NewsMax.com: Top House Democrat Charlie Rangel said this week that President Bush had committed an "impeachable offense" by trying to destroy the Social Security retirement system, calling Bush's reform plan "a fraud."
Charlie Rangel tried to bring race into the issue too:
For black Americans, the congressman added, the struggle against the proposed changes was "not only a civil-rights fight, but a fight for America."
Rangel went on to explain to why it was so bad...
Wait! He didn't! All he could say basically is, "Bush sucks," and "Blacks don't know what to do with their money."
Think about it: All Bush's plan is is to allow people to put money into a private account, where Congress can't touch it and where they may get a bigger return rate. Rangel should either admit that he is socialist or racist, considering he basicly called privatization an attack on African-Americans.
Can someone please inform me why we can't be allowed to control our own retirement money? See that cartoon below, I think it tells a lot.
Article comments
1 - Marc
Rangle is an embarrassment to the State of Michigan and his race, human, or otherwise.
2 - El Bicho
Why does Michigan care about a representative from New York?
3 - RJ
Were you thinking of Dingle, Marc?
4 - RJ
Or Conyers?
5 - Big Time Patriot
"All Bush's plan is is to allow people to put money into a private account, where Congress can't touch it"
Well Congress may not be able to touch it but Wall Street will sure be getting its hands all over your money. When the former head of the non-profit NYSE is sure he deserves 100 million dollars, you can be sure these people are all about maximizing returns for the little guy.
When was the LAST social security scandal where people lost savings? How soon after "privatization" before you see the NEXT social security scandal where people lose savings?
There is nothing wrong with privatizing Social Security, as long as you could care less about the "Security" part of it.
6 - Scott
"and where they may get a bigger return rate"
"May" being the operative term here. They also "may" not but would still sustain a cut in guaranteed benefits.
Not to mention that Bush's plan does not address the long-term "solvency" issues.
7 - Temple Stark
The title of the post suggests there is a plan. It keeps changing, as does the rationale and the good it will do
8 - Dave Nalle
There's a plan? Point me to it. So far all I've seen are trial balloons, and most of them are sucky half-measures worth less than the spit I cover them with.
Dave
9 - Vidar Hokstad
Since when did it become racist to point out that blacks make out a disproportionally large part of America's poor, and will be more affected by a "plan" which is designed to erase any semblance of protection for the poor?
"Social security" would seem to imply there is some level of security provided. If people are left to fend for themselves, as opposed to seeing resources pooled to ensure everyone gets a decent chance (yes, socialism) there's no security there.
If so, the entire rationale for having ANY "social security" system crumbles - if you can only get out the equivalent of what you put in, then it's no more than a glorified savings account and becomes instantly pointless.
Either you agree with the goal of sufficient redistribution to at least provide some protection for less well of peple, in which case Bush poor excuse for a plan is exactly what you don't want, or you don't, in which case it would be more honest to just come straight out and say you want to shut down the whole thing.
10 - Marc
Indeed: it was Conyers and he is also an baffoon. Sorry, a result of reading too many blogs and entries.
11 - Dave Nalle
>>If so, the entire rationale for having ANY "social security" system crumbles - if you can only get out the equivalent of what you put in, then it's no more than a glorified savings account and becomes instantly pointless.<<
Ah, progress. So since that's what we have now - and soon you'll actually get back less than you put in - so I assume you want to change to a more efficient and productive system?
Dave
12 - Scott
"soon you'll actually get back less than you put in"
"Soon" meaning 2042?
"so I assume you want to change to a more efficient and productive system?"
It's the government. There's no way it can be efficient. On the contrary, adding private accounts would no doubt only complicate things further.
13 - Jon Sobel
Jeff Michael wrote: "Rangel... basicly called privatization an attack on African-Americans... Can someone please inform me why we can't be allowed to control our own retirement money?"
Um - maybe because we can't spell "basically"?
14 - Jeff Beamer
Wow, I didn't spell check. Congratulations, Sobel. You found a spelling error instead of focusing on the issues.
I'm terribly sorry I made that spelling mistake. I will see to that it doesn't happen again. You caught me.
