All the cool kids oppose privatization
A new poll from the Pew Center shows support for private accounts among young people has plummeted recently. (Ahem...ahem...)
To quote the Pew Center, "In particular, people under age 30 who have heard a lot about the proposal are more than twice as likely as their less engaged peers to oppose the idea (45% vs.19%)."
So: the more young people hear about privatization, the less they like it. Hmm...sounds familiar! Oh, let's see: When young people learn about the cuts, debt and risk that comes with private accounts---and the pro-privatization politicians can't hide it forever---they're like, don't even try it!
It is a recipe for a political backlash. Long assumed as the only demographic that would support private accounts, when young people turn on them, its ovah.
Now, "support for private accounts" is a finicky number you have to watch carefully, since the point is not so much private accounts as much as what it takes to get them: cuts, debt, and risk. But the big point here is that the young people who are more educated and more engaged---a.k.a., the cool kids, the influencers---are more opposed.
The Associated Press story about the poll is below. The political backlash is forthcoming.
To quote the Pew Center, "In particular, people under age 30 who have heard a lot about the proposal are more than twice as likely as their less engaged peers to oppose the idea (45% vs.19%)."
So: the more young people hear about privatization, the less they like it. Hmm...sounds familiar! Oh, let's see: When young people learn about the cuts, debt and risk that comes with private accounts---and the pro-privatization politicians can't hide it forever---they're like, don't even try it!
It is a recipe for a political backlash. Long assumed as the only demographic that would support private accounts, when young people turn on them, its ovah.
Now, "support for private accounts" is a finicky number you have to watch carefully, since the point is not so much private accounts as much as what it takes to get them: cuts, debt, and risk. But the big point here is that the young people who are more educated and more engaged---a.k.a., the cool kids, the influencers---are more opposed.
The Associated Press story about the poll is below. The political backlash is forthcoming.
posted by Hans Riemer at 10:36 PM
86 Comments:
Have all of the 'cool' kids seen
this?
Anyone 21 years old or younger is actually expected to get a negative rate of return
on the social security money they put in under the current system. That doesn't sound too 'cool' to me.
Have all of the 'cool' kids seen
this?
Anyone 21 years old or younger is actually expected to get a negative rate of return
on the social security money they put in under the current system. That doesn't sound too 'cool' to me.
Google for "Ponzi scheme" and then apply the analogy to the current social security system. I find it appalling that anybody under 35 wouldn't be clamoring for a change to the current system. 40 workers per retiree in the 1950's will be come 2 workers per retiree when we hit retirement age. The taxes are going to go up, the retirement age is going to go up, the benefits are going to go down, and it's still not enough. So I get to spend my entire working life paying in to see it go bust in my face.
Don't let your disgust with the current administration color your common sense. All politicians are the same underneath, follow their actions, not their words.
Instead of spending your time worrying about what people think, why not actually learn about how socialist insecurity works and why its such a horrible program:
www.socialslavery.com
imtheamericandream:
You want me to stop posting heritage.org and cato.org links? Why does it bother you so much that young people might actually have the opportunity to learn precisely how much of a shafting they're getting from socialist insecurity
www.socialslavery.com
Cato.org is not right wing. They are libertarian.
Also, you'll note that unlike RockTheVote here, Cato.org and Heritage.org both talk about how social security works instead of saying "everyone likes social security therefore it must be good." What a pathetic attempt to influence young people, your site is. When you actually read about how social security works and look at the facts about its future, which you'll find on those sites, it's quite clear how badly it screws young people. No wonder the AARP is for preserving the status-quo. They don't represent young people.
Why don't you actually read what Cato.org or socialslavery.com has to say and try to debate their claims rather than dismissing them out of hand with ad-hominem attacks. Oh, that's right, its because you're butt-wrong
This "Rock The Vote" deal of yours (I'm a new viewer to this site) obviously isn't a "non-partisan" affair.
For those who so oppose free choice and adore the rule of bureaucrats and closet authoritarian control freaks, there's a new generation of real rebels out here who see through your sham altruism.
You love the state, just admit it...
...then leave the rest of us alone.
This posts indicates how out of touch this organization is with the youth they claim to target. Not surprising that they're in bed with AARP, huh?
New Poll: 67% of AARP members support private accounts for younger workers
AARP President Bill Novelli admitted on FoxNews that private accounts would not cause social security to collapse
Is it true that AARP made a significant contribution to Rock The Vote?
Because if so, that tells me RTV has SOLD OUT.
We all would appreciate some info from RTV on whether thy accepted a large donation from AARP.
It wouldn't surprise me. Funny how MTV and AARP team up suddenly.
>imtheamericandream said...
>
> r. edgar, multi-anon, and noid -
>
> Rock the Vote is only arguing that >private accounts, as supported by >messages from conservative talking heads, >do NOT solve the problems with Social >Security. Even President Bush recently >stated for the record, "Personal accounts >{btw that term polls better than private >accounts} do not solve the issue"
Bullpoo. First of all there are more than two options for social security reform. This site is deliberately framing the debate as solely a choice between George Bush's plan or the current system. You define privatization as G.W.'s plan then imply that I must be a conservative who loves G.W.'s plan because I'm arguing that the current social security system sucks. You insist on lumping heritage, cato, and socialslavery.com together, calling them all conservative, and equating their views with G.W.'s which is incredibly dishonest. But the worst part is your transparent attempt to equate S.S.'s popularity with it's correctness instead of actually debating social security's merit. But of course that's what you'd do. If you had actually tried educating yourself on this issue instead of shilling for a corrupt seniors organization which couldn't care less about the nation's youth, you'd know that the social security system is both financially and morally bankrupt.
To all, to read an honest discussion of the crisis social security faces, check out:
www.socialslavery.com
We'll be updating soon, too.
>americansteam said:
>"i just went back and counted the number of >times i've said ~ SS does need to be fixed >or reengineered, just not dismantled~ SEVEN >TIMES, Hellooo Anonymous... u still there >pretending like i'm pretending there is no >problem???"
Fine. Then your next blog entry should start: "Hey everyone, social security is currently broken and needs to be fixed." Your site should clarify front and center that SS has a big problem instead of posting questionable polls. It shouldn't take at least 3 people pointing out your site's dishonesty in order to get you to admit that fact on a minor page of your site.
BTW, heritage.org expressly opposes Bush's solution to the social security crisis:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/SocialSecurity/draft-govinvest.cfm
as will socialslavery.com which will expressly agree with the above article as soon as I have time to update it.
:)
What's wrong with letting ME invest MY MONEY where I SEE FIT?
I believe your arguments are absurd, and adequately addressed by others. I am more interested in your refusal to confirm or deny the fact that RTV is in AARP's pocket. How can a "youth oriented" organization claim to be advancing the interests of the youth when they're on the payroll of the AARP?
Alright, we know where Rock the Vote stands on privatization. What does Rock the Vote propose as an alternative?
I believe their proposal is "More Of The Same."
Rock the Vote does have some views about things that could be done to improve SS. According to it's website this is what they propose...
