Say it ain’t so: Trump and GOP privatizing Social Security?

1. 80

   Credence2posted 28 hours ago

   https://www.cnn.com/2025/07/30/politics … tt-bessent
   
   So, here we are. The Republicans have been trying to tank this program since its inception in the 1930’s.
   
   This is the last straw, touching Social Security is like touching the eye of God with the electorate. I hope that the Republicans play this card as it is the surest way to be rid of them.
   
   Who is going to risk a dependable source of income in old age over having your nest egg on Wall Street’s gambling table, where they break eggs routinely?
   
   This stuff was proposed by Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush in the past and sunk like a lead balloon. It is not going anywhere this time either.
   
   The Republicans, the “Right”and the GOP are basically no good in my opinion to even suggest such a thing.
   
   Waiting for their fatal stumble this time,  I invite them to “bring it on”
   
   Fight fire with fire!!

   replyreport
   1. 84

      Sharlee01posted 26 hours agoin reply to this

      Deleted
      1. 80

         Credence2posted 26 hours agoin reply to this

         The accounts can also be used to help Americans better understand investing and serve as a way to save for retirement, Bessent said. Then he threw out a comment that had Democrats immediately up in arms.
         ——-
         “In a way, it is a backdoor for privatizing Social Security,” he said. “Social Security is a defined benefit plan paid out. To the extent that if, all of a sudden, these accounts grow and you have in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for your retirement, then that’s a game changer, too.”
         ———
         
         Seems like the Trump administration has more problems with loose lips sinking ships. How would his Secy of Treasury make such a statement in the face of Trumps promises, which for me are not worth the paper they are printed upon.
         
         The only fact is that the Treasury Secretary made the statement, of course it is alarming. How can you spin it toward any other meaning?

         replyreport
         1. 84

            Sharlee01posted 25 hours agoin reply to this

            Cred,  This CNN article paints the Trump Accounts initiative as a stealth attempt to privatize Social Security, but that interpretation feels politically charged and speculative. The program, as described, gives children born between 2025 and 2028 a $1,000 tax-deferred investment account to use later for education, housing, or business, none of which interferes with the structure of Social Security itself. While Treasury Secretary Bessent’s “backdoor” comment was poorly worded and understandably raised alarms, he and the administration clarified multiple times that these accounts are meant to supplement, not replace, Social Security. The article also fails to explain where the funding for the accounts will come from, yet implies a threat to Social Security without providing any form of evidence.
            
            It’s entirely reasonable to debate the role of private investing in retirement planning, but assuming nefarious intent behind a wealth-building program for future generations seems more like political theater than honest analysis.
            
            Come on, this article is classic CNN spin.

            replyreport
            1. 80

               Credence2posted 25 hours agoin reply to this

               While Treasury Secretary Bessent’s “backdoor” comment was poorly worded and understandably raised alarms, he and the administration clarified multiple times that these accounts are meant to supplement, not replace, Social Security.
               ————
               I have to hold people responsible for what they say. Of course, people are alarmed, he should have made the clarification between selling out to Wall Street verses a proposed hybrid plan, right then and there.

               replyreport
            2. 59

               Willowarborposted 24 hours agoin reply to this

               Trump and crew are prolific liars though?   With as many lies as this bunch has told, why should anyone believe anything they say? Trump in particular, has proven himself to be a pathological liar.

               replyreport
               1. 84

                  Sharlee01posted 22 hours agoin reply to this

                  Willow, while I understand that people have strong opinions about  Trump, blanket statements like yours, calling him a “pathological liar” and painting his entire team as “prolific liars”, are exactly the kind of hyperbole that weakens genuine political discourse. It’s one thing to criticize specific statements or policies with facts and context, but quite another to rely on broad character attacks that offer no substance. If we’re being fair, many politicians from both sides of the aisle have been caught in contradictions or changing narratives, yet only one side seems to be endlessly demonized. What’s also conveniently ignored is how many of Trump’s so-called “lies” were later proven to be true or at least grounded in fact—something the media rarely circles back to correct. The truth is, many Americans are tired of this kind of one-sided vilification. If we’re going to demand honesty and accountability, then let’s start by applying that standard across the board, not just where it suits a particular political bias.

