushing for this type of plan and they are fully welcome to it for themselves with the 'opt in' provision. All others should see it for what it is, reject it if that is their choosing, and remain in the present Social Security system. We don't want it, you keep it for yourselves.

 

I already posted the link to this...........

Galveston County Texas

Look it up..................

They have been off for over 30 years...................and are GUARANTEED 4% return

 

Well You read it, so what does that say about you?

- - - Updated - - -

Good for them. Galveston can keep it. All others prefer to remain with Social Security as it is now structured. So thanks, but no thanks.

 

If all other preferred this,.............................you would not have posted this story.

I cant imagine why all "others" would not want more money at retirement..........

 

Because people are not thoroughly convinced that is the best way to go vs. the present SS system. And they may not be and that should be their choice.

 

It is called REFORM SS and Medicare so people get MORE when they retire............why do you object to that?

And it has NO changes to current or about to recipients of SS or Medicare which includes me. Too bad, I have wanted such changes for decades and I would be looking at a BETTER retirement had those changes been made back when I still had the opportunity to benefit from them but the left has always blocked these necessary changes that would help ALL Americans.

- - - Updated - - -

And in the long run markets go up.

SS has in the past and is still barely running a surplus, what should that money be put into?

 

You think your FICA contributions are "your own money"? It's the government money the minute it is taken from you.

 

Does not mean they will even go up to what it cost to invest, the market will one way to invest is not the place to put all your eggs in.

I do not want the money from SS used on anything but other than what it was intended for, it was the Government that used much of it for other costs, like bailing out the USPS and guess what they are in just as much trouble now as they were before.

- - - Updated - - -

Slight problem with that thought, it is supposed to be the Government of We The People, in other words they are supposed to be working for us. Yes, those days are long gone, as will be our government one of these days.

 

Yeah, I know... you lefties aren't fans of "can opt in"...... "Must opt in" is the preferred "choice".

It's quite horrible to offer the American people a choice as to what they want to do with their money.

Nice that the current SS program has such a huge fan in you, but since we know pretty much everyone who is paying into it today will not receive what they put in, that leaves you a bit lonely in the stadium bleachers with your pom-poms.




"What does that spell??... Failed Social Security!!!"

 

You're funny with your cutsie-tootsie pictures you know. But as I have said before, we both have differences of opinion on this matter and obviously we will not ever see eye-to-eye on it. And as I told someone else on this forum, I simply do not have the time to answer tit-for-tat anymore as this is heavy election season and I have to be out a lot. Don't know when I will return to continue conversations. But one last point. What is invested in Social Security should remain there for the intended purpose. Anything else is highway robbery to those who have worked all of their lives and paid their taxes and put money into the program only to see it used by Congress for other things like pork barrel projects by those who once having spent that money have no intention of replacing the money for the people who are the actual recipients of it.

 

If you can't name the NAMES of these Republican spokespersons, and if you can't provide LINKS to credible sources for your allegations, then you have no credibility at all! I could as easily make all kinds of astounding, totally unfounded accusations against Democrats with no names, and no links to any information, and I could logically expect you hyperliberals to howl about the blatant unfairness of it all.

Name NAMES, provide LINKS and/or SOURCES, or sit down and be quiet....

 

Gee, no emotional control issues with you....

Repubs are funny, if they want someone to believe something didn't happen they just claim it didn't happen ...poof, like magic they THINK it disappeared...

Next you'll demand that I prove the sun comes up in the east....

"""Pursuing one of the top goals of his presidency, George W. Bush set out in 2005 to privatize Social Security, the retirement savings program that ended widespread poverty of the elderly. Bush proposed that voluntary personal retirement accounts be used to replace all or part of the traditional Social Security program. With Congressional allies, the Bush Administration crafted legislation (H.R. 3304 - Growing Real Ownership for Workers Act of 2005) to authorize the transfer of money from the Social Security trust fund to pay for private accounts, known as GROW accounts. Several other bills also were introduced that would privatize Social Security by establishing individual accounts within the Social Security system either on a voluntary or mandatory basis (S.857/H.R.1776, S.1302, S.2427, H.R.440).""""

 

And reform would not force you to put it in the stock/bond market you could do as now and oitbit in T-Bills. But I got a clue for you if the marketnis not up and dramatically over a period of several decades the government ain't going to have the money to pay SS benefits. If fact can you show me any 10 year period where the market was not higher?