"So what do we think should be done? We have a three-point plan on that, too.
1)Improve Social Security so it can pay full benefits for everyone working today.
2)Build investments on top of Social Security, not raiding or replacing it.
3)Make changes in a way that fairly balances the interests of working and retired Americans, both today and in the future."
http://www.rockthevote.com/socialsecurity/whatwethinkaboutss.php
dckiddie:
That's not a plan, that's a soundbyte.
How do they plan to "Improve Social Security so it can pay full benefits for everyone working today"?
How do they plan to "Build investments on top of Social Security, not raiding or replacing it."?
How do they plan to "Make changes in a way that fairly balances the interests of working and retired Americans, both today and in the future."?
Come on guys, time to put up or shut up? Do you want to find a solution or do you just want the issue for more money, public exposure, etc.?
Until I hear a denial, I have to wonder whether they're simply doing this for AARP dollards
Social Security: The Hidden Dangers of Privatization
http://www.frontiernet.net/~lindaf1/SOCSECHDP.html
Do you feel lucky today????
This is quite scary....anyone that thinks that, "that as long as the money is being taken from you're paycheck and thrown into the federal government's general fund you're not paying for your own Social Security. But .. if you're allowed to invest that money --- money that still comes from the same source, your paycheck --- then you are paying for your own Social Security." Boortz 4/2005.
SS will pay the younger generation nothing, zero, zip, nadda. In fact SS is never guaranteed, it can be taken away at will by the Congress - there is no right to gov't funding your retirement.
Just thought I'd through in yet another comment from a 25-year-old that is 100% for Social Security Privatization. Anyone under 30 who thinks they'll actually get anything from Social Security after age 67 (and you know that the age will likely be 77 by then, anyhow) is delusional. Young black males have it even worse - on the average, they won't see a dime of what they pay in.
Well my goodness...
Keeping my own moeny and investing it = bad.
Giving my money to the Government and trusting them to give some of it back later = good.
So if this is true, why don't I give ALL of my money to the Government and let them decide how much I need to live on? Since we're going to trust that the Government will continue this until the date in the future when I will be riding on the backs of the workers at that time; why not trust them to give everyone an allowance now?
Or does "Rock the Vote" believe that investing in the Stock Markety is a bad choice, and I should stuff my savings under the mattress?
Don't trust the Stock Market, Bonds, or Money Market accounts. Government control of your money is the best. All the cool kids say so, therefore it must be true. WOOHOO
If you've lived a life of entitlement, where your parents give you everything, then it's kinda like social security, except you expect government to replace your parents. If like me, you've worked your ass off and made your own path, then social security is kinda like a bunch of dead beats coming over to my apartment to steal my beer.
SS was fine in the '30s when so many in the population was unemployed and life expectancy in this country was in the 50s. But like any govenment program, its grown into one big entitlement that will increase young people's tax burden substantially for years to come as old people live into their 80s. Anyone who has seen their taxes rise in NY and elsewhere due to Medicare costs knows I speak the truth.
What part of "Your Money is Your Money" don't you understand? Why would someone in the right mind want to give money to the government and let them dole it out to you as they seem fit. Think about it!
The "cool" kids obviously don't get it. Right now, if you have a job, you pay 15% of your income to fund the retirement of current senior citizens. That money is not yours. It's gone as soon as it it taken out of your paycheck.
The problem is, when you are a senior citizen, there will not be enough kids to pay the benefits currently promised. That is a demographic fact.
So, only two things can possibly happen under the current system: (1) you will get far less in benefits when you retire and/or (2) you will pay even higher taxes as you get older to support the growing number of retirees. That is what happens in a "pay-as-you-go" system (which has another name: "pyramid scheme").
The only chance you have of ever seeing any of your own hard-earned money through the social security system is through private accounts, where the money that comes out of your paycheck is actually reserved for you.
Wealthy people have figured this out--it is called a 401(k) or an IRA. The smart ones save as much as possible in these accounts. Only poor people don't have the opprtunity to save in these accounts. What little extra money they make is taken out of their paycheck in social security taxes.
The "cool kids" are going to be the "poor seniors" if they don't wise up.
If anyone thinks that investment in the stock market is more risky than the SS deal, they need some basic economic classes. If private accounts are soooo bad, why on God's green earth are there so many people with IRA's? With this question posed then, isn't privatizing a portion of your own savings for SS just adding to your benefit for later in life? So, when people privately invest in their retirment it is okay, but being able to invest 4% of SS money in a private account and suddenly, people who were once savvy investors are now stupid for wanting more of their retirement money to invest how they want to?
I just don't understand how people at MTV can get away with manipulating young TV viewers into not having an opinion of their own, oh wait I know. It's because CBS can do it too. I once was a mindless kid that didn't know the issues until the age of 12 and I started forming my own opinions through reading and being informed on the issues, from credible sources, not some hyped up propaganda being portrayed on biased outlets like MTV and CNN.
I was in the university dining area just before the elections, and playing on the TV's there, was MTV University. On this particular show, some idiot was talking about the draft that President Bush was about to implement. What draft? There was no draft in the works. The armed forces learned their lesson on the draft a long time ago. A force of volunteer (paid volunteers) that want to serve their country are willing to do what it takes to preserve freedom, while pantywastes like this dude blowing smoke up the butts of uninformed waistoids that watch nothing but "The Real World" cannot be trained, will not serve, and are unwilling to take responsibility to even take the trash out of their own home are not what I would want my protectors to be.
I know I got off tangent a bit, but I am adamant that these problems with understanding government issues are being manipulated by a media that pursues and is dependant upon ingnorant, not stupid (unless they really do watch nothing but "The Real World") individuals.
So let's see if I understand your point: The money damn well better be there when you retire! OK, but can you live on what the total of your contributions is, for only a couple of years? Did you ever look at the total of Social Security taxes that you pay for one year? You use up everything that you paid in within a couple of years. And SS was never intended as the SOLE SOURCE OF INCOME for retirement. It was meant to be a safety net for those that were unable to save for their retirement.
If I was allowed to manage the investment of a part of my SS tax funds, I could certainly make more money on it than the government does in their investments. And I am also saving MY OWN MONEY in IRA accounts to be my main retirement funds.
Like a squirrel stores nuts away for the winter, I am taking charge of my own future. I am not counting on the government to support me. You know, after reading your information, I have the feeling that you consider "young" people too stupid to make intelligent choices with their own funds. Perhaps you should give them more credit.
"All the cool kids oppose privitization."
Um, note to the obviously middle-aged person who wrote this: the "kids" don't like big bureaucratic organizations telling them what or how to think.
I support a true insurance/safety net type program for America's elderly. How about every senior citizen gets an SS benefit = 100% of the poverty level. Or even 110% or 120%.
The current system, however, pays wealthy retirees more than it pays poorer ones--often 2-3 TIMES as much!!!
Tell me what is COMPASSIONATE about taking 12.4% of a young person's or young family's income to subsidize Alaskan cruise for middle- and upper-income seniors???