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     Willowarborposted 21 hours agoin reply to this

                     Are you saying that the LIE he recently told about the BLS statistician will somehow be proven true eventually??

                     replyreport
                     1. 84

                        Sharlee01posted 20 hours agoin reply to this

                        So no, I’m not blindly saying it’ll “somehow be proven true eventually”, but I am saying we shouldn’t be so quick to call something a lie when we’ve seen narratives flip before. Just because you don’t like his framing doesn’t mean the core concern, about transparency and trust in federal data, isn’t valid.
                        
                        But let me turn the question back to you: you’ve been an avid supporter of Biden. Do you believe the many people around him, the ones who knew about his cognitive decline but continued to assure the public he was sharp and fully in control- were telling the truth? Because if not, we’re looking at something far more serious than a comment about BLS numbers. That’s an intentional cover-up with national consequences.
                        
                        We’ve watched lie after lie come from the Biden administration, from Afghanistan to the border, inflation, and more, many of which weren’t just spin, but deeply damaging to the country.
                        
                        So yes, let’s talk about lies, but let’s do it fairly. Because right now, it seems like some are only interested in pointing out Trump’s misstatements while turning a blind eye to a flood of dishonesty from the current administration, and that’s a double standard worth calling out.

                        replyreport
                        1. 59

                           Willowarborposted 19 hours agoin reply to this

                           You aren't addressing his lie, his blatant lie about this woman though?

                           replyreport
                           1. 84

                              Sharlee01posted 19 hours agoin reply to this

                              "You aren't addressing his lie, his blatant lie about this woman though?"   Willow
                              
                              I addressed it. Here is the comment, which is followed by my reply.
                                 
                              "Willowarbor wrote:
                              Are you saying that the LIE he recently told about the BLS statistician will somehow be proven true eventually??" willow
                              
                              "So no, I’m not blindly saying it’ll “somehow be proven true eventually”, but I am saying we shouldn’t be so quick to call something a lie when we’ve seen narratives flip before. Just because you don’t like his framing doesn’t mean the core concern, about transparency and trust in federal data, isn’t valid."   Shar
                              
                              It was just not what you wanted to hear.
                              
                              You often steer the conversation away, almost like you’re fixated on Trump, yet you still haven’t addressed a single question about the man you’ve so passionately defended. Just to be fair, you should realize that diversion works both ways. Many of us raised concerns early on about Biden’s cognitive decline, and in the end, we were proven right.
                              
                              That’s the context behind my perspective. So again, no, I’m not blindly assuming that “it’ll all be proven true eventually,” but I am saying we should be cautious before labeling something a lie, because we’ve seen the narrative flip before.

                              replyreport
                              1. 59

                                 Willowarborposted 8 hours agoin reply to this

                                 This is a LIE .  This is just one of his more recent LIES.  The man LIES constantly....he is a pathological LIAR
                                 There is no "context" behind this blatant LIE.
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 

                                 replyreport
   2. 84

      GA Andersonposted 26 hours agoin reply to this

      Touching Social Security—the 'third rail' of politics, can you address the issue without politics or ideology? Without Chatbots or full-article pastes or supporting link wars? Just your own words and thoughts?
      
      That wasn't intended as a barb, but as the intent of this response.
      
      Reality says these statements are true:
      
      SS originally was and still is structured as a Ponzi scheme.
      
      Our population and workforce demographics are upside-down: Now there are more benefit recipients than benefit contributors. Our birthrate has fallen below the replacement rate, so that upside-down situation will get worse, not better.
      
      The point is that 'government' spent (and spends) SS money as it came in; there is no Social Security insurance fund that grows with interest. SS is going broke now, and will get worse faster in the coming years.
      
      Unless you think any of that is wrong, it seems undeniable that something must be done. Somebody has to touch it. And tax increases won't even work as a band-aid because they will have to go up in tandem with the SS demographics. How long before we run out of OPM?
      
      To the privatization thought, the Galveston 'experiment' offers a lot to consider.  Remember, this is about concepts, not secondary details (the hows and whos).
      
