House Republican Budget To Call For Social Security Privatization?

11:06 am EST February 4th, 2010 | Republicans | 12 Comments

You would think that they couldn’t possibly be this stupid, but then you remember 2000-2008 and you think “yes, they could”.

Topic:

Related Posts

«
»

12 Responses to “House Republican Budget To Call For Social Security Privatization?”

  1. Marco says:
    February 4, 2010 at 11:32 am

    I can’t wait till they finally finish their magic budget and yes, Oliver. Clearly they can be that stupid.

  2. SaveFarris says:
    February 4, 2010 at 11:35 am

    Time to play Guess who said this:

    The financial condition of the Social Security and Medicare programs remains challenging. Projected long run program costs are not sustainable under current program parameters.

    The drawdown of Social Security and HI Trust Fund reserves and the general revenue transfers into SMI will result in mounting pressure on the Federal budget. In fact, pressure is already evident. For the third consecutive year, a “Medicare funding warning” is being triggered, signaling that non-dedicated sources of revenues—primarily general revenues—will soon account for more than 45 percent of Medicare’s outlays. A Presidential proposal will be needed in response to the latest warning.

    The financial challenges facing Social Security and especially Medicare need to be addressed soon. If action is taken sooner rather than later, more options will be available, with more time to phase in changes and for those affected to plan for changes.

  3. Quaker in a Basement says:
    February 4, 2010 at 12:07 pm

    And now it’s time to play: “Who Can Tell the Difference Between Entirely Separate Federal Government Programs?”

    No, you can sit down Farris.

  4. Oliver Willis says:
    February 4, 2010 at 12:28 pm

    Which means we should put social security in Enron and Lehmann Brothers!

  5. jr says:
    February 4, 2010 at 1:16 pm

    Tim Kaine’s hard at rest making sure our party doesn’t capitalize on this

  6. Sean D. Martin says:
    February 4, 2010 at 1:31 pm

    So they acknowledge a problem, as responsible adults tend to do. That doesn’t mean the solution is to gamble the money away on the next market bubble.

  7. fry1laurie says:
    February 4, 2010 at 2:48 pm

    David Broder has a column in Thursday’s Washington Post about the supposed need for entitlement reform. Cuts in SS and Medicare are the only solution, he tells ya!

  8. SaveFarris says:
    February 4, 2010 at 4:01 pm

    Every plan I’ve seen is for *YOU* to put your own money in an investment vehicle, whether that be Paul Krugman’s favorite stock (Enron), or Glenn Beck’s (gold!). If you think the stock market is too risky, you’re more than welcome to use your Private Savings account to buy Government bonds. It’d STILL return more than your current “investment” in Social Security.

  9. Zython says:
    February 4, 2010 at 6:20 pm

    If we listened to these people in 2006, Social Security would be bankrupt. OTOH, that’s probably what they want.

  10. Quaker in a Basement says:
    February 4, 2010 at 6:33 pm

    whether that be Paul Krugman’s favorite stock (Enron), or Glenn Beck’s (gold!)

    Did Krugman recommend Enron stock, Farris? I missed that. Kindly point the way to a reliable source on that, won’t you?

    Meanwhile, I happily remind you that Mr. Beck accepts U.S. Treasury Notes to express his confidence in gold investments.

  11. rip says:
    February 5, 2010 at 12:24 am

    What these clowns keep forgetting is that Social Security is a retirement income insurance plan, not a retirement savings plan.

    Besides if congress isn’t able to borrow from Social Security to paper over how large the deficits really are, and there is no will to increase revenues through taxation, or to cut defense spending, then there is absolutely no way the budget will ever come close to being balanced. To be fair both parties like to pretend that minor tinkering like eliminating earmarks (good luck with that), which account for about 1% of the budget will somehow restore fiscal sanity, but only the Republicans continue to believe that magical tax cuts will do the trick.

    I’d have a little more respect for Republican talk of fiscal responsibility if they ever bothered to practice it when in power. For the most part, privitization schemes are not actually designed to reduce government responsibility as much as they are to find a way for the taxpayers to subsidize selected elements of the private sector.

  12. Dave in SoCal says:
    February 5, 2010 at 11:03 am

    You would think that they couldn’t possibly be this stupid, but then you remember 1994 and you think “yes, they could”.