Why does Paul Ryan want to get rid of Social Security?

40 posts / 0 new

We all know Paul Ryan wants to privatize Medicare, but fewer people know he wants to do the same thing to Social Security. Back in 2010, Ryan proposed a new program that would shift Social Security funds out of the coffers of government and into the hands of Wall Street – as well as reduce benefits and raise the retirement age. According to an analysis of Ryan’s plan by the Congressional Budget Office – Social Security payments would be, “more uncertain…because returns on stocks and corporations are risky.”

Had people like Paul Ryan succeeded in privatizing Social Security before the 2008 financial meltdown – Americans would have been in an even worse crisis with millions of seniors losing their retirement benefits in a plummeting Stock Market. It’s important to remember that yesterday marked the 77th anniversary of Social Security being signed into law by President Franklin Roosevelt. Thanks to this program, 20 million Americans are out of poverty. So the question is – why does Paul Ryan want to get rid of it?

Thom Hartmann Administrator's picture
Thom Hartmann A...
Joined:
Dec. 29, 2009 9:59 am

Comments

Beacause he's a brainwashed Manchurian American?

Did I win a prize?

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 10:47 am

PolitiFact’s ‘Lie of the Year’ becomes Democrats’ central talking point

Huh... interesting.

Capital1's picture
Capital1
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2012 6:38 am

The fun has just begun.

Redwing's picture
Redwing
Joined:
Jun. 21, 2012 4:12 am
Quote Thom Hartmann Administrator:

We all know Paul Ryan wants to privatize Medicare, but fewer people know he wants to do the same thing to Social Security. Back in 2010, Ryan proposed a new program that would shift Social Security funds out of the coffers of government and into the hands of Wall Street – as well as reduce benefits and raise the retirement age. According to an analysis of Ryan’s plan by the Congressional Budget Office – Social Security payments would be, “more uncertain…because returns on stocks and corporations are risky.”

Had people like Paul Ryan succeeded in privatizing Social Security before the 2008 financial meltdown – Americans would have been in an even worse crisis with millions of seniors losing their retirement benefits in a plummeting Stock Market. It’s important to remember that yesterday marked the 77th anniversary of Social Security being signed into law by President Franklin Roosevelt. Thanks to this program, 20 million Americans are out of poverty. So the question is – why does Paul Ryan want to get rid of it?

I support getting rid of Social Security, i.e. abolishing it. Repeal the whole thing. It's just a trangenerational welfare program. Any money that has been "paid in" has been spent. it's gone. Current retirees are being paid by current taxpayers. I believe that the securities that the SS administration bought (loaning money to the Treasury) are non-negotiable.

Now, "privatizing" it is not the same as repealing it. Assuming that Ryan wants or wanted to do what Thom Hartmann says, I oppose it. I don't believe in corporate welfare. I don't think that it is proper to call something private when people are forcibly taxed and the taxes have to be "invested" in the stock market.

LysanderSpooner's picture
LysanderSpooner
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Lysander wrote: I support getting rid of Social Security, i.e. abolishing it. Repeal the whole thing. It's just a trangenerational welfare program. Any money that has been "paid in" has been spent. it's gone. Current retirees are being paid by current taxpayers.

poly replies; That's how it was set up to function. One way or another, all retirement systems function that way. Those who work provide the needs for those who don't. They don't grow their own food, generate their own electricity, or weave the cloth for their own clothing.

We use money to provide that rather than direct donations found in simpler societies. it all boils down to the same thing. Those currently working are always the means of support for those who no longer do...either directly or indirectly.. it's called a social contract. It's found in nearly all human societies going way, way back.

In a few societies, the social contract was different. They simply killed the elderly. Some societies ate them after the butchering. Then those of working age weren't called upon to support those who couldn't. work. They too could count on being killed or eaten at the proper time.

I suppose we could institute that sort of thing. Do you prefer hanging or drowning.... being baked or fried?

All retirees are supported by those working. It's been that way since the dawn of humanity.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Capital1:

PolitiFact’s ‘Lie of the Year’ becomes Democrats’ central talking point

Huh... interesting.

Not very interesting. You must have linked to the wrong page because there's nothing on that one that has much of anything to do with Social Security or NOT privatizing Medicare.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am

I would prefer abolishment, however I would support privatization as long as where the money went was my call at least for the money I contribute.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am

Putting you at the mercy of payments now for services to be delivered later. Who do you trust? Why not trust a democratic Commons rather than a profit driven insurer? You presume that profit/competition will give you the best choice and value. I see the process leading to established criminal behavior, fraud and exclusions with the holder of the policies with little leverage to recoup their value. Stay healthy, my friend!