      A hybrid system (there are several valid national examples, along with Galveston) looks like a workable solution.
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Willowarborposted 26 hours agoin reply to this

         What do you think?  Bessent portrays   Trump accounts" for newborns as a "backdoor for privatizing Social Security".
         https://x.com/cardon_brian/status/1950621479303061896

         replyreport
         1. 84

            GA Andersonposted 21 hours agoin reply to this

            What do you think about the reply you replied to?
            
            GA

            replyreport
      2. 80

         Credence2posted 25 hours agoin reply to this

         Fix Social Security and its shortfalls without giving people undue alarm about Trumps apparatchiks considering privatization.
         
         My words and thoughts are merely a reflection of what the administration is implying as a radical change to the Social Security which is what privatization is.
         
         When we get beyond 19th century reasoning, yes, Social Security, its contributors and its recipients have changed in the last 90 years. No one at that time anticipated the problems we are having today with the program. To leave people at the mercy of the greedy Wall Street Marketeers is no better than feeding them to the wolves. The old days talk of conservatives about a fundamentally stable financial market is talk of the past. I would not risk my future financial security on the roller coaster ride, I want my money in my pocket, sure, without surprises at the end.
         
         I am not denying that there are structural problems to the current program, but wholesale ditching it in favor of Wall Street is certainly not the answer.
         
         Yet, I will not say no to a hybrid plan to be considered in the future as long as it is not retroactive.

         replyreport
         1. 84

            GA Andersonposted 21 hours agoin reply to this

            It looks like that was a no, you can't.
            
            GA

            replyreport
         2. 84

            Sharlee01posted 19 hours agoin reply to this

            The Trump Account is somewhat like a 401(k) because both are investment accounts where money is put into funds that can grow over time through the stock market. However, there are important differences. A 401(k) is primarily designed for retirement savings, with tax advantages and penalties if you withdraw money early. In contrast, the Trump Account aims to help children build wealth from a young age and can be used for expenses like college tuition or buying a first home. While 401(k)s are typically funded by employees and sometimes matched by employers, Trump Accounts start with a $1,000 government deposit, and parents or others can contribute up to $5,000 per year voluntarily. Also, unlike a 401(k), the Trump Account allows penalty-free withdrawals for approved uses before retirement. So, although both accounts invest money to grow wealth, Trump Accounts serve as a flexible savings and investment tool for younger people with broader uses beyond retirement.
            
            This account has nothing to do with SS. It is a program that was approved in Trump's bill, and the funds were allocated by Congress. The $1,000 deposit for each newborn, part of the newly passed Trump Account program under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, is funded through general federal revenues, not from Social Security. Congress allocated money specifically for this initiative in the legislation, creating a new account under the Treasury Department to administer the program.
            
            Starting in fall 2025, parents of babies born between 2025 and 2028 will be able to open a Trump Account through a secure government website. Each eligible newborn will receive a $1,000 government seed deposit to kickstart their account, which can be invested in approved stock index funds. Parents, family members, or employers can also contribute additional money, up to $5,000 per year, to help the account grow over time. The funds in the account can be used later for things like college expenses or buying a first home, providing a financial boost to young Americans as they grow up.

            replyreport
            1. 80

               Credence2posted 18 hours agoin reply to this

               Starting in fall 2025, parents of babies born between 2025 and 2028 will be able to open a Trump Account through a secure government website. Each eligible newborn will receive a $1,000 government seed deposit to kickstart their account, which can be invested in approved stock index funds. Parents, family members, or employers can also contribute additional money, up to $5,000 per year, to help the account grow over time. The funds in the account can be used later for things like college expenses or buying a first home, providing a financial boost to young Americans as they grow up.
               ————
               Fine, but the principle behind Social Security is to remain. The markets are volatile and I generally don’t trust the financial markets and the private sector with my money over a long period of time. I have known fellow federal employees that had invested in the market which took a downturn just prior to their plan to retire. Fortunately, I came along at a time early enough where my pension plan did not include market risk. Social Security means no market risk such that it protects vulnerable seniors from the gambling casino.

               replyreport