To ‘cut’ the ‘entitlement mentality,’ Rep. Kingston touts privatizing Social Security

[cal04]

To ‘cut’ the ‘entitlement mentality,’ Rep. Kingston touts privatizing Social Security and Medicare.

In the past two weeks, Republican lawmakers have revived the prospect of privatizing Social Security and Medicare, starting with a push from Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), whose budget proposal radically slashes and privatizes the entitlement programs. On Tuesday night, Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) went on Fox Business to lend his voice to the campaign. Kingston said to “cut…programs that are expanding the entitlement mentality,” we should privatize both Social Security and Medicare:

KINGSTON: We need to go in, and we need to cut duplicate programs, programs that are inefficient, programs that are expanding the entitlement mentality. I think we should go back to Social Security, take it off budget, dedicate the funds, put personal accounts on it. On Medicare, I think something like vouchers, where people actually have an incentive to save money.

Watch it: http://thinkprogress.org/2010/02/11/kingston-privatize-entitlements/


If President Bush had been successful privatizing Social Security, a October 2008 retiree would have lost $26,000 in the market plunge. Indeed, as a Center for American Progress report has found, if the U.S. stock market had behaved like the Japanese market during the duration of that retiree’s work life, “a private account would have experienced sharp negative returns, losing $70,000 — an effective — 3.3 percent net annual rate of return.” And a Wonk Room analysis of the recent Medicare privatization plan by Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) found that such an arrangement would shift the cost of insurance from the government to the individual, particularly lower-income beneficiaries. Nevertheless, Republicans, along with their Wall Street allies, are pressing forward to fight again to dismember popular, effective entitlement programs.

[denverbill]

1. Here's the key phrase in this article:

"Nevertheless, Republicans, along with their Wall Street allies, are pressing forward to fight again to dismember popular, effective entitlement programs."

It should not read 'Nevertheless'. It should read 'For that reason'. The entire point of privatizing Medicare is to shift the cost to the middle class and poor and away from the affluent.

[sinkingfeeling]

2. Let's test these GOP theories by starting with Congress people. Let's take away their health

insurance and give them vouchers. Then when Rep. Kingston has his heart attack, he can take a look around at which hospital/doctor will save him the most.

[lib2DaBone]

5. Exactly...they should lead by example....

Suspend all pay for Senate and CONgress and suspend their solid gold health plans until they come up with a solution.

"Corporate welfare bad....Help tax payers...good", Kemosabee...

[alfredo]

14. Public financing of elections. fuck corporate America. They've become enemies

of the state.

[gulfcoastliberal]

11. They also need to lose their defined-benefit pensions & get 401ks instead!

That will help cut the deficit.

[Hannah Bell]

20. +100

[OHdem10]

3. The GOP will save the Democrats. Believing the "wind is at their back"

and they are poised to take over the House and make
serious gains in the Senate, the Republicans are once
again misreading the Public and therefore overreaching.

Because a relatively small group of "Libertarian" types
are loud and noisy, they do not represent the beliefs
of the greater American Electorate.

Each Party has their problems, but the Republican Conservatives
may long for a country in which there is a smaller group of
Super Rich and another group of Rich at the top and huge
masses of poor and working poor and a disappearing Middle
Class. If one listens to their pining for the good ole days
they are referring to times prior to FDR. FDR gave us
a true Middle Class and do not ever forget it. This should
tell you all you need to know. This is exactly what UNREGULATED
UNFETTERED Capitalism gives us. These entitlements are
the result of Demcratic Presidents FDR and LBJ and are
bane to the existence of Republicans.

Emboldened by the fact they think the midterms are theirs
for the taking, the overreach has started.

Will the Democrats on the Hill capitalize on this or
will they hide under their desk and give the elections
to the GOP???

[NoNothing]

4. How is this possible?

You said, "If President Bush had been successful privatizing Social Security, a October 2008 retiree would have lost $26,000 in the market plunge."

But I remember this legislation pretty clearly and it did not change SS structure at all for retiress or near-retiress. So how did you arrive at this figure?

