Rob Portman's magical plan

GOP Senate candidate Rob Portman explains his social security plan in a recent debate:

"During the debate and in the “spin room” with reporters afterward, Portman insisted he has pledged not to cut benefits for retirees. Instead, he said he supports allowing young people to take a small portion of their Social Security taxes to set up personal accounts to invest as they see fit. But he insisted if they lost money, the government would step in to make them whole again."

Wow, that's awesome. Investors can make riskier and riskier investments, knowing they can't lose. Rob Portman's government would just step in and "make them whole". It's a guarantee that investors would not lose money. Bailouts for everyone! Brilliant!

http://www.clevelandjewishnews.com/articles/2010/10/21/news/local/doc4cc...

No votes yet

Privitized profits with socialized risk. Who's a socialist now swamprats?

http://www.fdic.gov/

"An independent agency of the federal government, the FDIC was created in 1933 in response to the thousands of bank failures that occurred in the 1920s and early 1930s. Since the start of FDIC insurance on January 1, 1934, no depositor has lost a single cent of insured funds as a result of a failure."

On June 16, 1933, President Franklin Roosevelt signed the Banking Act of 1933, a part of which established the FDIC.

On June 16, 1933, President Franklin
Roosevelt signed the Banking Act of 1933, a part of which established
the FDIC.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

Your admission that socialism is a critical component of our free market system, and Mr. Portman’s acknowledgement of its importance, is noted.

I did not admit "that socialism is a critical component of our free market system"

I simply pointed out that the program Mr. Portman is referring to was created by Democraps like yourself. Therefore it must be a good idea right?

After all, you socialist Libs love Social Security even though everyone else knows Social Security would be illegal if an individual did it and it is going bankrupt.

Aren't you tired of being part of the political party that gives away your money?

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

Yes

That's why I'm not a Republican anymore.

There's a city full of walls you can post complaints at

Your opinion doesn't matter. Now pony up and pay for my healthcare so I can keep eating steaks with my Food Stamps you pay for, and live in my subsidized house that you pay for.

Why aren't you out working harder and paying more taxes so you can buy me a flat screen TV?

Keep your opinion to yourself and give me your money so I can buy cigarettes and then bitch about how you frikin rich people have it so great.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

FDIC doesn't protect against investments.

Pink Slip

Apparently, once you are brainwashed by the DNC, you only think "investments" are done on Wall Street. What simpletons you Libtards are. IRA accounts, savings accounts, retirement trust funds ARE ALL INVESTMENTS moron.

"Individual accounts are accounts owned by one person and titled only in that person's name. This type of account is provided with $250,000 in coverage.

In addition, to these individual accounts, a person can get an additional $250,000 in coverage for a joint account titled with another person.

Also, a person can have an additional $250,000 in coverage for retirement accounts. This would be in addition to any coverage in place on an individually or jointly titled account.

Finally, there are trust accounts, which are the focus of this reader's questions. Trust accounts are unique in that a trust account is insured up to $250,000 per trust beneficiary. The beneficiaries must be a person, a charity or another non-profit agency but each beneficiary is separately insured. So, if your revocable trust has three separate beneficiaries, each beneficiary would be covered for $250,000.

Remember that individual banks may have limits as to how much coverage is available for trusts. That limit is generally $1,250,000 so be sure to check with your particular bank. You might find that you have full coverage for only up to 5 beneficiaries."

http://www.boston.com/business/personalfinance/managingyourmoney/archive...

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

"Facts About Bank Investments...

...that are not deposits and are not insured by the FDIC

As a valued customer we want you to have a choice of investment and savings options.

In addition to traditional deposit accounts, such as checking, savings, and certificates of deposit, we offer an array of nondeposit investment choices.

Unlike traditional deposit products, nondeposit investment products are not insured. Examples of uninsured investment products include:

* annuities
* mutual funds
* stocks
* bonds
* government securities
* municipal securities
* U.S. Treasury securities

When you meet or talk with a sales representative about nondeposit investment products, you should be informed that:

* This product is not insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
* This product is not a deposit, or other obligation of, or guaranteed by, the bank.
* This product is subject to investment risks, including possible loss of principal amount invested."

http://www.fdic.gov/deposit/investments/facts/index.html

Pink Slip

Pink, the FDIC angle of yours doesn't matter. The federal government is under the thumb of the financiers. So it's been looking to get all possible monetary paths routed into Wall Street. They've been looking for a way to get Americans to accept undermining Social Security just to pipeline more of our cash into the casino that is the modern stock market. That's literally the only goal, regardless of what anyone admits.

So Wall Street financiers are nearly orgasming in their chairs at the thought of hundreds of billions being funneled into their paws, without any particular controls or oversight, and in addition there will be negative oversight, since the "owners" of the funds will have their losses covered (bizarrely, by themselves as taxpayers).

Hundreds of billions of free money, generating tens of billions in fees. Blatant robbers never had it so good as the modern financier has it.

The only possible, sane reform of Social Security or other retirement accounts, is to let us have our money back. But of course, SS is not actually a retirement program. It's a welfare program. We won't be able to even discuss the topic logically until we accept that part of it all.

I didn't present an FDIC angle--only correcting LCBM's mistake. Otherwise I agree with much of what you said--until the end of course.

Pink Slip

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.