How Hillary will privatize Social Security

Both Trump and Hillary want to privatize Medicare and Social Security. I’ll cite Trump at the bottom.

I could be totally wrong about this, but…

The U.S. government collects almost $1.2 trillion a year in FICA taxes.

Wall Street wants to get its hands on that $1.2 trillion a year.

If Wall Street can get Social Security privatized, then Wall Street need not lift a finger, or spend a penny to get that $1.2 trillion a year. The U.S. government will collect it, and will send it to Wall Street.

I mean, that what privatization entails, yes? Or no?

Once privatized, Social Security will be strictly run on a profit motive, meaning that benefits will be slashed, FICA taxes will be increased, and the retirement age will be raised so high that most Americans will die before Wall Street has to pay out any benefits to them.

Welcome to the magical “free market.”

Who exactly will get that $1.2 trillion a year? An example is BlackRock, a global investment management corporation based in New York City. BlackRock is by far the world’s largest asset manager, with over $4.6 trillion in assets under management.

BlackRock’s Chairman and CEO, Laurence Fink, has always been public about his dream of privatizing Social Security and grabbing that $1.2 trillion a year. Fink thinks it’s outrageous that Americans can retire and collect Social Security at age 65.

One thing I’m astounded about—that people still talk like it’s natural to consider retirement at 62 or 65 today. And yet, you know, in the last 20 years, longevity has increased by 10-plus years.

Therefore, in Fink-world, people should be forced to work until they are at least 75.

Fink only wants to “help” you. He says the USA should have a mandatory retirement savings system. Fortunately the system is already in place: Social Security. All we need to do is privatize it (i.e. give it to Fink).

Fink will easily get away with this, because everyone already agrees with the lie that Social Security is “insolvent.” It isn’t, of course, but it will become insolvent when Fink gets control. He will see to it.

Fink started BlackRock in 1988 with a five million-dollar loan from Pete Peterson’s Blackstone Group.

Peterson himself, the former commerce secretary, has been at the forefront of the campaign to privatize Social Security and get his hands on that $1.2 trillion a year.

Fink also sat on the steering committee of the “Campaign to Fix the Debt,” which uses the fake “national debt crisis” as an excuse for why we must privatize Social Security.

When we say that “Wall Street is behind Hillary Clinton,” we mean people like Larry Fink, who is very tight with Hillary. Fink openly admits that he wants to be Hillary’s Treasury Secretary.

In fact, Fink has dreamed of being Treasury Secretary since at least 2007, when he was one of Obama’s earliest Wall Street supporters. When Tim Geithner announced that he would step down as Treasury Secretary in 2011, Fink quietly lobbied White House officials and Washington insiders to take Geithner’s place. Fink even offered Geithner a position on the Black Rock board, if Geithner would recommend Fink to Obama as Treasury Secretary. However Obama gave the job to his chief of Staff, Jack Lew.

Fink then pulled several members of prior Treasury Departments into high-level positions at BlackRock, in order to improve Fink’s future chances.

When Hillary takes the White House, and she appoints Fink as her Treasury Secretary, Fink will at long last realize his dream of privatizing Social Security.

Hillary will say that Fink is “uniquely qualified” to be given that $1.2 trillion per year, because Fink comes from an asset management background, rather than an investment banking background.

Here’s The Intercept…

Asset management firms invest pools of money into securities on behalf of their clients, which in BlackRock’s case include 94 of the Fortune 100 corporations. They don’t issue securities themselves; they just buy securities.

Asset managers don’t package and sell dodgy financial products like investment banks do. They don’t trade with borrowed money like hedge funds. They are typically viewed as more restrained and less averse to regulation than their colleagues in those related industries.

Hilary will mention all these things when she designates Larry Fink as her Treasury Secretary.

Asset management firms are embedded in the broader financial system as voracious buyers of securities. For example, BlackRock holds major share amounts in nearly every mega-bank, takes funds from scores of Wall Street investors, and manages most of the federal government’s bailout programs. BlackRock may not create the risk, but they own a lot of it. Fink, who co-created the mortgage-backed security while a trader at First Boston in the 1980s, is a longtime respected figure on Wall Street; Geithner reportedly used him as a conduit between Treasury and the financial industry.

In October 2013 Fink got himself into the Clinton inner circle by hiring Cheryl Mills to be on the board of Black Rock. Cheryl Mills is Hillary’s most trusted confidante, and she sits on the board of the Clinton Foundation.