Insurance and pension funds are investors. The money is not stuck in the bank or mattress. We do have real concerns about how the investment casino is being rigged and bilked. People who have paid in are being screwed by the corporate predators and those to whom they have paid the premiums. They are not losing their public benefits.

There is no reason we cannot guarantee our public investments and back up our public promises. There are many reasons to feel anxious about any private business holding your retirement funds without the guarantee of the government to insure it. Either way, it is the state that insures that "your" money is there for you when you need it.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am
Quote drc2:

Putting you at the mercy of payments now for services to be delivered later. Who do you trust? Why not trust a democratic Commons rather than a profit driven insurer? You presume that profit/competition will give you the best choice and value. I see the process leading to established criminal behavior, fraud and exclusions with the holder of the policies with little leverage to recoup their value. Stay healthy, my friend!

Insurance and pension funds are investors. The money is not stuck in the bank or mattress. We do have real concerns about how the investment casino is being rigged and bilked. People who have paid in are being screwed by the corporate predators and those to whom they have paid the premiums. They are not losing their public benefits.

There is no reason we cannot guarantee our public investments and back up our public promises. There are many reasons to feel anxious about any private business holding your retirement funds without the guarantee of the government to insure it. Either way, it is the state that insures that "your" money is there for you when you need it.

The way you discribe how it would work privatized is how it works now but the waste, fraud, theft and abuse is perpetrated by the federal government.

The state is not insuring that my money is there when I need it. They take 12 percent with the employer contribution, pay zero interest on the money and than pay back 78 percent of what they took.

So the state is stealing 26 to 30 percent of everything you pay in, and than decide how much if your money they are willing to give back.

If I direct where my money goes I as m trusting me no one else.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am

PONZI

Redwing's picture
Redwing
Joined:
Jun. 21, 2012 4:12 am

You confuse the insurance components with the retirement benefits. The cost/benefit analysis on a good Social Security program is always excellent compared to what private individuals could get from "the market."

Where is the fraud in Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security? The privateer sector bribes its way to corrupt entitlements, but the fault comes from Corporate, not from "the State." We are for a government big and "bad" enough to govern those who would rule over us. That will get at the fraud, waste and abuse.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am
Quote drc2:

You confuse the insurance components with the retirement benefits. The cost/benefit analysis on a good Social Security program is always excellent compared to what private individuals could get from "the market."

Where is the fraud in Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security? The privateer sector bribes its way to corrupt entitlements, but the fault comes from Corporate, not from "the State." We are for a government big and "bad" enough to govern those who would rule over us. That will get at the fraud, waste and abuse.

I am not confusing anything it is all one system. The corporations bank and wall street all provide more return than the federal government who steals 30 percent through waste fraud and abuse. If I die tomorrow the government will keep the 25 years of money I have been paying into the system. Under my control I can leave it to whom ever I choose no theft, no fraud, no abuse.

The fraud is the federal government telling you that it is your money as the decide how much to give you. Theft is the federal government keeping 30 percent of your money do they can give it to people that did not earn it. The abuse is them deciding what to give you not what you earned.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am

Excuse me, but America cannot abolish or get rid of social security.

Neither can you privatize it.

It is not 'theft' for the government to tax the rich, and use it for the poor. It is American way, and it is the Christian way, the Islamic way, the Buddhist way, the Jewish way.

Unless you're a greedy selfish asshole, you won't mind.

The 60% my family paid in the 90's, didn't affect my children, or theirs. We were all just fine.

Tax away our debt. And get the corruption out of the Government contractor system.

Make it Non-Profit.

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 10:47 am
Quote anonymous green:

Excuse me, but America cannot abolish or get rid of social security.

Neither can you privatize it.

It is not 'theft' for the government to tax the rich, and use it for the poor. It is American way, and it is the Christian way, the Islamic way, the Buddhist way, the Jewish way.

Unless you're a greedy selfish asshole, you won't mind.

The 60% my family paid in the 90's, didn't affect my children, or theirs. We were all just fine.

Tax away our debt. And get the corruption out of the Government contractor system.

Make it Non-Profit.

