Dems attack Ryan plan to privatize So...

Dems attack Ryan plan to privatize Social Security

There are 27 comments on the Fox News story from Aug 19, 2012, titled Dems attack Ryan plan to privatize Social Security. In it, Fox News reports that:

Democrats are eagerly renewing their fight against privatizing Social Security now that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has picked Paul Ryan as his running mate.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Fox News.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“i hope we can change this!”

Since: Aug 08

usa

#1 Aug 19, 2012
attacking is much easier than actually coming up with a plan of their own...
Mothra

Tempe, AZ

#2 Aug 19, 2012
carey529 wrote:
attacking is much easier than actually coming up with a plan of their own...
"If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from."
--Barack Obama, 2008
For Your Info -

Sierra Vista, AZ

#3 Aug 19, 2012
Why Do We Stick With Broken Social Security Model? In its latest projection, the Congressional Budget Office found that the Social Security Trust Fund had $1 trillion less than expected. Seems it always happens this way. When will Washington recognize that the problem is the model? CBO agrees that the present system can't sustain itself, because there isn't enough worker at the bottom to support those at the top.

Social Security Trust Fund Outlook Takes $1 Tril Dive. The outlook for Social Security's trust fund has deteriorated to an astonishing degree over the past year, new Congressional Budget Office projections show. The nonpartisan budget scorekeeper now expects the trust fund to peak in 2018 and decline to $2.7 trillion in 2022 — a full $1 trillion less than Social Security's own actuaries were expecting last year.

Social Security: The birth of Big Brother. Just last year, 79 percent of respondents to a CNN/ORC poll rated Social Security "good for the country." In the same survey, an astonishing 73 percent agreed that "Social Security is something that the U.S. Constitution allows the federal government to do." Support for the program is both deep and broad, cutting across the political spectrum.... This is sad because Social Security is every bit as offensive to liberty and fiscal sanity as Obamacare.

A Very Good Question about Our National Debt. The total present value of payments expected under Social Security and Medicare beyond what is expected to be collected under current tax laws is about $100 trillion. One way to put that amount of money in context is to note that it is about twice the amount of all the net private assets that exist in America today. To answer cw's question directly, the best back-of-envelope estimate is that meeting this unfunded portion of our Social Security and Medicare commitments would require roughly an immediate 80 percent increase in federal income taxes, sustained forever.

Less than half believe Social Security is a good deal. A new Rasmussen poll shows that only 48% of Americans believe Social Security is a good deal for working Americans today. 33% say it is not a good deal. 20% are unsure. The numbers do not add up to 100 because of the way numbers are rounded. 56% of likely voters are either not very confident or not confident at all that they will receive all that has been promised to them from Social Security.

Ponzi! Ponzi! Ponzi! Many people think that when the government takes payroll tax from their paychecks, it goes to something like a savings account. Seniors who collect Social Security think they're just getting back money that they put into their "account." Or they think it's like an insurance policy — you win if you live long enough to get more than you paid in. Neither is true. Nothing is invested. The money taken from you was spent by government that year. Right away. There's no trust fund. The plan is unsustainable. Medicare is worse.

The best solution is to privatize it for those under 55 as a choice under Ryans plan., Government has never run any thing efficiently - Their not capable....
Lance Winslow

San Jose, CA

#4 Aug 19, 2012
Ryan needs an etch-a-sketch moment in regard to Medicare and Social Security.
The Bewildered Herd

Ardsley, NY

#5 Aug 19, 2012
For Your Info - wrote:
Why Do We Stick With Broken Social Security Model? In its latest projection, the Congressional Budget Office found that the Social Security Trust Fund had $1 trillion less than expected. Seems it always happens this way. When will Washington recognize that the problem is the model? CBO agrees that the present system can't sustain itself, because there isn't enough worker at the bottom to support those at the top.

Social Security Trust Fund Outlook Takes $1 Tril Dive. The outlook for Social Security's trust fund has deteriorated to an astonishing degree over the past year, new Congressional Budget Office projections show. The nonpartisan budget scorekeeper now expects the trust fund to peak in 2018 and decline to $2.7 trillion in 2022 — a full $1 trillion less than Social Security's own actuaries were expecting last year.