Note also that since 1990, more than 61% of all political contributions from BlackRock executives have gone to Democratic candidates, especially the Clintons.

Fink is already one of Wall Street’s most powerful players. As Treasury Secretary, his power will quadruple.

“When a company gets as big as BlackRock, it becomes difficult for it to continue to grow, so the timing is perfect for Fink to move into a government position,” said Dick Bove, financial analyst at Rafferty Capital Markets.

And the best way for BlackRock to keep growing is for Fink to get his hands on that an extra $1.2 trillion-per-year.

Fink and Hillary both oppose any efforts to reinstitute the Glass-Steagall firewall between investment and commercial banks.

Fink’s views on Wall Street are so similar to Clinton’s that it’s hard to see that as a coincidence. Most notably, Clinton’s financial reform plan says nothing about regulating asset management firms like BlackRock. ~ The Intercept

Whenever Hillary talks about her plans for Wall Street, she is reading from a script given to her by Larry Fink of Wall Street.

Hillary has pledged not to cut Social Security benefits, and indeed she will not. Instead, Hillary will privatize Social Security. She will call this a “defense” of Social Security and an “expansion” of it.

The sheep will buy this lie, because the sheep already buy the lie that “the U.S. government can’t spend money it doesn’t have.” From this it is a small step to the privatization of Social Security.

Let me repeat that. Some people think it will be a “big step” to privatize Medicare and Social Security. However the masses have already been conditioned to fully accept privatization, since the masses believe the lie that the U.S. government “can’t spend money it doesn’t have.”

Hillary herself echoes the Big Lie by saying on her own web site that she would “preserve Social Security for decades to come by asking the wealthiest to contribute more.” That is, she pretends that FICA taxes pay for Social Security. Everybody echoes this same lie, from Hillary to Bernie Sanders to Elizabeth Warren.

Bill Clinton himself tried to privatize Social Security, but the Monica Lewinsky affair got in the way of that.

Now Hillary will succeed where Bill failed.

Do you think I’m wrong? Do you think I exaggerate? Do you think I’m an idiot?

I hope you are correct. Here is one way I could be wrong…for FY 2016 the U.S. government will create about $800 billion for Social Security. If the system is privatized, will those benefits cease? Will benefits go to Wall Street for disbursal?

I don’t know, but I hope I am totally in error about all this. It seems to me that with privatization, FICA taxes really would “pay for Social Security,” although you’ll be lucky to get any benefits.

The USA is the only fully industrialized nation without some form of universal health care (or “single payer”). However the USA does have Medicare and Social Security.  This is an outrage to the 1% and their minions.

Fortunately the 1% will have Hillary to correct this outrage.

Trump is no better…

The solution to the Great Social Security crisis couldn’t be more obvious: Allow every American to dedicate some portion of their payroll taxes to a personal Social Security account that they could own and invest in stocks and bonds. Federal guidelines would make sure that your money is diversified, that it is invested in sound mutual funds or bond funds, and not in emu ranches. The national savings rate would soar and billions of dollars would be cycled from savings, to productive assets, to retirement money. And unlike the previous system, the assets in this retirement account could be left to one’s heirs, used to start a business, or anything else one desires.

Privatization would be good for all of us. Directing Social Security funds into personal accounts invested in real assets would swell national savings, pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into jobs and the economy. These investments would boost national investment, productivity, wages, and future economic growth.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.198-199 & 203

A bog titled “Investment News” says, “The Next president should tackle retirement program reform.” That is, privatize Medicare and Social Security.

The article is written by one Mary Beth Franklin, who calls herself a certified financial planner. Here’s an example of her lies and her filth…

Social Security is expected to be able to pay full benefits through 2033. After that, the federal government could only pay about 75% of promised benefits to retirees, their dependents and survivors — unless Congress acts before then.

The Motley Fool blog is also calling for Social Security reform privatization.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “How Hillary will privatize Social Security

  1. “Do you think I’m wrong? Do you think I exaggerate? Do you think I’m an idiot?”

    First I noticed in another post you commented on an article by Justin Raimondo -a Libertarian/Austrian, which is good that your open to other opinions although you probably do not agree with the economics.

    In any case to answer your question, I don’t think you are totally wrong..your overall critique is right or mostly right but s you are wrong in your definitions and in having a solid understanding of the nature of what you are talking about.