What 60 percent taxes have not been that high since the 70's

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am

It's the Estate taxes that are the issue. That's why you never hear about it.

60% of everything a rich family can't hide in a trust.

It's a lot, and it was higher before Nixon.

The lawyers that families hire to make the trusts get rich too, and they pay the estate tax too.

It's the way we built all the surplus that Bush wasted on fascism.

Then make every social system and need, like health care, energy, military, into a nonporoft.

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 10:47 am
Quote anonymous green:

It's the Estate taxes that are the issue. That's why you never hear about it.

60% of everything a rich family can't hide in a trust.

It's a lot, and it was higher before Nixon.

The lawyers that families hire to make the trusts get rich too, and they pay the estate tax too.

It's the way we built all the surplus that Bush wasted on fascism.

Then make every social system and need, like health care, energy, military, into a nonporoft.

So you are talking about the myth clinton had a surplus. At no time during the clinton years did the deficit ever disappear. The deficit.did drop to 17 billion but it was still a deficit.

Estate taxes are way to high the people thst have those huge estates have already paid taxes on the money, land, buildings, and everything else included in the estate tax.

Progressives are the only people that can claim a surplus while still borrowing money to pay the rent. While at the same time saying that.allowing people to keep the money they earned is government spending.

The only way you and your family psid 60 percent is if you did no estate planning and had an estate in the tens of millions of dollars.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
Quote anonymous green:

It's the Estate taxes that are the issue. That's why you never hear about it.

60% of everything a rich family can't hide in a trust.

It's a lot, and it was higher before Nixon.

The lawyers that families hire to make the trusts get rich too, and they pay the estate tax too.

It's the way we built all the surplus that Bush wasted on fascism.

Then make every social system and need, like health care, energy, military, into a nonporoft.

Your ideas have as much chance of working as your credibility. Zero.

Sorry anyone who throws around serious accusations like you do with absolutely no basis in fact will not not be taken seriously by anyone with half a brain. You showed your true colors in your discussions about the Chevon fire.

Mauiman2's picture
Mauiman2
Joined:
Jul. 27, 2012 6:24 am

You could X my l*l if you'd prefer that to giving me any credence.

Your choice, simpleton.

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 10:47 am

What would the estate tax be on a rented ditchweed field in No. central CA.?

Get some green in the game skin.

A better option

http://www.jillstein.org/

Redwing's picture
Redwing
Joined:
Jun. 21, 2012 4:12 am

Is it possible to have a sane and credible discussion on these topics? Bossman keeps making assertions about government waste and inefficiency in SS, Medicare and Medicaid, but the administrative costs of government programs are far less than the fees taken by the privateers. The corruption begins with the privateers, and if they are bribing public officials they are still the major criminal with the politicos as accomplices. Put the blame where it belongs and stop the crap about waste and fraud in government in these programs. There is a ton of it in the programs that pay off the privateers in war, etc. But we cannot go there, can we? We need a bigger imperial military to defeat the Martians upset by Curiosity.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/retirement/story/2012-08-15/financial-scams-seniors/57079122/1

"Elderly suffer as financial abuse grows

Financial abuse of the elderly is getting worse, and most seniors don't know how to seek reliable financial help.

"There is no silver bullet that will end the financial abuse of America's seniors," says Don Blandin, president and CEO of the non-profit Investor Protection Trust (IPT), which released a survey Wednesday about elder exploitation. IPT conducted the survey after theConsumer Financial Protection Bureau requested more information about the problem.

The experts IPT surveyed said the most common type of abuse is when family members steal or divert funds or property. The next biggest problems are caregiver theft and financial scams perpetrated by strangers.

"Some of those financial scams by strangers can be ones that actually deplete the entire life savings of a senior at the worst possible time in their life," Blandin says.

It's a serious issue. Last year, MetLife said elderly victims of financial scams lost at least $2.9 billion in 2010, up from $2.6 billion in 2008. And 20% of Americans over the age of 65 have been victims of financial swindles, a 2010 IPT report said. "This is a major problem, and we know there is significant under-reporting," says Mark Lachs, director of geriatrics at New York-Presbyterian Healthcare System.

Some older Americans are too embarrassed to disclose financial abuse. Some lack the tools to find a good financial adviser and may not have the knowledge to understand investment advice. Others may be susceptible to fraud because of diminished mental capacity.

Combating the growing abuse of the elderly will require new, collaborative efforts with many experts and organizations, Blandin says.

