Think Progress Tea party leaders say they would ‘absolutely’ abolish Social Security.

I'd like to give them a swift kick with a steel toed boot.

I tell you, if ANY of the republicans try to campaign under this kind of thing, it will guarantee a democratic win.

__________________

Wayne Allen Root is NOT a Republican...

He was the LIBERTARIAN presidential candidate the last go 'round...

Now stop it with the "Tea Party MUST = Republican" bullsh*t...There are Libertarians with some good ideas and some other Libertarians that are as loony as a jaybird...But neither are Republicans...

As far as Social Security goes, I'm 40 now and I know it'll be sucked dry won't be there by the time I qualify for it anyway, so I could care less...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

Wayne Allyn Root is a libertarian.
Wayne Allyn Root's Libertarian Website: Root for America!

I have been a fan of privatizing Social Security (at least partially).
The point being --- when you look at other public retirement systems such as STRS, PERS & Railroad Ratirement that replace Social Security those systems have pay outs for similar money earned & put away that is up to three times as much.
My question is: Why?
My answer is: the primary reason I believe is because only people who pay into those systems receive benefits from them --- a secondary reason might have something to do with the difference in investments made with those monies building their nest egg.

__________________
"...baseball...It reminds us of all that once was good and it could be again." --- Terence Mann (field of dreams)

Why? Do you think the government is better equipped to decide what should happen with your earnings than you are?

If any party campaigns on the notion that they are better at deciding what my personal financial decisions should be they should be kicked to the curb. Feel free to give up your own decisions, don't force me to.

__________________
What I wrote was what I meant.
Any other interpretation or conclusion you come to is probably wrong.

Like it or not there is a perception they are one and the same perpetrated by the talking heads of the Republican party, and the tea party unrelenting attacks on the Democrats. Maybe if the Republican leaders were to distance themselves a bit more from the teabaggers instead of trying to get their vote by sucking up to them the distinction would be more evident.

I believed that rumor too, but am now the beneficiary of the system. Your views will no doubt change in ten or twelve years and you see how much your paying into that system has worked toward your benefit.
Can't help but point out that if SS had been privatized prior to 2008 or 09, a lots a folks would be whistling Dixie for their supper right now.

__________________
Sanity. Try it; doesn't sell a lot of soap, but it's a lot safer than the alternative.
-me
The Federalist Papers Online


Old School Dance

This is exactly right.

Just as Ron Paul has some very good ideas, and some other ideas that I would consider fringe (at best), so it is with many libertarians.

I believe Social Security should be saved--it is currently headed for the precipice; and not too far down the road, at that--not abolished.

But one ought not try to tar all Republicans--or Tea Party activists, for that matter--as believers in extremist ideas, that most Americans simply do not embrace.

No...

I would've thought "I should've been given the chance to do what "I" want with MY money and done a LOT better than the 2% SS gets...

False statement on multiple levels about Bush's attempt to privatize a PART of Soc. Sec...

1) You could take no more than 8% out...And that 8% would've returned higher than anything soc. sec. gets...

2) It was PURELY OPTIONAL (unlike a certain healthcare mandate)...

3) It didn't effect anyone 55 or older at the time (2005)...That means that, even now, the people you speak of would NOT have been eligible for the optional plan yet...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

What do you mean "you could take no more than 8%..."
Explain, please. You mean the money deducted from my paycheck is "X" and I could take 8% of X and do something different with it than put in SS trust fund?
or what?

__________________
Sanity. Try it; doesn't sell a lot of soap, but it's a lot safer than the alternative.
-me
The Federalist Papers Online


Old School Dance

This observation appears to be based upon three false assumptions:

(1) That the partial privatization proposed by then-President Bush would have involved all Social Security receipts, for those who chose to participate in the plan.

(2) That risky equities--many of which have tanked since August 2008--would have been among the options offered.

(3) That "a lot of folks" who are now of full retirement age would have been adversely impacted.

Here is a bit from Wikipedia on the subject:

"President George W. Bush discussed the 'partial privatization' of Social Security since the beginning of his presidency in 2001. But only after winning re-election in 2004 did he begin to invest his 'political capital' in pursuing changes in earnest.

"In May 2001, he announced establishment of a 16-member bipartisan commission 'to study and report specific recommendations to preserve Social Security for seniors while building wealth for younger Americans', with the specific directive that it consider only how to incorporate 'individually controlled, voluntary personal retirement accounts'.[61] The majority of members serving on Bill Clinton's similar Social Security commission in 1996 had recommended through their own report that partial privatization be implemented.[2] Bush's Commission to Strengthen Social Security (CSSS) issued a report in December 2001 (revised in March 2002), which proposed three alternative plans for partial privatization:

"Plan I: Up to two percent of taxable wages could be diverted from FICA and voluntarily placed by workers into private accounts for investment in stocks, bonds, and/or mutual funds. [bold in original]

"Plan II: Up to four percent of taxable wages, up to a maximum of $1000, could be diverted from FICA and voluntarily placed by workers into private accounts for investment. [bold in original]

"Plan III: One percent of wages on top of FICA, and 2.5% diverted from FICA up to a maximum of $1000, could be voluntarily placed by workers into private accounts for investment.[62] [bold in original]

"On February 2, 2005, Bush made Social Security a prominent theme of his State of the Union Address. In this speech, which sparked the debate, it was Plan II of CSSS's report that Bush outlined as the starting point for changes in Social Security. He outlined, in general terms, a proposal based on partial privatization. After a phase-in period, workers currently less than 55 years old would have the option to set aside four percentage points of their payroll taxes in individual accounts that could be invested in the private sector, in 'a conservative mix of bonds and stock funds'." (bold added)

In other words, if the Bush proposal had been implemented, those under age 55 would have retained the option to invest "[u]p to four percent of taxable wages, up to a maximum of $1000," in "a conservative mix of bonds and stock funds."

Nothing especially scary about that, so far as I can see...