    What you are describing you may be called “privatization” or “free markets” but it is not and that you do not recognize that is troubling and disappointing especially since you have done this in a number of posts. What you are describing is part of what you and Rodger have been railing against regarding the “gap” and the 1%…what you are describing is crony capitalism or classic fascism at it best not “free markets”, I only wish we actually had free markets.

    What at least Rodger often misses is that the 1% also includes the government and politicians, they are not just the pawns of the 1% but are active participants, it is a two way street and these proposals are great examples of that.

    Unfortunately with MS, any analysis of a problem does not get much deeper than the “government can print as much money as it wants”, so all we have to do is print money and boom we can solve the problems.

    Unfortunately the problems are often more complicated than that and often the “print money” solution involves unintended consequences that are never even thought of by MS folks and to a lesser extent MMT people. The deepest analysis I ever read was with jobs guarantee program. This is also why I mentioned Justin Raimondo above.

    Also this is why I have often said that MS is accounting dressed up as an economic theory. That it uses accounting to describe how the government works (which is mostly correct) and then fills in the gaps with progressive/Keynesian economics and it shows in posts like this or others that you have recently done.

    So I have not read your whole post but I have heard about these “privatization” schemes some of which involve having people put social security into treasury bonds or even 401K into treasury bonds.

    You are correct these are all schemes to enrich politicians and wall street and keep the “game going” but this is hardly “free market” solutions. As far as calling this “privatization” well maybe you can get away with that but using that term seems like it is just way to discredit the free market.

    So it would be interesting to know how you define free market and then use that definition to see if your criticism holds up??

    To start with ask yourself this, if this privatization is a “free market” solution, does it involve free choice, can people decide not to participate or will the government force them to?? What about competition and what about choice not just in terms of what approved broker you can use but can you do it yourself, or will it just be “approved” brokers one has to go through. Also what about the types of investments will one be able to put their money into ie..will they be forced to buy government bonds or any type of bonds? Will they be able to buy certain types of mutual funds or can they buy individual stocks?? What about restrictions will they have access to their money when they want or will they only be able to access their money for “approved” reasons?

    These are just some questions to ask and how you answer them helps to determine if we are talking about a free market approach or something else.

    So you are right to point this out as a fraud but calling it “free market” undermines your critique and only pulls the cover on these schemes back half way!!

    Like

    1. Thank you for visiting and commenting. Even though you admit you didn’t even read the post, I shall respond…

      I only wish we actually had free markets.

      I do too.

      What at least Rodger often misses is that the 1% also includes the government and politicians, they are not just the pawns of the 1% but are active participants, it is a two way street and these proposals are great examples of that.

      He and I have said that all along.

      Unfortunately with MS, any analysis of a problem does not get much deeper than the “government can print as much money as it wants”, so all we have to do is print money and boom we can solve the problems.

      The lie that the U.S. government is “broke” is a huge reason why we have inequality. If you cannot see this, then so be it.

      Unfortunately the problems are often more complicated than that and often the “print money” solution involves unintended consequences that are never even thought of by MS folks and to a lesser extent MMT people. The deepest analysis I ever read was with jobs guarantee program. This is also why I mentioned Justin Raimondo above.

      Got it. Let’s have more austerity. It’s worked so far to give us prosperity. Right? Regarding the “jobs guarantee,” I gave gone over why it is ridiculous so many times that I shall not do so again.

      Also this is why I have often said that MS is accounting dressed up as an economic theory. That it uses accounting to describe how the government works (which is mostly correct) and then fills in the gaps with progressive/Keynesian economics and it shows in posts like this or others that you have recently done.

      Got it. Lies and bullshit are “theory.” Facts are truth are merely “accounting.”

      You are correct these are all schemes to enrich politicians and wall street and keep the “game going” but this is hardly “free market” solutions. As far as calling this “privatization” well maybe you can get away with that but using that term seems like it is just way to discredit the free market.

      I thought we agreed that there is no such thing as a “free market.”

      So it would be interesting to know how you define free market and then use that definition to see if your criticism holds up??

      A free market is one that is not rigged in any way, and is not captured by monopolies.

      So you are right to point this out as a fraud but calling it “free market” undermines your critique and only pulls the cover on these schemes back half way!!

      When I use the term “free market” I refer to neoliberals, for whom “free market” means freedom to rig and control the market for their benefit at the expense of average people. Thanks again for visiting.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. If done correctly privatization would work but no one wants to do it correctly.
    For those who want to keep SS it should be an option for those that want half and half it should be an option.
    But we should get to choose which company holds our money not the government

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s