,

Fine but answer the question, when the SS system runs a surplus where should the miney be put? Under a mattress?

When did SS bailout the USPS?

 

So what should the surplus funds be invested in?

 

Yeah, I covered that a long time ago, in Post #23 in this thread, and one of the highlights was, "He's talking about an initiative NINE YEARS AGO, floated by "W" Bush, to invest SS money into stocks for those who WANTED to. The idea floated like the proverbial lead balloon... so be it.

This thread was created by "Chairman", who I have discovered likes to make unfounded statements and harsh criticisms, and then vanishes! His big "source" for this story was "PoliticusUSA", which prides itself right up-front as being, "REAL LIBERAL POLITICS". You might think of it as the "Breitbart" of the hyperliberal Left....".

Suggestion to you, Foxy -- why don't you tie-off with "Chairman" and see if you can find a contemporary Republican spokesperson, or a plank in the Republican Party Platform that calls for cuts in Social Security during some period of time more recent than NINE years ago! Hell, I already gave you guys "Crusader Rick" Santorum, but he hasn't been at the front of anything in the Republican Party by a long stretch since the 2012 disaster. C'mon, if the two of you worked real hard together do you think you might be able to find one, just ONE, on your own?!

"How many Liberal Democrats does it take to screw in a lightbulb...?"

 

I see you CHANGED to contemporary Repubs....But from ThinkProgress:



"REPORT: 104 Republicans In Congress Want To Privatize Social Security"








After their attempt to privatize Social Security in 2005 was met with widespread public outcry, the GOP’s strategy on Social Security has been two-fold. First, Republicans deny they are interested in privatization. Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) recently told the Wall Street Journal that “no one has a proposal up to cut Social Security,” (his own book proposes doing so), while conservatives in the media have tried to argue that Republicans don’t actually want to privatize Social Security.

The second tactic has been to obfuscate their privatization plans by sugarcoating them in flowery, palatable language. President Bush’s privatization plan is a prime example. In his 2005 State of the Union, President Bush said we needed to “save” Social Security and give younger workers a “better deal” by having “voluntary personal retirement accounts,” the poll-tested language for privatization. Bush now says his greatest failure was not privatizing Social Security.

However, such rhetoric belies their record. A thorough review of the voting records and statements of Republicans in Congress reveals a critical mass of GOPers who have supported privatizing Social Security. In total, 47 percent of House Republicans and 49 percent of Senate Republicans are on record supporting the privatization of Social Security. Some, including Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), want to go even further and “wean everybody” off of Social Security altogether.

As ThinkProgress noted yesterday, Republicans in Congress have long operated by the “majority of the majority” principle, whereby legislation is only advanced by a GOP Speaker if it is supported by a majority of Republicans. With many prominent GOP candidates in favor of privatizing or eliminating Social Security, including Rand Paul, Ken Buck, Dan Coats, Sharron Angle, Dan Benishek, Ben Quayle, Star Parker, and Jesse Kelly, it’s likely that a GOP-controlled Congress would have the necessary votes to revisit the issue.

Here are the 104 Republicans in Congress who support privatizing Social Security (leadership in bold):

Senate (20)

Jeff Sessions (AL) Richard Shelby (AL) Jon Kyl (AZ)
John McCain (AZ) Saxby Chambliss (GA) Chuck Grassley (IA)
Richard Lugar (IN) Pat Roberts (KS) Sam Brownback (KS)
Mitch McConnell (KY) Roger Wicker (MS) Thad Cochran (MS)
Judd Gregg (NH) James Inhofe (OK) Tom Coburn (OK)
Jim DeMint (SC) Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX) Bob Bennett (UT)
Orrin Hatch (UT) Mike Enzi (WY)

House of Representatives (84)