If we tax young couples so much that they don't feel they can afford to have even one kid, then WHO'S GOING TO BE AROUND TO PAY SS TAXES WHEN WE RETIRE???
Taken from a recent email sent to AFL-CIO members:
"Privatizing Social Security would devastate working people, like their clients, by slashing guaranteed benefits, exploding federal debt and opening Social Security up to political corruption and Enron-ization—while handing billions in fees to companies like Schwab that would manage privatized accounts."
Making the claim that our benefits are "Gauranteed" (which was proven wrong in the Supreme Court Case of Flemming v. Nestor) and that we shouldn't trust our money to the markets (which are scary and would mean "political corruption and Enron-ization") is absurd.
Telling the youth to trust their money to the government and not to themselves is typical liberal commuinistic B.S.
By the way I am 21 and attend UCSB. Some people might refer to me as influential so you might want to watch out because there are far more like me, even at a liberal campus such as UCSB.
FU Rock the Vote, you fail to represent us and lie about it.
You have GOT to be kidding me. You actually support the present SS system? You do know, don't you, that there is NO money in Social Security right now? The money sent to DC for SS is spent as soon as it received. The only thing sitting in that "lockbox" right now are government bonds (also known as IOUs). The federal government is under absolutely no legal obligation to pay you any of that money back. Forty years from now they could simply say "Sorry, Bud, but we are in quite a financial bind. Covering the drug and nursing home costs for the elderly, you know. We really don't have anything left for someone as young as you. Your'e, what, 65? Youv'e still got another estimated 15 years of productivity! Get out there and make us proud!" With private accounts that money would be in YOUR account with YOUR name on it. The government couldn't touch it. Also, don't worry, those over 55 will still get their Social Security money, so you don't have to fret over Grandma. Those below 55 who don't want to partake of private accounts can leave their money in the system as it is if they want to. And collect an estimated 1% annual return on their money. Me? I'm gonna invest my money in stalwart companies, such as General Electric and Coca-Cola, and make an average of 7% in annual returns.
Young people, wake up! How can you NOT want the opportunity to be able to invest some of YOUR own money in the manner that YOU deem best fit? The AARP media maelstrom is focusing exclusively on the privatization of accounts as if that was the only solution required for fixing Social Security, when in fact it has only been proposed as part of a larger set of changes needed to keep the system solvent. DO NOT BUY INTO THEIR LIES!
Hey, investing your money is not difficult and does not require a 130+ IQ or a MBA. If you start early (say, in your 20s) and invest your hard-earned money assuming only a low to moderate level of risk you will probably earn at least 4 - 6% over the long run, which is A LOT better than what the future prospect of Social Security holds out for you as of today. Plus, there is a huge upside if you consider stocks as an investment option. Imagine being able to invest early in a company that goes on to grow at a Microsoft-like rate? Do you think that Social Security would ever pay out 10, 20 or even 30 times your original "investment" when times are good? If your answer to that question is "yes" then I have some nice waterfront property in Florida that I'd like to sell you.
My guess is that the AARP and most left-leaning politicians either hope or assume that (a) you don't really care about Social Security and/or (b) you are somehow dumb enough to believe their misrepresentations and lies. TAKE CHARGE AND TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOURSELF AND YOUR FUTURE! AARP does a lot of good things for elderly people like your Grandma Rose and Grandpa Al, but they should not be trying to prevent you from fully realizing your own dreams and apsirations.
Well, it's been great to see that Noid and Redgar have joined in the battle against the beautiful and increasingly wrong, left-winged, Green party nad-licking, Rock The Vote charlatans. And even better to see non-Bureaucrash members joining in the fight to disenfranchise this little know-nothing, mis-information jerks! I believe I am truly seeing the revolution right here, and for once, Thank Milton, its not COMMUNISTS! It's just the opposite! So lovely to see all you intelligent and active young people getting into the fight against the "cool kids" and their "bottled for market Socialism". Love you all!
- The Liberty Chooser
joe dime:
do you realize I'm on your side. The challenge was to Rock the Vote and they still haven't accepted.
I found it humorous when rock the vote pretended to be non partisan in the lead up to the election. I only hope that now that rock the vote's true political orientation is out in the open it will fail in it's quest to stop privatization(why should we allow people to invest their own hard earned money when we can all feel good and paternalistic about ourselves by doing it for them right?) much in the same way it failed to mobilize america's youth in november. keep up the good work guys
It is absolutely ridiculous that rock the vote does not support private accounts. They state that young people are worried about having to pay for their own retirement. Other than the fact that YOU should have to pay for your own retirement, what do you think we have been doing for the past 50 years? Paying for someone elses retirement. 2nd--to IMTHEAMERICANDREAM--you are a socialist, plain and simple. Cato.org is so far from a right wing group it isn't funny and you are just like this website, using scare tactics to support an agenda? What is that agenda? I honestly don't know, bigger government I guess. I for one work hard for my money and I don't want to give it to anyone, I personally could care less about YOUR retirement or anyone at RTV.
I'm still waiting to hear whether RTV is accepting money from AARP.
It just cracks me up that you kids can't see the forest for the trees. SS is a Ponzi scheme and the AARP is the Amway Diamond bringing RTV to their seminars so they can brainwash you into signing up and funding their retirement.
The government has screwed up almost everything it has touched - Medicare, Medicaid, the Military, Social Security - even the core of the goverment itself. And you want to trust it with the money you will be dependent on to survive when you retire??!! Incredible.
Ask your Grandparents if they are able to live a good life on their current SS payments alone. Now, it's going to get worse. And that's what you're fighting for? LOL!!
Stop being sheep, take an economics class and realize that funding your own retirement works for everyone except those who DON'T work and can't manage to put money in the bank instead of buying spinners for the Escalade.
I'm glad I won't have to depend on SS when I retire and I really feel sorry for you who do.
imtheamericandream
you are an absolute moron! we all klnow that the SS is a bust! to fix it, lets NOT pay into it at all! i would love to keep my money for me. why do i have to pay for some one elses problem of being to damn lazy to get up and work to get paid! i work hard for MY money and i dont wnat to give it away to some one that did not work for it.
i know that you are gonna say that people all over this great country are working for their peice of the pie. if that is the case then why are we paying into this losing propsition? if they were working hard they would not get worked up about the SS stealing someones hard worked for income and pay it out to some one that did not care about their future way back in school. tough crap! it is not my fault that they did not think about it. dig a ditch and get paid, i will not and do not want to pay for these people!
Lets see, my private account managed by the same managed by government bureaucrats that managed SS into nothing?
Gee, what a great plan.
This is ridiculous. The "cool kids" are being misinformed in order to support your liberal agenda. After all, once people, and NOT the gov't are in control of their OWN money, a HUGE threat will disappear. You won't be able to use the hollow threat that conservatives want to "take away your social security". Why? Because it's YOURS. You sicken me.
Let’s look at two options.
One: The government forcefully takes my money. It is pilfered as it goes through layers of bureaucracy. Eventually, some of it makes it to the hands of people who may or may not have a genuine need for it.
