When it comes to entitlement programs, there's been quite a bit of talk during the presidential campaign about Medicare, and even some worthwhile discussion of Medicaid, but Social Security has garnered far less attention. That may soon change.
When it comes to political salience -- moments most likely to show up in an attack ad and keep a campaign off-balance -- Paul Ryan's defense of Social Security privatization was clearly one of the more newsworthy developments of last night's debate.
Martha Raddatz reminded Ryan, "You were one of the few lawmakers to stand with President Bush when he was seeking to partially privatize Social Security."
The congressman replied, "For younger people. What we said then, and what I've always agreed, is let younger Americans have a voluntary choice of making their money work faster for them within the Social Security system." Ryan went on to endorse some Social Security benefit cuts for wealthier seniors, as well as a "slow" increase in the retirement age.
None of this is likely to be well received by seniors.
What's more, all of this comes against the backdrop of Ryan's long-standing opposition to Social Security itself -- a program the Republican lawmaker has condemned as "a collectivist system." Ryan has even characterized Social Security's champions as "collectivist, class warfare-breathing demagogues."
If Democrats hoped to bring the Republicans' far-right plans for Social Security back into the campaign spotlight, it appears Ryan did the Obama campaign a big favor last night.
Leave a Comment:
It's all financial fun and games till the market implodes
Biden made that point once last night, but not in strong enough terms, I thought.
It'll be good material for ads, though.
Exactly. People who want to enter the stock market and assume responsibility for learning it's ins and outs and handling the ups and downs should be able to. People that don't care to gamble with their finances or their futures shouldn't be forced to.
Government workers are already forced to, with mandatory TSP participation, putting retirement funds into the stock market, required to learn how to operate in this complex playing field with money too few of them can afford to lose.
Banks are federally insured, is the stock market? Where is investor protections when we are forced to play the lottery with our retirements.
Ahh but look at from the people who actually have their careers in the market. This is the opportunity for the growth of an entirely new kind of investment bank vehicle designed for those who don't know how to invest in markets, "Managed retirement portfolios" or more accurately "New ways to gamble with other peoples money"
Imagine..... If there was no social security....Mr. Ryan would not have been able to afford a college education and then would have not become a congressman..
I get the impression by the way he talks about social security and Medicare to get elected is different once he is in office. He talks to already retired people differently about these issues than to younger....so basically once you have or can take advantage of it....than we will curtail it for everyone else afterwards!
It is sort of bizarre that once a Repug gets a benefit, they want to close the door behind them.... "I got mine, suckers !"
The biggest problem with this is that SocSec and Medicare are not entitlements, they are benefits. People pay into them. Once you start saying that this or that person can't get it because they make too much money, it BECOMES an entitlement and then the GOP will start to whack away at it a la the 47% that don't pay taxes. And why don't 47% pay taxes? Because that is what the GOP wants...until it wants something else - which always mean We the People lose.
I get lost by GOP "logic" because I thought not paying taxes was patriotic, especially since they all signed onto Grover's concept of no taxes.
I used to work for Ryan Inc., (Paul's dad's business) in 1969 (yeah, before Paul was born). They weren't hurting for money then. Their primary source of income was government contracts for road construction. No one seems to question whether Paul actually NEEDED to tap into SS to go to college. Either way, he's a hypocrite.
I found this: Paul Ryan repeats "2010 lie of the year!"
Ryan, in his closing statement, said Obama "made his choices," including "a government takeover of health care." The phrase is simply not true.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/dec/16/lie-year-government-takeover-health-care/
I know Rachel is Angry with politifact, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.
In 1950 I was 10, and my parents taught me to save 10% of my income.
In 1950 it was possible to save 10% of your income.
In 2012 it is NOT possible to save much of anything, being as wages are still at the 1950's level.
Rich people -AKA Republicans- do NOT understand this.
"Rich people -AKA Republicans- do NOT understand this."
They understand, they don't care! As long as they get theirs, "you people" should just work til you drop - that's their philosophy.
Good video. With a serius tone and a lesson to be learned.
