You are certainly free to disagree with our conclusion. However, our conclusion in this item was not based solely on the question you cite – the group making the statement did not provide any evidence, beyond guilt by association, that the candidates in question back privatizing Social Security. What’s more the state Assembly has nothing to do with Social Security.My response;
Thanks for reading.
Greg Borowski, Senior editor projects and investigations, Editor -- PolitiFact Wisconsin
It looks as though the tea party movement, the "I can take care of my own money" conservative Americans, don't want to put their money where their mouths. Go ahead, invest your Social Security cash with no government guarantees or bailout, and see what happens?
Thanks for the response, but again, you’re cherry picking your facts. You didn’t “solely” base your decision on my TWO points... you chose not to use those facts when “fact checking.” Those two points are:
1. We would be bailing out private government controlled accounts for those rugged, free market individuals, if they stupidly lose money.
2. Survivor inheritance of those private accounts would take money out of Soc. Sec.!
Small items? I don’t think so. When a candidate makes the statement that those 55 and older will not see any changes, isn’t just using coded language anymore, they mean specifically to raise the age to receive benefits (reduced benefits), create personal government accounts susceptible to losses and deplete the trust fund by withdrawing the account at death (Ryan's plan).
Again, you are doing a massive disservice to the public who will in the end, be surprised when the conservative agenda to kill the New Deal is implemented and succeeds.