Michele Bachmann In 2010: Social Security Is “A Tremendous Fraud”
Michele Bachmann will apparently take the opportunity during tonight’s Republican debate to bash Rick Perry’s comments about Social Security. As it turns out, though, she said pretty much the same thing about a year ago:
During an interview with the Fox Business channel in February 2010, Bachmann, a Republican representative from Minnesota, called Social Security’s structure “a tremendous fraud” and said that anyone who ran a business modeled after the program would be “thrown in jail.”
“It’s a tremendous fraud,” Bachmann told Fox Business host David Asman after he called the program “one of the biggest frauds ever perpetrated on the American public.”
“No company could get away with this, they’d be thrown in jail if they ever tried to do what the federal government did with people’s Social Security money,” Bachmann said. “What we need to do very quickly is take the money that is coming in for Social Security, and truly lock it up so that we aren’t putting it out the door anymore.”
Here’s the video (relevant portion starts at 1:07)
I must say I’m not at all surprised to find out that Bachmann said pretty much the same thing as Perry. Her effort to cast herself as a Social Security moderate strikes me as disingenuous. Tonight’s debate should be fun.
Hypocrit, thy name is Michelle Bachman.
-Polaris
@Neo:
Your point is?
@polaris
Perry is walking his stated ss position back pretty quickly. Also a hypocrit?
@anjin-san: No he’s not. Perry never said that he wanted to abolish SS. Bachman is clearly talking out of both sides of her mouth. There is a difference.
-Polaris
@Polaris:
It’s unconstitutional and it’s a Ponzi scheme, but he loves it like he loves guns and Jesus.
@Rick Almeida: That doesn’t say he’d get rid of it. In his Op Ed today, Gov Perry says he wants to change it into something that’s not (unconstitutional and a Ponzi scheme). The devil is in the details like always, but that’s a far cry from that Romney and Bachman have been claiming…and that means Perry has neatly cut them off at the ankles…just as I predicted he would.
-Polaris
Perry never said that he wanted to abolish SS.
No, he just said it was an unconstitutional fraud and a Ponzi Scheme. But he wants to keep it!
Keep selling that line. It’s real convincing.
In his Op Ed today, Gov Perry says he wants to change it into something that’s not (unconstitutional and a Ponzi scheme).
That’s called backpedalling, or flip-flopping, if you like.
The devil is in the details like always, but that’s a far cry from that Romney and Bachman have been claiming…and that means Perry has neatly cut them off at the ankles…just as I predicted he would.
I love it. Obama presents a jobs bill, and all Polaris can do is complain that all the details haven’t come out, even though they will be available this week, and possibly today. Perry today spouts a bunch of vagaries about “fixing” Social Security, with no details whatsoever, and in total contrast to his earlier statements, and Polaris praises him to high heavens.
Shorter Polaris: The devil is in the details, but Perry is teh awesome so I don’t really care about those. Perry FTW!!!!11!!
@mantis: Details matter when you are supposed to submit a REAL jobs bill and you are an actual president. They don’t matter nearly as much when you are merely a candidate more than a year out of an election. Do review the differences.
-Polaris
Details matter when you are supposed to submit a REAL jobs bill and you are an actual president. They don’t matter nearly as much when you are merely a candidate more than a year out of an election.
How convenient for the Republicans that it’s not important to their base that they provide details of their proposals!
By the way, it’s not the job of the president to submit legislation to the Congress, but since the Republicans are dead set on doing nothing, he is forced to do it for them. I’m sure you’re behind the “do-nothing but destroy America” congressional Republicans 100%, so you won’t blame them either.
Mantis,
If Doug is right (per above) and Obama’s revenue involves taxes that will kill the so-called “rich” (read business) and tank the real estate market (already moribound), then I certainly hope nothing is done!
-Polaris
If Doug is right (per above) and Obama’s revenue involves taxes that will kill the so-called “rich” (read business) and tank the real estate market (already moribound), then I certainly hope nothing is done!
Oh, you’re just going to change the subject and spout a bunch more lies? Typical.
Details matter when you are supposed to submit a REAL jobs bill and you are an actual president. They don’t matter nearly as much when you are merely a candidate more than a year out of an election.
Speaking of which, GOP candidate Thaddeus McCotter has announced his plan to reform Social Security, with (gasp!) details.
Asd a conservative member of the GOP i have become convinced the only fraud is Bachmann. Apparenty it all has become a contest as to who make the most quoteable ridiculous comment.
@mantis: Who? The person in question knows he has no shot at the GOP nomination for Potus, so what does he have to lose?
-Polaris
Who?
US Representative Thaddeus McCotter. He’s running for president.
The person in question knows he has no shot at the GOP nomination for Potus, so what does he have to lose?
So you’re saying that it only takes guts to provide details of your proposals if you are in the running. I guess Perry is gutless, then.
Polaris is worried about the real estate market? Guess he has not heard about the GOPs efforts to kill the mortgage deduction…
IN defense of Congresswoman Bachman, what she might have been talking about when she talked about locking up the funds that were coming in COULD have related to the problem of Congress rolling the SS surpluses from the late 90s reform measure into the federal budget as revenue that could be spent and replaced with promises to pay. She didn’t do good job of explaining her position (if the preceding ACTUALLY IS her position), but considering that she was being interviewed for Fox Business, she showed good understanding of the need to give a red meat, Obama-bashing, anti-insider response. I’ll give her a B- and conditionally allow that THIS statement was not hypocritical (based on absense of evidence).