The wealthy are worried and they're buying ad time to make their case to the American people as to why they are not the villains Obama is making them out to be. One billionaire, Thomas Peterffy, has already spent $5 million for ads that inform voters about the risks of socialism.
Peterffy is a living embodiment of the American dream, but now Obama says he's not paying his fair share.
Share on emailEmail
Print
Share on facebookFacebookShare on deliciousDelicousShare on myspaceMySpace
Share on twitterTwitterShare on stumbleuponStumbleShare on diggDigg
More Sharing ServicesMore Destinations
LOS ANGELES, CA (Catholic Online) - At some point, it became unpopular to be successful. Particularly if that success came with wealth. The Obama campaign has capitalized on this, accusing the wealthy, who pay billions in taxes each year, of not paying their fair share.
For some, it's a slap in the face after they have contributed millions in revenues to the government.
The great concern is that the government with its creeping tax hikes on the wealthy is essentially sneaking socialism in via the back door. After all, politicians gain easy votes by pledging to take from the rich to give to the poor.
What must be understood is that America was a nation founded by businessmen who wanted economic freedom among others. Most of the founding fathers were businessmen of one sort or another. Weary of what they saw as excessive taxation and regulation, they combined with other frustrated colonists to cast off British rule.
Their success allowed them and their descendants, right down to us, the world's wealthiest nation. It is also a land of unbridled opportunity, permitting anyone with a good idea and a willingness to work to build a fortune for themselves.
This is what Thoman Peterffy did. He was born in Hungary in 1944, as the Red Army attacked that country's capitol. He grew up impoverished in the subsequently established socialist state. In 1965, he managed to emigrate to the US, where he became a computer programmer on Wall Street.
Peterffy learned English, and eventually created a program that allowed brokers to make trades online. He built his business, "Interactive Brokers" and eventually paid nearly $2 billion in taxes on it.
He has created jobs, and donated to causes.
Yet, he is being told that he's not doing enough by the rhetoric of the Obama administration.
Peterffy is worried that anti-capitalist rhetoric of the administration could dissuade millionaires and billionaires from creating jobs and take their money elsewhere. This has happened in France, where overtaxed elites have already begun a mass exodus in the face of ever-increasing tax rates.
Paterffy crated a commercial that does not mention political parties, but shares his concerns with viewers. He hopes that people watch and carefully consider their decision this November. There is more at stake than many people realize.
© 2012, Distributed by NEWS CONSORTIUM.
He isn't and he will if Obama is reelected. This is why Obama will win. The rich aren't paying their share.
Spken like a true marxist democrat. Nicely done "honey" boo boo
DUDE, REALLY? The rich took their jobs overseas during Bush II and never looked back. They took their money (like Mitt) and hid it off shore accounts. They don't create jobs when they get tax breaks you nin-come-poop! THEY BANK THE MONEY AND LAY OFF EMPLOYEES and then complain that they are paying too much taxes. You really, seriously need to put down the kool-aide and walk into some fresh air. I was outsourced in 2001, thanks to Bush and I've never found a job in my field since. Hell, I stopped looking back in 2004. I do other things and make less money but I work. IF Mitt gets in office those jobs that I have now will also vanish and go overseas because he will allow tax breaks for companies to MOVE those jobs overseas. Your fake HERO - Peterffy is a whiney little man who can't stand to part with dime one of his money but yet demands that his own employees pay more taxes than he does. Pathetic and shameful. Pretty much describes Mitt and Ryan to a tee.
then why did we have to bail out the banks? i wish we would have nationalized them. they belong to us. the rich and big corps. did not get that way by themselves. if they would pay their workers living decent wages i don't think the people would be so angry at them. remember the workers come to them educated, roads take their goods to market, the police and fire depts. protect their property and the army protects our country. our wages have not kept up and please don't tell me how much the rich are hurting. the middle class is being asked to always do more with less. well how about a little help from the people who really benefitted from gwb and the great debt he left us with.
You worried about socialism? I'll give you socialism! How about 90% marginal tax rates on all income over $2 million? Tie that to an economy that was growing at 4-6% per annum and unemployment at or below 4%!