Two: I invest my own money. Using the return on that investment, I support myself and give the rest to those who have real need. Not only do I know exactly who the money is going to, but since I actually know the recipient, I can provide non-financial care as well.
The first option is stealing. The second is charity.
The first option benefits career bureaucrats and those with enough political connections to receive the handouts at the end of the line, while stealing from working people.
The second option benefits working people and those in true need, while stealing from no person.
Seems like a clear cut decision to me.
I thought this RTV compaign was a joke when I heard it on the radio. T-Shirts that say "I love Social Security." They might as well buy a t-shirt that says "I don't give a crap about my future."
And for RTV to be teaming up with the AARP, for goodness sake. What is going on here. It sure is reassuring to hear everyone not falling for this spin.
I don't know about you guys, but "all the cool kids" in my school were not really the people I would rely on for financial advice, maybe where to get wasted on the weekend and pick-up chicks.
SS is about the biggest scame the government has envoked on its citizenry. It started off noble, but has now turned into a vote buying scheme. If politicians were really worried about my future and everyone elses, they wouldn't be spending the money coming in for social security like drunken sailors. They don't care about what's best for us.
This is America. We need to take our future back, and rely on ourselves to provide for our families. That is this country was started and became so great. Take responsibility and ownership.
Good luck
The Rock the Vote website says that social security is "guaranteed". What a crock. Anybody who does their homework knows this is an outright lie.
I would much rather depend on my own skills and investments for my retirement than ANY government guarantee.
Why is it that so many people assume that the stock market is this high-risk venture where everyone but the incredibly lucky lose their shirt? That is such nonsense.
Sure, there are bad stocks, but through diversification, that's not a problem. As previously stated, there is no better return for your money than the stock market.
And anyone with a 401(k) knows that there are GUARANTEED funds that pay a certain rate that is lower than the market average but a heck of a lot higher than the return on Social Security. If you could even get 4-5% per year on your money, you's make *far more* than in Social Security, and it's a guaranteed fund!! It's not Enron, for goodness sakes!
It's amazing that the left complains about falling wages in this country, but when it is suggested to index SS benefits to inflation rather than wages, the left goes through the roof. The only explanation is that wages aren't actually falling...
And that's the "cut in benefits": index to inflation rather than wages. It's not a cut, merely a decrease in the growth rate of benefits ever year,
SS was always meant to be SUPPLEMENTAL income, not all of your retirement income.
The proper Title for this post would be "all the lazy, irresponsible kids oppose privatization." Then it could go on to describe how if you're lazy and irresponsible, you would naturally oppose anyone else being able to control their future and have a comfortable retirement because it would just thrust your laziness and irresponsibility into the spotlight.
Don't let politicians control your retirement. Don't let them screw you over like they've screwed over my grandparents.
Urge your representatives to get rid of social security completely so you can receive your entire paycheck. Opting for personal accounts is a start, but it is a far cry from allowing America's youth the freedom to choose our future.
So if the privatization of accounts is such a bad idea why did it work in Galvestan, TX so well? Why is it working in Chile so well?
I can't understand why RTV would be against giving power and choice to the people the say they represent. Why would they not want to help secure the future of their supporters.
It is apparent to me that they are not against the program as much as you are against the people pushing the program. That is a sad way to determine the views of an organization.
I keep reading people saying that SS is not a crisis. I disagree with this. The SS system will begin to collapse when when the current younger workers begin to retire. You would think that for RTV this would be a crisis issue. Do you wait till it fails to address it or is it more prudent to address it now?
In reference to the poster that stated
"We learned a lesson from the Great Depression: the stock market and Keynesian economics are not infallible. So, we created the safety net of Social Security."
Keynesian economics is what Roosevelt did to try and end the Great Depression. FDR instituted a number of government programs that pumped billions of dollars into the economy to get it out of the depression. That is the cornerstone of Keynesiam economics: government intervention in economic matters to keep the economy stable. The problem with Keynesian economics is that eventually someone has to pay the bill.
In reference to Social Security, FDR himself stated in a letter that he wanted to see personal accounts within the social security set up. Only FDR wanted thought that privitized accounts would be started in the 1950s, 1960s at the latest, instead of now.
I HATE Social Security. It's a giant scam that steals my money and allows politicians to spend it. Old people get benefits IF the government gets enough revenues to pay them. By the time, I retire, there will be nothing left because politicians will have spent all the money.
The "cool" kids must be a bunch of retards. They actually think Social Security is going to help them when they're old. Instead, they will freeze and starve to death.
Rock the Vote is about as "non-partisan" as MoveOn.org - a thinly veiled front for the liberal fringe. Their claims of impartiality are hilarious.
It's ashame "all" of the "cool" kids oppose the privatization of social security. I would love to be able to control the money I earn and not have the government spend it on whatever they want. the money I have been putting in for 35 years is no longer there. When I die, my children will not be able to get any of it (if they are over 18). What is wrong with controlling the $$ you work so hard for. I know I can invest my money smarter than the government. Someday the "cool kids" will wish they had taken control of their future when they had the chance. Good luck
How about a third option? www.fairtax.org. With the fair tax, social security would be totally funded while I get to keep MY entire paycheck. Just think, you get to keep everything you earn while getting a check from the gov't each month to pay for the tax on basic nessessities.
www.fairtax.org
i just got my benefits statement from SSA. over the ten years of my working life, they've STOLEN more than $20,000 from me. if i had that money in a savings account, and never added another dime to it, i'd have more money when i retire than if i continue on in the ss program. not to mention that they'll take at least another $40,000 over the next 40 years. FU rock the vote & FU social security. U. S. OUT OF MY PAYCHECK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No one is talking about privatization, its personalization. Those advocating personal accounts are talking about giving workers under the age of 55 the OPTION of investing a portion of their payroll taxes into a personal account, about 1/3 of the total. Workers who CHOOSE to paticipate will have options of varying risk in which to invest their money. Thay can not take it and buy individual stocks. They can invest in things such as mutual funds, index funds, bonds, etc. So noone is going to get "hosed" because they put their money in enron or a company like that.
Now since the workers who wish to divert a portion of their taxes into a personal account pay less into the general fund, they will receive a guaranteed benefit that is 1/3 less than those who CHOOSE to remain in the "classical" social security system. However, those workers who invested in a personal account will have the money in their account to make up the difference and in most cases will receive larger monthly benefits than those who remained in the current system, and they will be able to leave to their heirs anything left in the account when they pass away.
This is a more modern and practical approach for younger workers, will provide investment opportunities for low income workers, and keeps the system as is for those over 55. Its a good approach. Look at all the facts objectively, and you'll agree.
All for my own private account.
Rock the vote sucks!
Taken from the social security website www.ssa.gov/qa.htm:
Q.
I'm 25 years old. If nothing is done to change Social Security, what can I expect to receive in retirement benefits from the program?
A.
Unless changes are made, when you reach age 63 in 2042, benefits for all retirees could be cut by 27 percent and could continue to be reduced every year thereafter. If you lived to be 100 years old in 2079 (which will be more common by then), your scheduled benefits could be reduced by 33 percent from today's scheduled levels. See the 2004 Trustees Report
I turn 25 this year and am excited in all I have to look forward to.