Jo Bonner (AL-01) Spencer Bachus (AL-06) Trent Franks (AZ-02)
Wally Herger (CA-02) Dan Lungren (CA-03) Devin Nunes (CA-21)
David Dreier (CA-26) Jerry Lewis (CA-41) Ken Calvert (CA-44)
Dana Rohrabacher (CA-46) John Campbell (CA-4 Darrell Issa (CA-49)
Duncan Hunter (CA-52) Doug Lamborn (CO-05) Jeff Miller (FL-01)
Ander Crenshaw (FL-04) Ginny Brown-Waite (FL-05) Cliff Stearns (FL-06)
Adam Putnam (FL-12) Connie Mack (FL-14) Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL-1
Mario Diaz-Balart (FL-25) Jack Kingston (GA-01) Lynn Westmoreland (GA-03)
Tom Price (GA-06) John Linder (GA-07) Phil Gingrey (GA-11)
Tom Latham (IA-04) Steve King (IA-05) Judy Biggert (IL-13)
John Shimkus (IL-19) Dan Burton (IN-05) Mike Pence (IN-06)
Rodney Alexander (LA-05) Roscoe Bartlett (MD-06) Pete Hoekstra (MI-02)
Vern Ehlers (MI-03) David Lee Camp (MI-04) John Kline (MN-02)
Erik Paulsen* (MN-03) Todd Akin (MO-02) Roy Blunt (MO-07)
Virginia Foxx (NC-05) Howard Coble (NC-06) Sue Myrick (NC-09)
Patrick McHenry (NC-10) Jeff Fortenberry (NE-01) Lee Terry (NE-02)
Scott Garrett (NJ-05) Peter King (NY-03) John Boehner (OH-0
John Sullivan (OK-01) Tom Cole (OK-04) Jim Gerlach* (PA-06)
Bill Shuster (PA-09) Joseph Pitts (PA-16) Joe Wilson (SC-02)
Gresham Barrett (SC-03) Bob Inglis (SC-04) Zach Wamp (TN-03)
Marsha Blackburn (TN-07) Louie Gohmert (TX-01) Sam Johnson (TX-03)
Jeb Hensarling (TX-05) Joe Barton (TX-06) Kevin Brady (TX-0
Michael McCaul (TX-10) Mike Conaway (TX-11) Mac Thornberry (TX-13)
Ron Paul (TX-14) Randy Neugebauer (TX-19) Kenny Marchant (TX-24)
Michael Burgess (TX-26) John Carter (TX-31) Pete Sessions (TX-32)
Rob Bishop (UT-01) Jason Chaffetz (UT-03) Eric Cantor (VA-07)
Doc Hastings (WA-04) Dave Reichert (WA-0 Paul Ryan (WI-01)
Tom Petri (WI-06) Shelley Moore Capito (WV-02) Cynthia Lummis (WY-AL)

 

Yeah, contemporary, as contrasted with NINE years ago! But, I see that YOU changed from "cuts" to "privatize". Privatization was going to roll out as an OPTION, primarily designed as a more attractive alternative for young people! But the whole "privatization" option fell flat on its face, largely because the enormous bloc of 80,000,000 Baby Boomer voters were spooked by Democrats into believing that the initiative would be forced on older people who wanted no part of stock market gambling. Like I said in Post #23 -- "So be it!"

Got any evidence or statements that Republicans plan to CUT (CUT!) Social Security? One last time, I already gave you and your buddy, "Chairman", the thoroughly disgraced, unwanted "Crusader Rick" Santorum. Got any other Republicans who are calling for Social Security cuts (cuts!) today?! If you want to throw rocks at Santorum, I'll help you! He's a loose-cannon jerk who seems hell-bent on destroying the Republican Party's chances to save this country from death-by-socialism. The sooner we see the last of him, the better! Surprised?

 

Blah blah....Good idea to remind average citizens of how Republicans wanted to CUT Social Security and/or make it totally unreliable by giving it to their buddies on Wall Street (who would make a bundle)

Don't elect them because NOW as then they STILL want to get their hands on YOUR money ....

 

it's the peoples money, money we have set aside for the elderly and disabled

 

And you don't understand that the Government has already spent every last dime of it??? And they started doing this in 1965???

 

we need to remove the caps, every American should pay the same percent for every dollar they earn

 

ROFL you think it is set aside? It is government money which the government hands out. Tell me if you die today does the money you have paid in go into your estate? Is it your estates? No. If there was at least a partial privatization then at least that part would be left to my estate, my kids. And invested in the market would earn me far more than SS will pay out even it I live that long.

 

Why? OK remove the cap on how much it pays out. That's only fair then. Like any pension fund the more I pay in the more it pays out.