That was the year !956. The President was D.D. Eisenhower (R), who not only fully supported those rates, he resisted efforts to lower them. Eisenhower also supported building the nation's infrastructure; viz, St Lawrence Seaway and the Interstate Highway System. He also, against the advice of fellow Republican politicians, ensured that the Federal govenment spent no more than 3% of GNP on defense during his administration. Only balanced one budget, too.
I only hope CartoontheNews! doesn't see this article or Patty won't be sitting down all weekend!
My son who is 33 has paid into SS since he was 18. He is voting for Obama because he wants to make sure his SS is there when he retires. As a disabled vet he has health care for life thank god. He served his country as did my daughter, husband, brothers, dad etc.
The Romney and Ryan's DID NOT serve their country and don't respect or care about vets unless its election time and then all of a sudden they love vets. Of course the GOP controlled House of Reps along with Rep Ryan refused to take care of voting for the Vets job bill. This shows how much they really care about vets. President Obama is the one who cares about vets.
Please let your family know that many Americans are indebted to you and yours for the sacrifices you have made. I am sorry that you have to fear the choices that other Americans are going to make on Nov. 6th.
I will vote for President Obama and Vice President Biden.
I Hope Mitt Romney Does Not Get Elected As President of The United States.
http://whateverworks4you.blogspot.com/2012/07/i-hope-mitt-romney-does-not-get-elected.html
You have a right to worry. We all do. Ryan on veteran's benefits.
Well said Whatever Works. As a Vet myself I also thank Honey Bucket and her entire family for their sacrifices.
I got out of the Marine Corps right before Bush Sr first went into Iraq. I enjoyed peace time military service, but it was not a career thing for me. I have a lot of respect for those who have served in any time. But the luck of life saved me from any formal engagement.
I was the one who got through boot camp. I passed my A-School. But fate spared me the horror of war. I can never take credit for that. It was luck. It is humbling.
I have a job. I am even able to educate myself in order to get a better job soon that cannot be outsourced. I will be ok. But I do not in any way think that someone who needs help has to suffer. We are American. We cheer for the underdog. We want to see the downtrodden succeed. We love a success story.
I, for the first time in my voting history, am undeclared. I changed my party designation when I went to the polling place for the primary and they called me a republican. I had a visceral reaction. I felt shame. I got a new voter registration form and filled it our after I voted.
And I picked the New American Independent Party, boasted online, and was horrified by my choice when it was pointed out that they are further to the right than most Tea party candidates.
[facepalm] I got another voter registration form and made sure I sent it in as undeclared...
Suffice it to say, I have ID, I will vote, and I will never vote for another republican unless they tear up their pledge to Grover Norquist and learn how to speak the word "compromise."
But this November 6th? President Obama and every other democrat on the ticket has my vote. It is the only way I can show republicans that they do not represent my beliefs, my hopes, my dreams, or my compassion.
http://whateverworks4you.blogspot.com/2012/07/new-american-independent.html
thank you for your family's service. my grandson also served his country in afghanistan in 2010. what i wonder about is you don't see too many republicans (rich) children serving, why? maybe they don't need to because they can afford to pay for the college education that they'll need to make a living and have a family in america today? or is it that we middle class regular americans really are thankful for what we have and want to keep it for as long as we can? when you are so rich that you can pack up and move to where ever, i guess it really doesn't matter if you live in america or not.
My 401k lost 2/3 of its value, nearly 100k during GWB's stewardship. If my social security was there as well, I would have been totally screwed, since a back injury cost me my last few decent earning years. I trust the Democrats to respect the investment I made through soc. sec.. My cobra was about 45% of my social security so without the VA I would have joined the emergency room crowd that Mitt promotes.
Didn't have a 401k from my days in "duh biz" but did have some money stashed that suddenly went flying away, so Social Security and the Veteran's Administration are definitely what keeps my mouth above water. Both of which these never-served asshats want to gut.
Why don't the rich serve in the armed forces (as they did back in WW2)? Because there's no money in it and they have no allegiance to anything but money. Besides, some one of "those people" might shoot at them.