Taken from the social security website www.ssa.gov/qa.htm:
Q.
I'm 25 years old. If nothing is done to change Social Security, what can I expect to receive in retirement benefits from the program?
A.
Unless changes are made, when you reach age 63 in 2042, benefits for all retirees could be cut by 27 percent and could continue to be reduced every year thereafter. If you lived to be 100 years old in 2079 (which will be more common by then), your scheduled benefits could be reduced by 33 percent from today's scheduled levels. See the 2004 Trustees Report
I turn 25 this year and am excited in all I have to look forward to.
I'm in that 18-34 year old age bracket so this issue is important to me. Every 2 weeks I look at my check and money is taken out for social security, eventhough Im highly unlikely to recover any money from the system when I retire, and if I do it will be nowhere near the amount todays politicians say I will. Personal accounts give me the opportunity, with risks I am fully aware of, to at least try and get something out of the money I'm paying.
I decided it was time to take action, and was directed to an organization called Generations Together, www.generationstogether.net. They are leaders in the effort to make sure us young folk see some benefits from social security taxes, and that my parents are taken care of too. If you too want your money when you retire, www.generationstogether.net is worth a look.
I am on Social Security Disability, and I feel that privatization is a wonderful idea. After all, look at the success privatization of Social Security has in Chile as well as in a city or county in Texas. We need to get the government out of our pockets in regards to taking our hard-earned money from our paycheck. With that in mind, we need to tell our congressmen and senators to approve of President Bush's Social Security Privatization plan as well as the Fair Tax Bill which Congressman Linder is pushing in the House.
There seems to be many assumptions on this blog. First, I do not have enough time for myself. I work more than seventy hours a week as a self-employed person. Secondly, I pay more in fuel tax alone than most people pay in income tax. It only irritates all that much more when my money is taken for a program that results in a return of less than two percent over the life of the account. Note, I said life of the account, not annually.
I'm really irritated when I go to homes of mortgage borrowers who plan so horribly for themselves they have nothing but debt for such things as expensive cars and big screen TVs. They plan for nothing through their life and continue to spend what they don't have. It's obvious they won't save for retirement either. But, why should that be my problem? I'll be responsible for myself, you be responsible for your own planning or failure to plan.
As for the poll quoted in USA Today, I'd like to see the actual questions asked. Further, the media is so biased against any conservative effort I cannot trust those younger people even understand what is currently being paid for and what will happen in the future regarding social security.
If private accounts are such a bad thing, what am I to make of the average return of 13% over the last fifteen years in my IRA and mutual fund accounts? Such a foolish move on my part? NOT!
Answer to imtheamericandream
1)honors our commitment to American workers, their survivors and the disabled
I can't think of any way better to honor the american workers, their survivors, and the disabled than by providing them a system where they actually recieve a benefit that allows them to live above the poverty level. A system that allows the survivors of a family member to keep all the money they paid into the system. A system that provides far superior disability insurance than the current system. Oh yeah, I guess your not talking about African American men who are workers because their avg. life expectancy is 65 years, and guess when they are eligible to collect their benefits, 65 1/2 years old. Oh well, screw them.
2)protects at least a minimum standard of living from the fluctuations of the market and corporate malfaesance; by all means risk the rest of your money but only above and beyond a safety net
All funds will be diversely invested to protect against the minority of business that involve themselves in malfaesance. There has NEVER been a ten year period in the stock market that hasn't seen a significant rise. All investments will be insured
3)doesn't pass off trillions of dollars of "transitional costs" debt to my generation
Yeah, lets wait until the problem is really uncontrollable and will cost 10s of trillions of dollars to resolve. I guess we found the only democrat who doesn't like to spend tax payer money.
4)disallows bankers and bureaucrats from playing with and/or profiting from my hard earned money at their leisure
Yeah, I much rather politicians playing and profiting from my hard earned money at their leisure. If Enron was in charge of SS in its current state, you would be calling for their heads because of the mismanagement. What do you think is happening to your money that you are sending to Washington every month from your paycheck? Their spending it on everything but Social Security. Open the Social Security vault and watch out not to get smothered by all the little yellow I O U s that fall out. At least Private Businesses have gov't looking over them. Who looks over the gov't?
I like the part about, "trust us, there is more than enough money is washington to pay social security benefits for future generations". It shows a total disregard for the taxpayer who is forced to continually supply his/her money to a political system that wastes so much of it. Your statement that Social Security has money is false. Please, for the benefit of all the "young people" of America, explain in detail where the money that is collected from every paycheck is at right now. What fund is it in? How much is in there? We should be able to see it, just like you would see how much money you have in a bank account or money market account. Or, if you are interested in educating people on what is happening with social security, tell them where they can read some historical congressional documents that explain exactly what our elected officials have been doing with the "promise" of a "safety net" for over 30 years.
HMMMMMM. Sounds like heavy reading and no one wants to do that so I will just say something catchy like, "All the cool kids oppose privatization". The information is out there. Go find it people. This Social Security thing should have been fixed over 20 years ago but it was a "golden egg" laying goose.
You have got to be kidding! Are you actually able to convince my peers/young people that someone else pays for their social security so that all they have to worry about is their retirement? More importantly, do YOU really believe that? Since the money comes out of their check before they ever see it whose money do they think that is under the "deduction" column on their pay check stub?
In response to intheamericandream, it would be great if all RTV was trying to say is that privatization in not going to solve the problem; that would make for a good debate. HOWEVER, "I heart Social Security" says something very different to me. The money is coming out of their checks NOW - and it will likely not come back to them when they retire. What is the answer? Certainly not more of the same!
The problem with Social Security is that since it's inception, the government has been stealing money from it... and instead of investing it, had taxed people to make up the difference.
The only way to STOP the government from stealing the money of the youth and giving it to the old people (that they previously stole from) is to institute a 100% private system.
While this is impossible without correcting the evils of the past evil congressional actions, the only alternative is to phase in private accounts so spend-happy legislatures will not do this again.
The Democrats and Republicans have both abandoned us (the youth of this country) by talking about privitizing only a VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE of social security, and ONLY UPON REQUEST - so they can continue to steal from the retirement funds of the youth and spend it on their stupid little programs which have nothing to do with the common security of all of the states.
The federal government is not a big pot of money - it is an institution which was created to protect the sovereignty of the individual states and protect the constitutional rights of the individuals in those states.
Everything else is optional.
We are doing our future children a great disservice by spending money at the federal level for programs that are bankrupting the retirement of the citizenry previously promised by past generations or place our union at risk by siphoning away money critical for our national defence.
And this opinion did not come from some conservative or liberal think tank... it is nothing more than the simple truth.
Hey Dream.
I can't take your nonsense anymore. You keep posing the same question of whether there should be some guaranteed standard of living when you reach retirement. You even suggest that we should change the Bill of Rights to state this.