Social Security: The birth of Big Brother. Just last year, 79 percent of respondents to a CNN/ORC poll rated Social Security "good for the country." In the same survey, an astonishing 73 percent agreed that "Social Security is something that the U.S. Constitution allows the federal government to do." Support for the program is both deep and broad, cutting across the political spectrum.... This is sad because Social Security is every bit as offensive to liberty and fiscal sanity as Obamacare.

A Very Good Question about Our National Debt. The total present value of payments expected under Social Security and Medicare beyond what is expected to be collected under current tax laws is about $100 trillion. One way to put that amount of money in context is to note that it is about twice the amount of all the net private assets that exist in America today. To answer cw's question directly, the best back-of-envelope estimate is that meeting this unfunded portion of our Social Security and Medicare commitments would require roughly an immediate 80 percent increase in federal income taxes, sustained forever.

Less than half believe Social Security is a good deal. A new Rasmussen poll shows that only 48% of Americans believe Social Security is a good deal for working Americans today. 33% say it is not a good deal. 20% are unsure. The numbers do not add up to 100 because of the way numbers are rounded. 56% of likely voters are either not very confident or not confident at all that they will receive all that has been promised to them from Social Security.

Ponzi! Ponzi! Ponzi! Many people think that when the government takes payroll tax from their paychecks, it goes to something like a savings account. Seniors who collect Social Security think they're just getting back money that they put into their "account." Or they think it's like an insurance policy — you win if you live long enough to get more than you paid in. Neither is true. Nothing is invested. The money taken from you was spent by government that year. Right away. There's no trust fund. The plan is unsustainable. Medicare is worse.

The best solution is to privatize it for those under 55 as a choice under Ryans plan., Government has never run any thing efficiently - Their not capable....
dummy, social security works fine, it faces a shortfall because politicians took the money out of the trust fund to pay for pet projects
abe

United States

#6 Aug 20, 2012
Lance Winslow wrote:
Ryan needs an etch-a-sketch moment in regard to Medicare and Social Security.
At least he comes up with a plan. I don't know that i agree with it, but it is a plan. the plan bammy has is a way to get his hands on the money all of us has paid in
Frisbee

Seattle, WA

#7 Aug 28, 2012
carey529 wrote:
attacking is much easier than actually coming up with a plan of their own...
THey've got one. It's called Social Security.

If only the budget genius Ryan would have been able to dump everyone's benefits into the stock market, you could live off your Enron shares.....
Frisbee

Seattle, WA

#8 Aug 28, 2012
For Your Info - wrote:
The best solution is to privatize it for those under 55 as a choice under Ryans plan., Government has never run any thing efficiently - Their not capable....
Ryan's plan would've given the entire thing to Bernie Madoff and Enron. Think that one through a bit more.

The best solution would to stop spending all of our treasure murdering people on the other side of the planet that never did anything to us and spend it caring for Americans. That shortfall you're crying about? Spent it in Iraq. Good use of money?

Anyhow, back to your crackpot ranting... Look up the difference between 'their','they're', and 'there' while you're cruising the crackpot websites...
cjrian

Denver, CO

#9 Aug 28, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
Ryan's plan would've given the entire thing to Bernie Madoff and Enron. Think that one through a bit more.
Or Coca-Cola, Weyerhaeuser, Boeing, Walmart, etc

Think about THAT for a minute (or thousand)
Frisbee wrote:
The best solution would to stop spending all of our treasure murdering people on the other side of the planet that never did anything to us and spend it caring for Americans. That shortfall you're crying about? Spent it in Iraq. Good use of money?
...
Blah, blah, blah
The TWO wars are costing roughly $200 Billion per year
Obama's shortfalls?$1.3 TRILLION

War is not murder
Especially when THEY are trying (succeeding) to kill US
You forget that THEY attacked US, aren't you?
You forget that they have pronounced a jihad against the US, which is effectively a death sentence.
You forget that islamofascism has been in effect since 760 AD, and all non-adherents must submit, or die
Frisbee

Seattle, WA

#10 Aug 28, 2012
cjrian wrote:
The TWO wars are costing roughly $200 Billion per year
Obama's shortfalls?$1.3 TRILLION
Fifth grade math not your strong suit, I see. You forgot to account for how many years we've been spending. Get back to us when you can figure out multiplication.
cjrian wrote:
Especially when THEY are trying (succeeding) to kill US
You forget that THEY attacked US, aren't you?
Name one person in Iraq who has attacked us.
Frisbee

Seattle, WA

#11 Aug 28, 2012
cjrian wrote:
War is not murder
That's exactly what the SAUDIS who hijacked the planes said. No Iraqis involved, though.