[lib2DaBone]

6. You split hairs Kemosabee..talk with forked tongue...make strawman...

Point is not who loses and how fast... point is... "We lose-'um money... no good"

"You go now... suck corporate ass.."

[NoNothing]

8. If facts are hairs, I suppose

Here's another fact: social security needs reform of some kind if I want it to be around when I retire. Are we going to participate in this process or leave it to the other side?

[Jim Lane]

19. Don't believe the scare talk about "Social Security is bankrupt"

It will be around when you retire.

Does it need reform? Well, projecting budgets decades into the future is a risky business, but by some projections, the program's income begins to fall short of covering its expenses a few decades from now. (Of course, "fall short" doesn't mean "bankrupt" -- even on these pessimistic projections, the Social Security Administration could still pay a large percentage of the statutory benefit.)

There's a case for making some small tweaks. A small tweak in such a huge program can still save a lot of money. There's no crisis, though.

[n2doc]

7. He is playing with fire

Kingston's district contains a large number of wealthy retirees. Folks who will not look favorably on changing SS, even if it only pays their greens fees.

[gulfcoastliberal]

9. The democrats are going along with the repukes 100%:

The Democrats, the Deficit, and Social Security

by Shamus Cooke

It’s official: the Democrats are coming after Social Security and Medicare. How refreshing that all the backroom scheming and political conspiring is finally out in the open. Before, the corporate elite had been having this conversation in private, via right-wing think tanks and business journals. Now, mainstream media is promoting these ideas, including the Democrat’s media mouthpiece — The New York Times.

In a three-page editorial, entitled The Truth about the Deficit, The New York Times gives its solution to the country’s debt problems. The main idea is summed up here:

“To truly tame deficits will require serious health care reform, the sooner the better. Other aspects of the long-term fiscal problem — raising taxes and retooling Social Security — must take place in earnest as the economy recovers.” (February 7, 2010).

Later the article is clearer: “And then there is Social Security. What is needed is a combination of benefit cuts and tax increases that preserve the program’s essential nature.” Of course those surviving on Social Security already live in poverty and cannot afford “benefit cuts.” Also, to make a dent in the deficit, benefit cuts to social security will have to be quite substantial, to the point where the program’s “essential nature” will be destroyed.

CUT

How can politicians destroy these cherished social programs in the face of such popular resistance? By trickery, of course. And this is exactly what Obama has proposed with his “bi-partisan deficit-reduction commission.” This idea puts Democrats and Republicans together to create a plan to destroy social programs. This way both parties share the blame, so that no one is to blame. The New York Times reveals Obama’s hidden motives... (cut for copyright)

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17511

[chasmj]

10. Wall Street knows best!

[mudplanet]

12. Yes, Let's "incentivize" medicare. I can't wait to cut back on my

diabetes and cancer treatments to save money.

[alfredo]

13. He's pissed that Wall Street can't get their hands on all of our money.

[ddeclue]

15. Jump up my ass Jack.. I don't have money invested in the market

because the market is a fraud. Social Security on the other hand makes sense. Leave it alone.

[Arkana]

16. Good luck selling that one, Jacko.

Even members of your own party won't buy it.

[Spirochete]

17. Stupidest piece of shit in the House

And that's saying something. He was the one who said people who weren't getting by should get second jobs and work more hours, then pitched a shit fit when Pelosi said the House would have to work more hours, isn't he?

[dysfunctional press]

18. social security should NOT be considered as part of the national budget...

it's supposed to be a self-sustaining program, SEPARATE from the actual annual budget.

social security is not an 'entitlement' program, it's an insurance program, and the fica deduction from a person's paycheck is the premium.

[Hannah Bell]

21. These fat, lying sacks of shit, bloated on sucking from the public treasury & corporate bribes, have

the nerve to use "entitlement" as if it meant "getting something for nothing", when SS is 100% fully funded by WORKERS, from money taken from THEIR OWN CHECKS.

Not only that, but the lying sacks of shit borrowed $2.5 TRILLION of workers' money to fund the US budget, then gave half of it away in TAX CUTS TO THE TOP WEALTHIEST 5%.

Goddamn right workers are entitled to what they paid for.

I hate these slimy, good-for-nothing leeches.