15 - Dave Nalle
>>"soon you'll actually get back less than you put in"
"Soon" meaning 2042? <<
I plan to still be alive then, and I bet you're considerably younger than I am so you really ought to be thinking about it.
>>"so I assume you want to change to a more efficient and productive system?"
It's the government. There's no way it can be efficient. On the contrary, adding private accounts would no doubt only complicate things further.<<
Wow, I find my current private investment account simple as hell to manage. It requires less paperwork than anything I've ever had to do with the government.
Dave
16 - Scott
I'm all for "fixing" Social Security for the long term but nothing I've seen or heard of Bush's plan does that. That might be why some Republican Senators are now trying to take a bi-partisan approach to actually fixing the "solvency" of the system even if it means no privatization.
As far as the private accounts...it's the government. They love beauracracy, red tape and paperwork. And as I understand the how the private account system would work right now...you would still pay the government that portion of the money to be privatized, they would then essentially loan it back to you (at a cut in guaranteed benefits) and you would have 3 or 4 mutual funds to choose from to divert the money into. Doesn't sound so simple, eh?
17 - Dave Nalle
But it doesn't HAVE to be complex, Scott. It's just that the process of compromise and bureaucratization will likely make it that way. This is why I favor offering only an extreme plan and accepting no bipartisan compromises. It need to be a total conversion or nothing.
The current system can be fixed pretty easily with a few tweaks. It can be stabilized and continue to suck for a hundred years or more. We'll all have to pay more, benefits will be cut, but the basic functionality of the system can be preserved.
Of course the current system is stupid, unfair and inefficient, but I guess it makes people know that they're guaranteed at least a slightly sub-poverty level income when they retire. Whoohoo!
Dave
18 - WTF
Can anybody say... redistribution of wealth?
Was it the e-vile plan from the genesis of Social Security? I doubt it, but just as the culture (surrounding the inception of the Social Security movement) has matured, the vestiges of past stopgap measures have not. Now we're saddled with a non-dynamic statute, which appears not to allow for additional wealth or growth in fertile soil.
Personally, I would rather manage my own accounts. Or, as some municipalities or organizations (the railroad workers union) have done, created thier own form of protection, without bothersome, greedy government intervention.
Can't I have some of that? NO! Why not? Because.... just because. It doesn't pass the stench test, it just smells bad. Let loose of my money, let me group together with vehicles that are perfectly capable of accomplishing the same security, without all the baggage government has brought to social security over the years... it's kind of refreshing that somebody in government recognizes this... it's frieghting that those who hold the purse strings are unwilling to give up the cash cow.
19 - Wolfman
Don't forget, this is going to be voluntary. Personally, I would rather invest in the market (which has a long history of making money) on average 8% versus 2-3% for the current system.
20 - Big Time Patriot
"Can anybody say... redistribution of wealth?"
Hmmm, tough one, if this was really the point of social security their would be no cap on the maximum amount of income that is taxed into social security.
On the other hand, duh...
I have a phrase I use for free enterprise, I call it "redistribution of wealth". I also have a phrase I use for communism, I call it "redistribution of wealth". I have a phrase I use for tithing to a church, I call it "redistribution of wealth". Of course there is going to be redistribution of wealth, it doesn't ALWAYS have to be as part of some fake-darwinian "survival of the financial fittest" method, sometimes redistribution of wealth can be used for agreed on social goods such as keeping old people from living on the streets. It's not a bad thing, really.
p.s. I call the purely "survival of the fittist" idea that anyone who can accumulate money deserves to keep every bit of it, "fake-darwinian" since evolution gives many examples of cooperative and ungreedy species thriving, such as ants and bees, herds of horses, mankind, etc... Being completely greedy does not necessarily lead to some ideal world, the people who cut the last trees down on Easter Island were motivated by the same greed as any CEO in America, but afterwards they were stuck in the middle of the ocean with no way to make a decent canoe. Greed is NOT a virtue, even in economics. Redistribution of wealth is not a bad thing, but the details of how it is redistributed can be argued.