370
Ted Cruz Admits Trump Accounts Are Designed to Privatize Social Security Over Time | Common Dreams
(www.commondreams.org)
this post was submitted on 08 May 2026
370 points (99.5% liked)
politics
29701 readers
2145 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Just think what Bush's privatization was. They tried to borrow, tens of trillions, to pump into a stock market they knew was on the brink of collapse, and force people to use money managers that get paid regardless of their clients' fortunes.
Gains would only be recognized for 8%, the rest kicked back in the pot, losses would be 100%. It was such a shit system, on top of trying to foist all of this have to invest money into a market to allow the rich to sell off on a high note and leave workers holding the bag, to die in the street with stolen retirement.
What was this called?
Edit: found it in here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_debate_in_the_United_States
No mention of the 8% gains cap though which would really be the infuriating part
I went to a local democratic rally of sorts where they went over the social security reform in detail, what was it, 2008 I think, right before the market was going to crash.
The most infuriating part of it is they were trying to force people to dump their retirement accounts in a failing market to allow stockholders to sell out their shares on a high note, and wipe out a good share of all retirement income, leaving retirees destitute.
They also had to pay a money manager, like a mutual fund kind of deal if memory serves. If it passed which it didn't obviously, it really sank Bush's popularity.
Thanks for that, very interesting.
What is baffling to me is they apparently were pitching it as a way of making social security solvent. If people can divert their SS tax dollars to private accounts, it makes the shortfall even worse. But sometimes that is their objective, I know.
The rich have been obsessed with killing the new deal from the start. Social Security is their prime target, they've been trying to kill it for 5 decades now.
Everything they say is opposite land as with everything else. They borrowed tens of trillions of dollars to subsidize business multiple times, but are trying not to borrow the surplus social security payments they took and spent elsewhere our retirees entire lives.
They borrowed that money, with the promise of paying it back when it was needed, and are now trying to default on America.