Those who delay receiving Social Security are well rewarded by an increase in the amount they receive. Those who accept SS at 62-65 receive considerably less than those who wait until 66 or 70+. Postponing the minimum age one could receive those benefits will save less money while it hurts those who truly need to access even the lower amount they will get. Social Security can be solvent for the younger generation as well as the current if the income cap is raised to that lovely $200,000 figure that's used in most other taxing categories. And, do remember that Social Security helps children whose parent dies and the disabled of all ages who need assistance. Privatizing it, decreasing the access by increasing retirement age, or decreasing the existing benefits are not the solutions needed to make sure all citizens can receive this benefit of their labor now and in the future.
I am 52 years old. Ryan keeps talking about the young generation has time to do something else. What about those of us that are not young but not 55 and who's only nestegg - 401K blew up in smoke during the crash. I lost $75,000 out of it in one quarter. Even though it was being managed by a good firm. I can't recover that in the next 15 years given my salary got slashed by $20,000 a year as well during the downturn.
I am not asking for pity - just need to make sure SS that I paid into will be there for me.
watergirl
And Mitt Romney and the .01% love us for that,,,,,
I can't understand why the Dems haven't pushed more on this over the past few months. Both Ryan and Romney strongly support privatizing Social Security, while a large majority of Americans obviously don't.
Ryan's comment shows clearly that he doesn't understand what SS is all about. There is much more to it than retirement income. And it's strange that Ryan overlooks those other elements, since he was the beneficiary of one of them (survivor's benefits).
It's time for the Dems to hammer on this. They need to take advantage of this opportunity.
Thank You Howie Carr!
Joe Biden makes case for ... term limits
By Howie Carr
Friday, October 12, 2012 - Updated 5 seconds ago
+ Recent Articles
Boston Herald Columnist
E-mail Print (104) Comments Text size
Share
Hey Joe Biden, what’s so funny?
The only real takeaway from this debate is we really need term limits for politicians. Joe Biden was first elected to the Senate in 1972 at age 30. Somewhere around 1992, he should have had to go out and get a real job.
Nothing like having to answer to a boss to make you a little more humble. What’s up with the smirking? It seemed like Clint Eastwood was back up on stage, this time in character from “Gran Torino.”
“Get off my lawn!”
Not that it’s saying much, but Joe Biden was better than his boss, “Barack America,” as he’s been known to call Obama. But he got off to a rather poor start with his finger-pointing about Benghazi. Whose fault was this disaster? Biden’s story didn’t jibe with the latest rationalizations. He said, “We were not told that they wanted more security, we did not know they wanted more security.”
Huh? Hasn’t that statement been “inoperative,” as Ron Ziegler used to say, since at least Wednesday? That’s a poor way to start a 90-minute debate, with a big whopper.
And Martha Raddatz — maybe inviting Barack to her second wedding should have disqualified her. Why didn’t she interrupt Biden as much as she interrupted Ryan? I remember her when she was Martha Bradlee of Ch. 5. Martha Bradlee wouldn’t have let Biden get away with all that high-school Harry malarkey, to coin a phrase.
Man, Biden really is an old-line Democrat. He waved the bloody shirts, all of them. These Republicans, they want to get rid of home-mortgage deductions, and Medicare, and Social Security, and oh yeah, Roe v. Wade.
Speaking of which, his religion guides his life. That’s why he used to vote against abortion in the Senate, just like Ted Kennedy. Then the polling numbers changed, and now, well, never mind. He wouldn’t attempt to impose his beliefs on anyone else. Except, of course, about how much money “millionaires” need to live on. Then, he’s quite sure he knows how to, you know, “level the playing field.”
Rep. Paul Ryan was OK. He showed deference, never taking the bait from the garrulous old fool. He got off his one allotted zinger, answering Biden about Mitt Romney’s 47 percent crack, saying the vice president surely knows what it’s like to have something come out of your mouth not quite in the way you intended.