This is ridiculous. The only guarantee anyone in this country needs is the guarantee that you are living in the best country with the best opportunity to live any dream you have. If your utopia is government assisted living, there are plenty of countries in which people can experience this wonderful dream. It seems curious to me that most immigrants pass on your utopia gov't assisted countries when they decide to take their families and leave everthing behind for a better life. I'm sure it won't take long for you to figure out where they go. They don't come here because we have a great SS system, they come here for the greatest opportunity in the world to make a decent living for their family without the government interfering.
I think you have lived here for too long and have forgotten what attracts people to this great country. Go to Europe and spend some significant time there. There is hardly a middle class society there. No one owns a home because the government owns everything and is nice enough to turn around and rent it to its citizens. They are taxed to the point of no disposable income. But for all they give up, they do get socialized healthcare.
This Hans guy is out of touch. I'm 28 with a wife and a daughter. I consider myself the youth. I may have been able to have been influenced by this crap when I was 18, but it didn't long after college to see the light. Everything the gov't touches, they make a mess of. Read the constitution if you haven't yet. The reason the gov't was created was to provide law and safety for its citizens. I don't think you will find anything about social security, welfare, or anything of the like.
The only thing I could give the gov't an A rating for is defending America.
Give it up Dream, this will never be Europe.
Just some thoughts from an old man that would be more than willing to take a cut ( it ain't gonna happen, there would be old white haired people rioting in the streets and throwing their walkers through store front windows) in SS in order to see my children and others in their age group(s) retire with more than the pittance I will receive from SS.
1- I have a female friend. She is a professor at a local university. She did not actually begin earning an income until 1975. She is exempt from SS. Never paid a dime iton it, will never get a dime from it. To date, she has put in slightly less in her 401k type state teachers retirement fund (IE the stock market mutual funds)than I have into SS. She gets to retire in 18 months with aproximately $4050.00 per month (before taxes). Even if she lives an extremely long time, she will still have a surplus to leave to her niece. I will have to work an additional 7 years, get aproximately $1600.00 per month before taxes, and, if I die before I retire, have nothing to leave to my children. Her niece can use that money as a down payment on a home, a car, college ---whatever! My children will have to simply, do without. That is my fault.
2- However, if my children can now began a private account, in 30-40 years they will have a sum of money large enough to make whatever SS pays out seem like loose change. Plus, my grandchildren will have something to start their life with or, get a nice financial "kick" in their middle age.
3- I knew nothing about investing in 1995 when I started a 401K. My employer pitched in a measley 1/2% of my contribution up to the first 5% of mine. Roughly 2 1/2cents on the dollar In my case about $72.00 per year. After 5 years, I saw my investment grow to $33,000.00 dollars. Then, the recession began in July 2000 and I watched it fall and fall and fall. I got scared but didn't know what to do because I don't know anything about investing. It bottomed out at around $13,000.00 and then began rising. Keep in mind, over 5 years I put in roughly $12,000.00 dollars and never lost a cent of my own money. Right now it's worth about $24,000.00. It keeps growing even though I only contributed for 5 years total. If I die right now, My kids get it. Not much, but better than a kick in the teeth. Of the thousands of dollars I have put in SS, if I die right now my kids get-- squat!
4- I get to retire at 65, my children have to work until they are at least 67 and if certain politicians have their way (they have already bumped it to 67) you will work until you are 70.
5- I will not REALLY get to retire at 65 because I can't live on $1600.00 (before taxes) per month. So, I will have to continue working or find a wealthy female with no taste in men. I am practicing my WAL MART greeter repetoire! Some retirement!
6- Black people, especially black men, have a tendency to die before white men, black women and especially white women. Everyone, I am sure, is well aware of the lack of wealth in the black community. What would happen if, say 15-20 years from now, young black people were finding out that dad or uncle or grandpa left them a couple grand, or ten grand or more? Some would squander it but some would invest it, some might buy a business or send their children to college or use the money to move to a nicer home or even buy their first home! As it stands, the majority of black men are working their rear ends off for some old white haired lady.
6- Somehow, it seems, people have come to the conclusion that rich Republicans want to get rid of SS. Let me clue you in. I know a lot of rich white Republicans-- do you think they give a doodly squat about SS? To them, the money the government took from them for SS was water over the dam. The money they will receive from SS will be like pocket change! They have 0 interest in the outcome of this debate-- absolutely 0!Thats how I want my kids to be, thats how I want every young person to be. Not living from SS check to SS check. Having to merely exist and pinch pennies, not be full of envy and hate and fear as they worry about paying bills and eating while their peers travel or buy new cars and actually enjoy their retirement.
7-The only anger I hope I will feel when I join that SS only group is that I wasn't strong enough to save consistantly and that all that money I had to pay to SS would have been a lot more if I could have put it in mutual funds. I didn't know when I was young that it was going to be barely enough to live a very meager life on. When I see AARP meetings on TV, who's there? Greedy, scared, white haired old white ladies unwilling to risk a penny to give their grandchildren a better chance at a better life in retirement. I feel sorry for them. I call them greedy but they are alone, scared and from an age when they didn't have to make any decisions. The husband did all of that. He's gone and they feel cornered. That's what you are seeing. No different than an animal cornered by a group of people trying to save it! Like you might see on ANIMAL PLANET.
8- Lastly, look at who is opposing this. The same people that cheered for it when Bill Clinton proposed virtually the same thing. He never brought it up again. (unfortunately. When Newt Gingrich brought it up, he was tarred and featherd! And ask yourself, why do they oppose it? These are the same folks that every election, like clockwork, a few days before the election, begin shouting that Republicans want to cut SS and starve old people. What can they say if it's your money that you have and they can't touch it, spend it on their stupid projects or scare you when you get old by saying the opposition will reduce that money? I can count back now, to Lyndon Johnson with a good memory. They did it then, they did it in 2004, they have done it every election. My much older siister has voted for them every time and firmly believes the tired old campaign rhetoric. Everytime a Republican gets elected she talks about how she will probably have to sell her house and live with one of her daughters because she can't afford to pay her property taxes when they cut her SS. News flash. The only cut she ever got was when Bill Clinton raised taxes on SS. Why the hell are they taxing SS anyway? She still believes it to this very day though! But she still lives in her house.
Now is not the time for a young person to really think about retirement-- well they should but, I didn't and, I doubt all but the most nerdly will. But, like SS, you don't have to think about it. If it happens, you will be packing money away in a ultra low risk account that has your name on it. It will come out of your check just like SS does now. No, you can't take it out, no, you can't borrow it. It just keeps slowly growing and growing. Sometimes, it might drop but it will go back up and up and up. If it ever dropped, and dropped and dropped-- the last thing on your mind would be that money. If it did happen, you wouldn't get SS or anything. The USA would have ceased to exist.
On the other hand, if this is more about hating the current administration than getting behind a good idea-- I suggest you go out, buy a gun and proceed to shoot yourself -- in the foot.
wozerd
Great answer Dream. Post someone else's speech. By the way, its not law, and its not the Bill of Rights.
Sorry, still can't remove your lips from FDR's a#%. If FDR did have his way with his social agenda, this country would be a lot more socialistic.