Caregivers and local health care professionals are the ones who can best help address the problem, the IPT said. So it has created the Elder Investment Fraud and Financial Exploitation (EIFFE) prevention program, which has trained more than 3,000 U.S.medical professionals to help spot older Americans who are vulnerable because of impaired mental capacity.

"We are on the right track in tackling financial swindles that go after older Americans," says Irving Faught, administrator of the Oklahoma Department of Securities, which is a participant in the EIFFE program.

It is critical to train primary care physicians to pre-emptively identify older adults who are at risk for financial exploitation, Lachs says. "I am an epidemiologist, and what we are looking at here qualifies as an epidemic.""

These are the same elderly that Ryan wants to navigate the world of Medicare vouchers and Wall Street accounts for their Social Security.

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 9:24 am
Quote drc2:

Is it possible to have a sane and credible discussion on these topics? Bossman keeps making assertions about government waste and inefficiency in SS, Medicare and Medicaid, but the administrative costs of government programs are far less than the fees taken by the privateers. The corruption begins with the privateers, and if they are bribing public officials they are still the major criminal with the politicos as accomplices. Put the blame where it belongs and stop the crap about waste and fraud in government in these programs. There is a ton of it in the programs that pay off the privateers in war, etc. But we cannot go there, can we? We need a bigger imperial military to defeat the Martians upset by Curiosity.

If there over head is so low and the program is so good why do only 28 percent of americans except to retire comfortably?

What interest rate does the fed pay on your money?

If it is your money why can they tell you how much you get each month?

What happens to the 22 percent they take but never give back.

When I die why cant I leave the money to who ever I choose?

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am

Again we have the blind arguing with the blind. They can't look around and see there are no jobs. And no jobs especially if you are over 50. So how the hell are you supposed to work until you drop dead if there are no jobs? Let's hear that solution.

captbebops's picture
captbebops
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

You have people with medical conditions, illnesses and disabilities, that are involved. The least informed, least well-educated, and most selfish people keep on saying simple things.

It is a severe waste of money to have unqualified peopleto be making decisions in the government and to be paid a taxpayer-supported salary. If someone hates people who are ill or have a similar medical condition, that person would have to be classified not only as being unqualified but mentally ill with rage.

I recently found a book in the library written by a Christian public policy expert. I am not sure what his background is, but apparntly he has experience in the field and may have written previous books and/or articles. He has a brief section toward the beginning of the book in which he includes some quotes from the Bible. He mentions that his committment is in protecting the poor, in keeping with what Christianity is supposed to stand for.

I do disagree with the approach taken by so-called progressive talk radio, which mostly criticizes the Republicans when many of the listeners are also somewhat but less dissatisified with the opposite party, but for entirely different reasons than those on the right.

The public policy author I referred to in his book talks about gradually decreasing the benefits to people at the top of the income scale who are already well and he also talks about the need to increase the benefits for the people near the bottom, because those benefit amounts are low. He also seems favor increasing the revenues taken in by the government by making the same kind of changes to FICA payroll taxes that Thom has discussed. At one point, he says that his views would be of interest to both "Christians and other concerned citizens."

When a person has no values, that person is playing with social, economic, and political disaster. On this site, do we really need destruction of our society as a topic? The idea that life is nothing but a gambling casino, a lottery, is ridculously dumb.


Robindell's picture
Robindell
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Dum dee dum dum dum.

I'm ignoring the dummies, and agreeing with the ridiculously dumb remark.

60% Estate tax. Fold it back into America.

I survived it. So can everyone else as fortunate as my family was.

It's called fairness.

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 10:47 am
Quote anonymous green:

Dum dee dum dum dum.

I'm ignoring the dummies, and agreeing with the ridiculously dumb remark.

60% Estate tax. Fold it back into America.

I survived it. So can everyone else as fortunate as my family was.

It's called fairness.

Fairness would be ti tax everyone the same percentage regardless of income or estate value.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am

In your very flat and stupid world, it would be. Your idea of fairness is meaness.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am
Quote workingman:
Quote anonymous green:

Dum dee dum dum dum.

I'm ignoring the dummies, and agreeing with the ridiculously dumb remark.

60% Estate tax. Fold it back into America.

I survived it. So can everyone else as fortunate as my family was.

It's called fairness.

Fairness would be ti tax everyone the same percentage regardless of income or estate value.

