Bachmann calls Social Security a ‘fraud,’ Franni Franken calls views ‘terrifying’

Ms. Bachmann’s notion of “weaning Americans off of Social Security” is both unnecessary and wrong, due to the readily available prospect of increasing its income by a factor of nine. As if we could ever bring ourselves to deal with the 90% of our nation’s income and wealth being received and controlled by only 10% of our population – and taxing it at the same rate as the remaining 10% that the rest of us have left to share.

In a way, she’s right. Delivering FICA dollars into the general treasury and receiving mere bonds in return is a very poor deal for Social Security. And the chicken is coming home to roost, now that the boomers are retiring and
there will be fewer people paying into the system than will be receiving from it.

The Republicans have a right to be scared silly at the coming
debt-to-income bomb. But they are completely unable to function in a crisis without being able to point to “bad” people – and cannot accept responsibility for getting us to this point.

And here we Democrats are, having thought we’d elected FDR and finding out we got Herbert Hoover instead…

I cannot understand how Bachmann was elected in the first place. Her views on a number of issues are un-American, scary and out-of-touch with reality. She needs to GO

Back in 2000, a man named Al Gore campaigned about putting all Social Security funds into a dedicated fund that could not be tapped or counted as part of government funding, but held to pay future obligations.

He called it a “lockbox”.

The Republicans howled and ridiculed him for such a ridiculous idea. Why? Because they wanted social security to fail all along.

They do want Social Security to fail. This is also why they will fight any plan to improve it.

Same with Medicare, they only added the prescription drug benefits to help bankrupt it.

What’s the matter with Kansas?

To say that those who want to reform social security want to “pull the safety net our from seniors” is misleading at best and out and out fear-mongering at worst. One might argue with so-called “privatization” of social security (it really social security “choice”), but if you’re going to argue it, at least argue against what is is.

General outline of social security reform proposals:

1) People over some age, generally 55, guaranteed their social security benefits. Everyone else has a choice to stay in the program or opt out.

2) People in some bracket, generally 40 to 55, can stay in social security or opt out and receive partial benefits.

3) People under a certain age would not have the standard social security option available.

4) Under the so-called privatization plans, retirement planning is still highly regulated. The big difference is funds belong to the individual, not government, and should a person die before retirement age, all of his contribution goes to his family.

5) How privatization works: Individual must make mandatory contributions to a privately managed 401K-like fund –they choose the fund from among any that meet government requirements. Contributions are pre-tax. Individual controls his investments by choosing funds and distribution of his contribution. Private fund managers collect fees the same as today’s IRAs.

6)Government also sets a minimum required monthly retirement amount that a person must achieve based on age, inflation predictions and the like. When a person has enough in their account to purchase an annuity that will pay the required monthly benefit the individual can A) continue to participate in the tax-free program with no change or B) stop making monthly mandatory payments into his retirement account and receive the money in taxed salary.

7) As a safety net, gov’t makes up the monthly difference between the minimum monthly retirement amount and whatever an individual has in his retirement account at the minimum retirement age. (same could be applied to survivor benefits to meet Ms. Franken’s example.) Monthly payout is 50/50 personal funds and gov’t so should an individual die before the funds are depleted, his remaining balance goes to his family.

The angel is in the details of the plethora of responsible plans being discussed, but these are the general parameters. This is hardly yanking the retirement rug out from under Americans.

“To say that those who want to reform social security want to “pull the safety net our from seniors” is misleading at best and out and out fear-mongering at worst.”

As if the right-wing, particularly right-wing hacks like Michele Bachmann, have not been misleading and fear-mongering people for years. Especially in the last year about health care reform. Total lies. You have the nerve to talk about misleading and fear-mongering?

Your “general outline of social security reform proposals” begins with only a sales point which ou=ght to be a “tell” or giveaway about the true fraudulent motives: “1) People over some age, generally 55, guaranteed their social security benefits. Everyone else has a choice to stay in the program or opt out.”

Maybe we ought to have a vote of people 55 and older to find out how many would “opt out” considering most people 55 or older have made retirement plans such as they may have such plans or not be one of those whose corporations have skimmed off their pensions, on receiving SS benefits.
Or maybe just let the “tea-baggers” consisting of those who protested health care to people not on medicare like themselves, to “choose”: “socialism with continued social security and benefits and medicare” or “free enterprise and freedom choice with no more socialistic social security or medicare but “you’re in charge of your own future now.” I’m sure many people thinking about retirement would choose the latter, wouldn’t they, Craig?