One thing that you and your liberal friends can't understand is that there is not enough money on this planet to remove poverty from this country or any country for that matter. There are too many people who just don't care about their future no matter what you do for them. Since the beginning of this so called war on poverty, the percentage of people in your description of poverty has NOT changed. Not changed. Why? We're spending a lot more money. We have passed many programs. There are paying jobs available. What's the problem?
Answer: Human nature. There will always be a percentage of society who doesn't pull their weight for various reasons no matter what you bleeding heart liberals take from the hard working and give to them.
Your democrat hero Bill Mahr said it right, "Our homeless aren't starving, their fat."
This is for the "cool kids". Read about Galveston's Privatization plan and its guaranteed benefits. Trust me, its pretty "cool".
-
-
A model for Social Security reform
A case study already exists in Galveston County, Texas — and might offer some lessons for lawmakers in Washington.
By Ray Holbrook with Alcestis “Cooky” Oberg
The current debate about reforming Social Security reminds me of the discussions that occurred in Galveston County, Texas, in 1980, when our county workers were offered a different, and better, retirement alternative to Social Security: They reacted with keen interest and some knee-jerk fear of the unknown. But after 24 years, folks here can say unequivocally that when Galveston County pulled out of the Social Security system in 1981, we were on the road to providing our workers with a better deal than Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal.
When I was county judge in 1979, many county workers were concerned about the soundness of Social Security, as many people are today. We could either stay with it — and its inevitable tax increases and higher retirement ages — or find a better way. We sought an “alternative plan” that provided the same or better benefits, required no tax increases and was risk-free. Furthermore, we wanted the benefits to be like a savings account that could be passed on to family members upon death.
Our plan, put together by financial experts, was a “banking model” rather than an “investment model.” To eliminate the risks of the up-and-down stock market, workers' contributions were put into conservative fixed-rate guaranteed annuities, rather than fluctuating stocks, bonds or mutual funds. Our results have been impressive: We've averaged about 6.5% annual rate of return over 24 years. And we've provided substantially better benefits in all three Social Security categories: retirement, survivorship, disability.
Upon retirement after 30 years, and assuming a more conservative 5% rate of return, all workers would do better for the same contribution as Social Security:
•Workers making $17,000 a year are expected to receive about 50% more per month on our alternative plan than on Social Security — $1,036 instead of $683.
•Workers making $26,000 a year will make almost double Social Security, $1,500 instead of $853.
•Workers making $51,000 a year will get $3,103 instead of $1,368.
•Workers making $75,000 or more will nearly triple Social Security, $4,540 instead of $1,645.
•Our survivorship benefits pay four times a worker's annual salary — a minimum of $75,000 to a maximum $215,000 — rather than Social Security's customary onetime $255 survivorship to a spouse (with no minor children). If the worker dies before retirement, the survivors receive not only the full survivorship but get generous accidental death benefits, too.
•Our disability benefit pays 60% of an individual's salary, better than Social Security's.
In 1980, labor unions and some traditionally liberal Democrats provided mighty opposition. They considered taxpayer-fed Big Government programs the only secure ones, to the exclusion of other options. However, we held meetings that included debates with Social Security officials and put it to a vote: Our workers passed it by a 3-to-1 margin in 1981 — just in time.
We got our plan in place before the U.S. Congress passed a “reform” bill in 1983 that closed the door for local governments to opt out of Social Security.
To be sure, our plan wasn't perfect, and we've had to make some adjustments. For instance, a few of our retired county workers are critical of the plan today because they say they are making less money than they would have on Social Security. This is because our plan allowed workers to make “hardship” withdrawals from the retirement plan during their working years. Some workers withdrew funds for current financial problems and consequently robbed their own future benefits. We closed that option down in January 2005.
Congress might consider making participation in any privatization plan voluntary at first. We made our plan voluntary in the beginning, and 70% joined. It later became mandatory. Now, there is full participation. Also, if there were some residual uncertainty about privatizing a portion of worker contributions, a plan could be devised in which low-income earners would be guaranteed the same funds they would get with total participation in Social Security.
Our experience has shown that even low-income workers would do better, but a guarantee would ease their worries. Moderate- and higher-income workers would do much better, as ours do, because they have invested more in the plan and are not prejudicially punished or “topped out” on retirement benefits, as they are in Social Security.
In today's debate about whether to partially privatize Social Security, the Galveston County plan is sometimes demagogued. But our experience should be judged factually and fairly, not emotionally, politically or on the basis of hearsay. We sought a secure, risk-free alternative to the Social Security system, and it has worked very well for nearly a quarter-century. Our retirees have prospered, and our working people have had the security of generous disability and accidental death benefits.
Most important, we didn't force our children and grandchildren to be unduly taxed and burdened for our retirement care while these fine young people are struggling to raise and provide for their own families.
What has been good for Galveston County may, indeed, be good for this country.
Judge Ray Holbrook was Galveston County judge from 1967 to 1995, and oversaw the creation and administration of the Galveston County alternative plan. Alcestis “Cooky” Oberg is on USA TODAY's board of contributors.
Interesting data straight from the AARP's own study of the Chilean Privatization System. The only knock I could find is that all experts agree the system is doing great in the short term, but can it continue its success into the long-term.
The following are clips taken directly from the study:
-
-
In part due to government regulation, variation in return among funds appears to have been relatively narrow, at least during the first ten years. Myers (1992: 51) presents data showing that the 1981-90 average annual real rate of return across funds ranged from 12.5 percent to 14 percent.
-
While warning that averages can be misleading, Myers (1992) notes that average old-age benefits under the new and old systems were comparable in 1990. Mesa-Lago (1994)simply reports that benefits for the initial retirees have been higher. If Codevilla (1993:135), is correct, benefits are, on average, about “40 percent more than [those of] retirees in the state system. . .”, but that only indicates that retirees are better off than they would have been, not that they are well off.
-
Among the virtues of Chile’s new system, according to Scarpaci and Miranda-Radic (1991), are greater accountability than under the old system and, at least to date, the greater yield on investments. Benefits are adjusted for inflation, and workers are guaranteed a minimum benefit. Survivors’ benefits and disability benefits (which are not the subject of this overview) are higher under the new system.
-
The Chilean system is now fully funded and portable, with all the benefits those two features entail. Deteriorating support ratios should be far less cause for concern under this defined contribution system than they were
under the pay-as-you-go system it replaced.
-
Finally, even though the system may now be healthy, its longer term “fiscal soundness,”
as Scarpaci and Miranda-Radic (1991: 40)point out, “remains to be tested.” The ultimate“proof” of the new system’s success won’t be
apparent for many years, when the first workers to have been employed solely under that system reach retirement age. Until then,
the extent to which workers’ annuity accounts will provide them with adequate retirement income--and the extent to which the
government may be required to augment inadequate annuities for large numbers of workers--will remain an unknown. If the optimistic scenarios prevail, and thel arge majority of workers are able to provide for their own retirement in a mature system,
then the government and retirees themselves could end up winners. It is too early to tell.