Interesting that you agree.

How do you justify invading a country who's leadership and people never did anything to harm or even threaten us?
obarry

Oak Hill, WV

#12 Aug 28, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>Fifth grade math not your strong suit, I see. You forgot to account for how many years we've been spending. Get back to us when you can figure out multiplication.
<quoted text>Name one person in Iraq who has attacked us.
And obama isn't gonna stop spending on them any time soon. Now what?
Joe

Ardsley, NY

#13 Aug 28, 2012
carey529 wrote:
attacking is much easier than actually coming up with a plan of their own...
I was just wondering are you a male or female? If you are both, don't respond.
Thanks
Frisbee

Seattle, WA

#14 Aug 28, 2012
obarry wrote:
And obama isn't gonna stop spending on them any time soon. Now what?
DERP!
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/05/01/pre...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/10/21/pre...

Ask that to the guys who aren't going back for a third deployment.
obarry

Oak Hill, WV

#15 Aug 28, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
<quoted text>
DERP!
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/05/01/pre...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/10/21/pre...
Ask that to the guys who aren't going back for a third deployment.
Ask the new guys going over and all the private contractors who are making a fortune we cannot get the media to report on.
Oh, and the money is still being spent.
cjrian

Denver, CO

#16 Aug 29, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
Fifth grade math not your strong suit, I see. You forgot to account for how many years we've been spending. Get back to us when you can figure out multiplication.
...
I see English and reading were not YOUR strong suits
"Per year" means EACH (one) year - NO multiplication needed

Even WITH the war spending, the deficit was down to $164 billion (2007) before Dems took over Congress and ran the deficits well past $1 Trillion per year
Frisbee

Seattle, WA

#17 Aug 29, 2012
cjrian wrote:
I see English and reading were not YOUR strong suits
"Per year" means EACH (one) year - NO multiplication needed
PER YEAR for HOW MANY YEARS? This will give you a TOTAL. This is the valid way to present your information when comparing it to a different TOTAL. Let us know when you can figure out how multiply and compare apples to apples.
obarry wrote:
Ask the new guys going over and all the private contractors who are making a fortune we cannot get the media to report on.
Oh, and the money is still being spent.
Keep telling yourself that:
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2...
cjrian wrote:
Even WITH the war spending, the deficit was down to $164 billion (2007) before Dems took over Congress and ran the deficits well past $1 Trillion per year
W Administration policy was 'deficits don't matter', so why are you bothered? Of course the president with the 'deficits don't matter' policy isn't to blame. It's Congress! The same congress that suddenly isn't to blame for anything when they're Republican....Now everything is the president's fault. Convenient.

You want a surplus? Talk to Bill Clinton.
cjrian

Denver, CO

#18 Aug 30, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
That's exactly what the SAUDIS who hijacked the planes said. No Iraqis involved, though.
Interesting that you agree.
How do you justify invading a country who's leadership and people never did anything to harm or even threaten us?
Iraq provided training grounds and channeled money (laundering) for the 9/11 terrorists

Further, Iraq, under Saddam, violated EVERY sanction levied against it after Gulf I. Saddam was warned time and again, that he faced a military ouster if he continued to violate the UN sanctions. He chose bravado and obstreperousness and lost his head over it
Frisbee wrote:
PER YEAR for HOW MANY YEARS? This will give you a TOTAL. This is the valid way to present your information when comparing it to a different TOTAL. Let us know when you can figure out how multiply and compare apples to apples.
Apples to apples?
Total cost of all wars, since 2001 -$1.37 Trillion
http://costofwar.com/
Which is equal to Obama's ANNUAL deficit
Frisbee wrote:
W Administration policy was 'deficits don't matter', so why are you bothered? Of course the president with the 'deficits don't matter' policy isn't to blame. It's Congress! The same congress that suddenly isn't to blame for anything when they're Republican....Now everything is the president's fault. Convenient.
You want a surplus? Talk to Bill Clinton.
Deficits were under control, and dropping for 4 successive years, under GW, until the (Dem) 110th Congress, which tripled the 109th Congress deficit of $164 Billion, and then tripled the deficit again

Congress is split, NOT Repub.
Obama had free rein with a purely Dem Congress, and accomplished little, unless one counts grossly excessive debt as an accomplishment

BTW, Clinton never DID have a surplus.
Public debt dropped slightly, but Intra-governmental debt increased more, so the debt total rose.