That would be fair if everyone were paid the same income no matter what they did for a living. Until then, as long as the rich keep making their money with someone else's labor they can and should pay a much higher tax rate on their so called income.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am
Quote drc2:

In your very flat and stupid world, it would be. Your idea of fairness is meaness.

Not meaness just treating everyone equally.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:

That would be fair if everyone were paid the same income no matter what they did for a living. Until then, as long as the rich keep making their money with someone else's labor they can and should pay a much higher tax rate on their so called income.

They do pay a Higher rate. They pay exactly what Tax law tells them to pay in our progressive tax system.

Capital1's picture
Capital1
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2012 6:38 am
Quote drc2:

In your very flat and stupid world, it would be. Your idea of fairness is meaness.

Define Fair?

Capital1's picture
Capital1
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2012 6:38 am
Quote Capital1:

Define Fair?

Capital1 or 2, both of you know the Fair is a place where there are rides and trinkets, like the place you envision next to the aircraft carrier you are going to drag into the Columbia, and set there by the ancient native American village site.

anonymous green
Joined:
Jan. 5, 2012 10:47 am
Quote workingman:
Quote anonymous green:

Dum dee dum dum dum.

I'm ignoring the dummies, and agreeing with the ridiculously dumb remark.

60% Estate tax. Fold it back into America.

I survived it. So can everyone else as fortunate as my family was.

It's called fairness.

Fairness would be ti tax everyone the same percentage regardless of income or estate value.

Absolutely, set a flat tax on all transactions on Wall Street first, and then I will believe in a flat tax.

Or, we can impose a flat income tax, that includes capital gains, of 70%, and couple that with a national dividend that gets paid out monthly.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 7:21 pm
Quote Phaedrus76:
Quote workingman:
Quote anonymous green:

Dum dee dum dum dum.

I'm ignoring the dummies, and agreeing with the ridiculously dumb remark.

60% Estate tax. Fold it back into America.

I survived it. So can everyone else as fortunate as my family was.

It's called fairness.

Fairness would be ti tax everyone the same percentage regardless of income or estate value.

Absolutely, set a flat tax on all transactions on Wall Street first, and then I will believe in a flat tax.

Or, we can impose a flat income tax, that includes capital gains, of 70%, and couple that with a national dividend that gets paid out monthly.

70 percent is a bit high I was thinking 15 percent no deductions, no write offs, no way out everyone pays the same amont even business. that way we all have skin in the game.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 7:13 am
Quote Phaedrus76:

Or, we can impose a flat income tax, that includes capital gains, of 70%, and couple that with a national dividend that gets paid out monthly.

What is a national dividend and who does it get paid to on a monthly basis?

Redwing's picture
Redwing
Joined:
Jun. 21, 2012 4:12 am
Quote workingman: Fairness would be ti tax everyone the same percentage regardless of income or estate value.

Why is taxing the weathy more than the poor fair?

If it is fair, then why isn't taxing the wealthy a bit more than the same percentage fair?

You see: your arguement is completely foolish.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote workingman: 70 percent is a bit high I was thinking 15 percent no deductions, no write offs .

How often are you going to repeat this garbage and ignore my points?

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Probably seniors should have invested in the Triple A securitized mortgages offered by Goldman Sachs. If they bought enough of them, there would have been a shortage. Banksters couldn't have scooped up enough of them to go under.

Privatizing Soc. Sec. could have saved the country from a financial meltdown at the top....and switched it entirely to the bottom.

We all know that Investment Banksters are the preferred way to go. However, there is an alternative. Invest in your own co. like Enron ...and lose it all in one quick scam...or have your entire pension stolen as happened with Transcon Trucking employees when the co. was shredded by corporate raiders.

Soc. Security has to go. It's hoarding funds that could best be utilized by Wall Street Banksters and corporate raiders. Secure pensions are a terrible waste of capital. Give seniors a recipe for cake.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease".

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Where is it written that a private version of SS has to put the money in an investment bank? I have never heard any rules where the individual had to keep their own money invested in a specific segment of the market.

Redwing's picture
Redwing
Joined:
Jun. 21, 2012 4:12 am

Currently Chatting

The world we're leaving for today's teens...

Without immediate global action on climate change, today's teenagers will be forced to live with the consequences of our inaction. The World Bank has issued their third report of climate change, and it says that global temperatures could rise by as much as 4 degrees Celsius by the time today's teens hit their 80th birthday.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system