-
It is well to keep in mind the World Bank’s crucial observation about decentralized mandatory savings schemes such as that in
Chile, namely, that they “will function best in middle- or high-income countries with a population well enough informed to make
intelligent investment decisions” (World Bank 1994: 231, emphasis added). Workers’ ability to make the wisest investment decisions, to say nothing of their interest in keeping abreast of all that they need to in order to make wise
decisions, is questioned in Chile as well as in the United States. Workers under the new Chilean system, aside from the minimum
benefit, are not insured against poor decisions; nor can the system guarantee a particular rate
of return.
Even the AARP can't spin the facts in it's own research.
You have to love the following 2 comments: "American workers are too dumb to participate in this type of system"
"that only indicates that
retirees are better off than they would have been, not that they are well off."
Go read for yourself
http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/econ/ib23_chile.pdf
Come on Dream. Fill us in with the spin that even the AARP couldn't give us. Before you write it, Chile had to get through the transition costs as we will have to. We're in a better position because we have a few years before the whole system goes belly up. We should be able to manage the costs better with a more gradual transition.
Holla
Thrift Savings Plan.
Look it up.
Realize that all Govt. Employees get it.
Understand that this is the plan for Soc. Sec.
This is the future.
This if for YOUNG PEOPLE.
Get the real info and spread it please.
im not sure why people allow organizations such as rock the vote get away with just saying bullsh*t and no one questions it. You talk about the risk involved with private accounts. What the hell? The risk that you might actually get to keep some of your own money? Social Security guarantees that you will lose 15% of every dollar you earn, and sometime 30-40 years from now, you will get back whatevers left after the government has spent most of it on things that you would never spend your own money on. So, there's your risk! If you don't want to risk losing your guaranteed 15% loss of money down this black hole we call social security, then by all means go for it! I have found that life is better when i let other people take care fo me, because i am too scared and irresponsible to do so myself. wait, thats not true.
Dream, I bet you weren't crying and moaning when Clinton proposed similar SS reform. I bet you thought it was a great idea.
Bush picks brains of Clinton, father
By Bill Sammon
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
ABOARD AIR FORCE ONE -- President Bush solicited foreign policy advice from former President Bill Clinton at CIA briefings this week and even told Mr. Clinton that he liked his approach to reforming Social Security.
'It was really a lot of fun, Mr. Bush told reporters yesterday after spending three days with Mr. Clinton and former President George Bush in Rome.
'These CIA briefings a lot of time prompt policy discussions,' he added. 'It's interesting to get their points of view about their experiences in particular countries.'
The president also praised one of Mr. Clinton's domestic policies -- trying to reform Social Security. Both men have proposed personal savings accounts as part of the solution, an idea that is vociferously opposed by congressional Democrats.
'I was telling President Clinton I remember watching one of his town hall meetings in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on this very subject,' Mr. Bush said just hours after bidding farewell to his predecessor at the Rome airport.
'And I thought it was a very impressive presentation,' he added. 'By the way, a lot of the language happens to be pretty close to some of the town hall meetings we've had.'
Comparing himself favorably to Mr. Clinton is the latest in a series of recent moves by Mr. Bush to strengthen relations with the man who vanquished his father in 1992. The thaw comes after years in which Mr. Bush talked of the need to 'restore honor and dignity to the White House' in the post-Clinton era.
Earlier this year, the president dispatched Mr. Clinton to help his father orchestrate relief efforts for tsunami victims in Asia. This week, Mr. Bush brought his two predecessors to Rome on Air Force One for Pope John Paul II's funeral.
By pairing Mr. Clinton with his father, Mr. Bush has drawn both predecessors back into the orbit of the White House after years in which they generally stayed away -- at least publicly. It also has allowed Mr. Bush to do something he has strenuously avoided since taking office -- acknowledging that he sometimes sounds out his father on foreign policy questions.
It is quite humorous to see that Rock the Vote is actually going to sit here and try to cite polls, for the majority of polls have over 50%- and sometimes significantly more than 50%- of people in the sub-30 age group supporting the President's reform package.
It does not take a fool to engineer polls to get certain results, and the polls that Rock the Vote cites (and has cited in the past) have all been found to be full of holes, and "leading questions" that push certain results. Anyone who is familiar with basic social research knows how polls can be manipulated.
Rock the Vote should, instead of acting like a partisan puppet of any party, be advocating the best possible solution for the youth, the movement it claims to represent. The best possible solution for the youth here, whether Rock the Vote likes it or not, is the President's plan. Unfortunately, Rock the Vote would rather be a partisan puppet to the AARP and the Democratic Party instead, which is unfortunate for our generation.
Maybe one day, an organization will step up to TRULY represent our needs and values. Until then, this generation unfortunately will have to deal with puppets like Rock the Vote, who make the youth out to be the AARP's slaves in this entire debate.
Furthermore, it does not come as a surprise that some polls show that some people in our generation are afraid of Social Security reform- look at how much fear mongering partisan puppets like Rock the Vote throw at them every day.
Hitler would have said "All the cool kids hate Jews."
The SS system is a sham. It is immoral. The government has absolutely no right to be involved. Period. Shame on you for allowing yourself to be brainwashed by socialist anti-intellectualism.
.
Instead of telling young voters what to think and what is cool, why don\'t you listen to us. I use to think rock the vote was a voice for young people. Now I see it as a special interest group trying to push its agenda, or what is cool, on young voters. Shame on you.
Take a look at the outlook for Social Security. Huge surpluses now, and huge deficits in the future when I'm retiring. With private accounts, that becomes a deficit now and surpluses in the future. That is the better deal since you only get a few years of deficits and growing surpluses in the futuree.
Hellow! My name is Nikiforov Andrew. You have very good site! Information in it really interesting! Thank you very much! Here is some links to my projects, if you want - you may delete it from my topic!
http://buy-celexa.notep.com/
http://celexa.notep.com/
http://diuretic.notep.com/
http://new-celexa.notep.com/
http://Tafil.notep.com/
http://Topomax.notep.com/
http://Toprol.notep.com/
http://Verelan.notep.com/
Hellow! My name is Nikiforov Andrew. You have very good site! Information in it really interesting! Thank you very much! Here is some links to my projects, if you want - you may delete it from my topic!
[url] http://buy-celexa.notep.com/ [/url]
[url] http://celexa.notep.com/ [/url]
[url] http://diuretic.notep.com/ [/url]
[url] http://new-celexa.notep.com/ [/url]
[url] http://Tafil.notep.com/ [/url]
[url] http://Topomax.notep.com/ [/url]
[url] http://Toprol.notep.com/ [/url]
[url] http://Verelan.notep.com/ [/url]
Great site! Thanks. ...http://cake.siteburg.com
Anyone 21 years old or younger is actually expected to get a negative rate of return
on the social security money they put in under the current system. That doesn't sound too 'cool' to me.
online poker site bonus
Great blog, it very nice. To found additional information about kittens and puppies visit my site Cute Kitten Pictures and Funny Kitten Photos and other site about puppies Cute Puppy Pictures and Funny Puppy Photos
Post a Comment
<< Home