Biden mentioned that Ryan had his own 47 percent moment, when he said that 30 percent of the American people are “takers.” But does anyone outside of MSNBC really doubt those numbers? Mitt’s problem was his number was too high. Ryan’s was about right.
Do you want to ever watch another vice presidential debate? I’m not sure if the problem is with the debates themselves, or the fact that Joe Biden seems to be in all of them.
Enough with the undercard. Let’s get back to the main event.
-— howie.carr@bostonherald.com and WRKO Radio talk radio personality. Listen & learn!
Do you have any of your own original thoughts? Or, are you just a cut and paste guy?
What real job has Ryan ever held? Or is that different?
An important thing about Social Security is that the investment fund is able blend generations, thus helping to level the wild swings in the market. Even though the market went crazy recently, destroying many 401-k's, the Social Security fund is OK because it can borrow from other generations and make up the difference when the market turns around. The same thing happens with pensions at large corporations, especially when they had defined benefit plans -- a rough patch for one cohort of workers could be made up by the boom during another time.
But if Social Security was privatized into millions of individual accounts, that intergenerational volatility protection would go away, and if a market shock came just before your retirement, your retirement would be in big trouble.
And perhaps this is one reason for the GOP's favoring of privatization, in that it cuts away another level of community.
Not to mention-- that if the stock market does collapse and destroy the SS fund, there will still be some super-rich cats making a fortune off of it-- probably by betting that it would collapse.
(why do I keep getting images in my mind of early Las Vegas and the mafia..?)
I abhor the Republican rhetoric that- "if you didn't make the effort to be rich, then screw you when you get old and don't have anything left."
I'm a boomer-- 1948 vintage. I've been flush ($ 45 per hour) and I've spent plenty of time poor. Through all of it I was always just behind inflation. Couldn't ever quite make that jump into the middle class. Was able to buy a house, then sell it just before the bubble burst 5 year later. Whoopee... one time I got lucky.
I've been up and down but have never had the cash laying around to save (much) or invest- except for a 401k that went south and returned 6 cents on the dollar. (Yeah, let's do THAT with Soc Sec)
Conclusion- Soc Sec and Medicare (and I have VA pension) are all I have to live on. Yeah, howdy, Ryan and Romney and their compulsive lying about fiscal intent-- is scary... very scary.
ps... that $45 hr job went the way of H-1b .. I was replaced by two guys from Asia. The company folded a year later... LOL
I noticed how Ryan tried to innoculate himself from the hypocracy label by being the first to bring up his and his family's dependence on SS in earlier times, in fact using that as a reason not to believe that he intends to do it harm.
I also take exception to his lumping all people 54 and under as "his generation." He is 42 years old, a dozen years younger than those he plans to cut off. They are the ones who will be royally screwed ... all of the paying with none of the benefit.
I don't understand why the Democrats don't more forcefully discuss the easy fix to SS--which is in no way going broke. In 2013, someone with a paycheck making $110,000 pays 6.2% of their income into SS. Someone making $220,000 only pays 3.1% of their income to SS. Someone making $330,000 only pays 2.07% to SS, and someone making $440,000 pays only 1.55%. I think that would defeat any argument against "raising taxes" if we lift the cap on SS. We just say that everyone pays the same tax rate and SS can continue to provide full benefits for 75 years, at least, without changing the retirement age. It's easy to keep working to 70 if you have a cushy desk job. Not so easy if you are a coal miner, a waitress, a construction worker...
After all, Republicans like the idea of a flat tax.
The people who support the plan are under the basic mistaken presumption as many perhaps even the majority of Americans.
Social Security is not a pension or retirement plan of any kind. It's a tax and entitlement plan. Rates of return have no meaning. You don't get more or less depending on the economy, but only on the cost of living, because you're not actually investing in anything at all.
So there's no way to replace SS with an investment plan, anymore than you can successfully replace the public school system with a voucher plan. You would still have to have a system that takes care of those who use their money badly, even more than those who use it well.
I have been in the job market since the late sixties.
I have been discharged, merged, rif'ed, outsourced,
offshored and had my wages dropped.
I have been inflationed, stagnation and had wages froze.
