Ryan's controversial Social Security plan he doesn't discuss ["Destroy Paul" Mission Continues]

CNN ^ | 8/14/12 | Tami Luhby

[SoFloFreeper]

Representative Paul Ryan has long wanted to let Americans invest part of their Social Security taxes in private investment accounts.

After legislation he co-sponsored in 2005 went nowhere, Ryan included a detailed plan to privatize Social Security in his budget proposal in 2010. Under that plan, he would allow workers to funnel an average of roughly 40% of their payroll taxes into personal retirement accounts.

[SoFloFreeper]

Of course Obamugabe has proposed NOTHING to reform the program, only asking a "bipartisan commission" on which Paul served to do the heavy lifting. And then, the pussy Obamugabe just SITS on the suggestions--afraid to take a stand.

This pos article is nothing but an attempt to defame another young conservative...just like they tried to do to Sarah Palin.

[detective]

He proposed something to try to save a program that is insolvent and will be bankrupt in a matter of time.

What is “controversial” about that?

Nobody in the MSM said that bankrupting Social Security was controversial.

[Blue Highway]

Are you surprised about this article? after all it is CNN Money, which anything CNN should be obviously considered “in the tank” for Obamugabe.

[tsowellfan]

And why should he?

[Venturer]

Democrats do not want people to be able to handle their own Social Security money because then they wouldn’t be able to steal it to spend elsewhere.

The Democrats like having the Social Security money to dip in to.

[SC Swamp Fox]

To paraphrase Dan Aykroyd:
"Tami, you ignorant slut! You are confusing President Obama's inability to run this country with your inability to achieve orgasm!"

[tsowellfan]

I think the American people (not the media)decide what the important issues are. It’s time to take back control of our elections.

[ConservativeInPA]

Controversial?

Why aren't failed socialist ideas controversial? Social security is a socialist program, where tax payers pay today for the retired today. It is purely redistribution of wealth. There is no lock-box, and never has been. There is no account with your name and money. Like all socialist ideas, it will fail.

Yes, I must be cold hearted. Both of my parents rely on social security for part of their retirement. I remember my father talking at the dinner table back in the 70’s about how nice it would be to invest the money he was paying into social security. Now, since he is dependent on social security, discussion of any changes to the program are completely taboo.

The real change that is needed is to eliminate social security for everyone under a certain age ... say 50 years old ... And taxpayers continue to pay into social security until the death of the last person receiving social security payments. That day we can have a big party.

[weeweed]

Too risky to privatize social security? This from the same people that demand the FED remains private and unaccountable. It seems hopeless sometimes....

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

”Controversial” plan. In “objective” journalistspeak, “controversial” is a euphemism for “You are going to hate this, but don’t hold me responsible for what I say about it - I am objective. I only tell the truth -

• the part that I find congenial, of course

• except when I lie . . .

[newzjunkey]

Under that plan, he would allow workers to funnel an average of roughly 40% of their payroll taxes into personal retirement accounts.

"Funnel?" Isn't this language usually used to describe illegal activity like embezzlement?

[Dead Corpse]

It’s only “controversial” to Commies who like the idea of Socialist InSecurity...