Your outline for social security reform might work if we had a total, and I mean total, reform of the banking and investment banking “industries” (as they like to call themselves as if they produce anything worthwhile). That means tight and short leashes on people who handle money and investments in any way, shape or form. Do you that’s likely considering who really owns and runs the country, Craig?

Frankly, considering what has gone down in the last 8 years, culminating with the bailout of the banking, mortgage and investment banking sectors, I’m surprised you think any idea of “privatizing” social security is even worth raising. Can you and for that matter, Bachmann, an elected representative, credibly say that you can really “privatize” social security at the same time you are telling people Obama and the federal government have “taken it over” and “socialised it”?

GadZooks: If you have something of substance to say, please do. But if you’d like to merely insult the physical appearance of others, I’ll keep deleting your comments.

http://minnesotaindependent.com/policies

It’s not reform of Social Security in any way if any if it becomes just another revenue stream for Wall Street.

Be prepared for a violent and bloody reaction from many people if your republican reforms go through.

Jonerik writes:

“Maybe we ought to have a vote of people 55 and older to find out how many would “opt out” considering most people 55 or older have made retirement plans such as they may have such plans or not be one of those whose corporations have skimmed off their pensions, on receiving SS benefits.”

Two things about this paragraph that summarize Jonerik’s comment. First, his notion of a “vote” implies that everyone 55 and older (my example) should have their retirement plans determined by that vote. The “choice” model I presented allows individuals to choose. I would agree with Jonerick that most people over 55 would not choose to opt out — that is why in a choice plan they have the option to stay in. Jonerik would deny others the choice to opt out.

Second, no doubt big corporations have played fast and loose with pension funds (a problem that would be mitigated if individuals were allowed more control over their retirement funds through private ownership. But t least pension fund managers are subject to the law and legal action. The social security program simple ups the retirement age and reduces benefits without the individual having any recourse whatsoever. Which system sounds better?

Craig Westover writes:
“Second, no doubt big corporations have played fast and loose with pension funds (a problem that would be mitigated if individuals were allowed more control over their retirement funds through private ownership. But t least pension fund managers are subject to the law and legal action.”

This statement shows that you have no knowledge of the limitations of recourse through law, nor the powerlessness of small shareholders now that Republicans have insulated boards of directors from liability. Step 1: Republicans insulated boards of directors from liability. Step 2: Republicans insulated accounting firms from liability. What followed? Enron, Worldcom, Arthur Andersen, the restatement of financial statements by virtually every corporation in the U.S., and on and on. There is no remedy through the legal system. Just try to get your auto downpayment back from Denny Hecker. Or your investment money back from Tom Petters. Or your bailout money from Citi.

Anyone who trusts the “investment industry” is a fool and deserves to lose their money. They take 5% off the top, guaranteeing nothing, and then hit you with fees and “management costs” and “trustee fees”. When the market is down, too bad. When the market is up, they bonus themselves like they had something to do with it.

Did they take a 70% paycut when the Dow went from 14k to 6k? Hell no, but they’re taking huge bonuses because it bounced from 6k to 10k which they had nothing to do with.

I think the most frightening thing is the naivete of people who think law protects them. Good luck ever trying to prove fraud against anyone that steals your money unless you have a signed memo that says “my admission that I defrauded Mr. X”.

Social security works. Anyone who wants to save more on their own and “get rich in the market” can go ahead and lose their money.

The simple answer for Social Security is to increase the retirement age and establish an “americorps” that employs people over 65 in respectful jobs with fair wages. Work in americorps for 5 years and retire at 70 at full benefits.

If the Social Security would dropped to 55 may let one million people to retire allowing one million unworking to get their jobs.

I agree, with Rep. Bachmann. Social Security should be reduced to its origin……Retirement program only…all others that are using these funds, should be placed in a seperate program if the need is justified… Congress should pay back all funds that have been taken from Social Security for other programs….These funds once paid back should be placed in a lock box, and setup as a non-profit organization run seperate from the government so they may never take funds from it again…The Social Security problem has been created by Congress itself. Joe C.

I for one would love the choice to invest my money as I see fit and take away the ability of the nanny stat to waste it. And if I invest it and some other people make money in a market economy that is fine with me.

I love how “pro-choice” libs are until it comes to this.