Insurance was a given perk, now its an extra payment deducted from my check.
CEO parachutes, management options and pension taken. Off shored profits for island retreat.
All while the financial markets exploded, got loaded, recession, depression, dow rise dow down, bubble burst,
junk bonded, raided, mortgage default swapped, ponzie schemed, banks deregulated and became investment centers,
fruadulent trades, market glitch because someone hit the switch.
Noew you want me to take the blame for myself and turn me loose in the shark bowl.
Just tell me you want leave my body in this ditch. Shovel in shed out back
wow where can this go wrong. Trust me Granny, i'mm going to invest this for you , we going to be rich.
just wrong
Did Ryan reinvest the two years of Social security he recieve for two years? I think this stance is called shutting the door behind you.
Yeah, we should have definitely privatized Social Security since it would have worked so well in protecting everyone in 2007-2009, the way everybody had their 401k's work so well.
For some reason Steve cut the quote, but Ryan specifically says that this is his own personal position and not that of Romney.
That's because on any policy choice, Willard is "multiple choice."
Raddatz put her question in the frame of conservatives and the GOP by saying Medicare and Social Security etc. were bankrupt and bankrupting the economy and calling them entitlements. According to who? Social Security hasn't added one dime to the deficit or debt. They are ins. programs that we pay for...not entitlements.
It will ruin the program by breaking it up so 'younger' people aren't paying into it and only those in need of the most healthcare are covered by Medicare.
Why did Raddatz even ask about how "religion" influenced their decisions on abortion. It's not about religion...remember we are a secular nation. And who is not "pro-life"? It should be pro-choice vs pro- no choice or pro-fetus. No body is out there "killing Babies" and even saying life begins at "conception" would lead to women being jailed for preventing conception.
They don't want abortions but they also refuse protection from unwanted conception. It's about time someone started rolling their eyes at all the BS the Romney/Lyin Ryan team has been spewing. It should be made fun of because they are laughable. All they are doing is trying to garner hatred of Obama and Dems to gain power. I can't believe America is even allowing such stupidity. It's embarrassing.
Now,now let's not get all "Wild in the Streets"
Here is the truth about privatizing Social Security. Anyone can do this exercise. I started earning enough money to have taxes withheld in 1967. I worked construction and was a carpenter for the last 37 yrs. I consider myself "typical".
I took the yearly earnings from my annual SS statement. Then I muliplied those earnings by the SS rate in effect at that time. I gave that list of figures to my financial advisor. He did a hypothetical investment in a mutual fund that has been around that long. He invested each year's amount on a quarterly basis and re-invested all dividends.
In 2011, at the age of 60 I would have had $462K in a retirement account. If I withdrew money at 4% annually, an accepted rate that projects my money lasting my lifetime, I would have a monthly check equal to $20 LESS than what I could get from SS at 62. The only difference is, I would be able to start at 60 instead of 62.
Here are the problems with a privatization plan:
1) I have to do this for more than 40 yrs and NEVER miss a payment, NEVER delay a payment.
2) I have to manage this fund to make certain it lasts - which means that I'll likely withdraw less than 4% to make sure it lasts or over-withdraw and end up eating cat food.
3) Nothing is guaranteed. If I had tried to start my retirement in '08-'09, my fund would have been only $305K - not even close to what SS would get me.
The point is, doing your own investing in the stock market is not easy and nothing is guaranteed. You have to be mechanically rigid in your investing (like having your employer withhold from your paycheck EVERY pay period whether you like it or not). The best you will do is equal to what you will earn from SS. SS is guaranteed, your personal fund is not.
This is not political rhetoric. This is empirical data. SS was a lot easier than trying to do this on my own.
Rachel,
The real deal with medicare is that Ryan and Romney
will take the tax collected on medicare and give it to
the insurance companies. Then tell the old people
to go to a company and get a policy. Of course to
get the equivalent of medicare they will need to add money
they don't have. So they will not get care, and they will die,
alleviating the social security burden also.
Under this plan, sick elderly will probably be better off
taking poison.
Of course maybe that's what the Bosses of Romney and
Ryan want.