The deficit was improving massively and headed towards zero
But then again, he had a Repub Congress, didn't he?
Frisbee

Seattle, WA

#19 Aug 30, 2012
cjrian wrote:
Iraq provided training grounds and channeled money (laundering) for the 9/11 terrorists
This is not true. When people say "bush lied and my son died." This is what they are talking about. The training was actually provided in America. Do you think those flight schools were in Mosul?
cjrian wrote:
Further, Iraq, under Saddam, violated EVERY sanction levied against it after Gulf I. Saddam was warned time and again, that he faced a military ouster if he continued to violate the UN sanctions.
How did this harm, or even threaten us? Funny how quick you downgrade from "THEY ATTACKED US!" to 'they violated sanctions.'
cjrian wrote:
He chose bravado and obstreperousness and lost his head over it
Whereas W. chose the exact same thing, but sent 4485 sons and daughters to lose their heads over it. http://nrcdata.ap.org/casualties/default.aspx...
What was it they died for?
cjrian wrote:
Total cost of all wars, since 2001 -$1.37 Trillion
Hmmm. Last time you said the cost was $200 billion per year and it's been over 10 years....That's 2 Trillion. When the margin of error for YOUR OWN NUMBERS is $63 Billion, you'll understand how anything you have to say on numbers is going to be laughed at disregarded.

You've shown us all we need to see, have a nice day in your Fox News bubble.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klei...
cjrian

Denver, CO

#20 Aug 30, 2012
Frisbee wrote:
This is not true. When people say "bush lied and my son died." This is what they are talking about. The training was actually provided in America. Do you think those flight schools were in Mosul?
Flight training was but a small part of the terrorists training
The terrorists spent a lifetime learning how to gladly die

Training camps in Middle East deserts are where terrorists learn how to make IED's
That's where they learn to use small arms
That's where they learn guerilla tactics
That's where they learn to kill
Frisbee wrote:
How did this harm, or even threaten us? Funny how quick you downgrade from "THEY ATTACKED US!" to 'they violated sanctions.'
"They attacked us" refers to islamofascists
"Sadam violated UN sanctions" refers to - Sadam
The two were loosely related, but are not one and the same
Frisbee wrote:
Whereas W. chose the exact same thing, but sent 4485 sons and daughters to lose their heads over it. http://nrcdata.ap.org/casualties/default.aspx...
What was it they died for?
People die in war
That's an inescapable fact
How about the first 3000 that you didn't count?
The people in the WTC?
Frisbee wrote:
Hmmm. Last time you said the cost was $200 billion per year and it's been over 10 years....That's 2 Trillion. When the margin of error for YOUR OWN NUMBERS is $63 Billion, you'll understand how anything you have to say on numbers is going to be laughed at disregarded.
That's still not comparable to Obama's $1.3 Trillion in ANNUAL overspending
Frisbee wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ blogs/ezra-klein/post/obamas-a nd-bushs-effect-on-the-deficit -in-one-graph/2011/07/25/gIQAE LOrYI_blog.html
Ezra Klein is a deluded tool of the Left
So much so that he wouldn't recognize the truth if it ran over him

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

John Boehner Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Poll: Job approval for Congress at record low (Aug '11) Jun 20 Mork from Ork 61
News Obama greeted by protesters waving Confederate ... (Jul '15) Jun 18 AFL CIO 5
News House Speaker John Boehner to resign from Congress (Sep '15) Jun 18 Marine Corp Pat 89
News Republicans pick Ryan for speaker; House passes... (Oct '15) Jun 17 Sick of Politics 16
News Ohioa s special election to replace John Boehne... Jun 8 HillaryWhen Indicted 3
News GOP, Dems, Obama reach accord on 2-year budget ... (Oct '15) Jun 5 Southern Milf club 43
News House primaries in Ga., Calif., show pressures ... Jun 5 Go Blue Forever 4
More from around the web