Take that and rewind it back
We catch a lot of flak here at this blog from advocates for privatization. The little hellions seem to have a lot of time on their hands. Actually, suggesting that they are young is probably generous since in all likelihood most of them are balding. But it's fun to see and, hey, more argument is better than less argument. Our goal is to see this issue take off among the youth and the only way that's going to happen is if people are really getting into it.
So in the spirit of the blogosphere, I thought I'd just take a minute to point out how wrong you all are, and how right we are, and you're just a bunch of liars, and we're telling the truth.
Here's a good example. A little while back, the privatizers went ballistic about a poll that we conducted with the AARP, attempting to figure out whether young people care more about private accounts than they do about benefit cuts or debt increases, etc, since that has been quite a sticking point for private accounts plans.
The headline for our press release about the survey said, "POLL OF YOUNG ADULTS FINDS SUPPORT FOR PRIVATE ACCOUNTS PLUMMETS IN FACE OF BENEFIT CUTS, BORROWING." Right away, the wingers were saying this was a "push poll" and all that.
So we were pleased to see CNN report yesterday in the Morning Grind, "Bush and his allies may think they're making progress, but it's more complicated than that. Several recent polls also show that support plummets once folks are asked about possible trade-offs -- the federal borrowing required by such accounts, which even Bush agrees would do nothing to make Social Security solvent, the roller-coaster nature of the stock market, or the possible benefit cuts or tax hikes necessitated to keep the existing program in the black."
Isn't that, like, exactly what we said?
Then, the subhead for our press release said, "THE MORE YOUNG PEOPLE LEARN ABOUT PRIVATE ACCOUNTS, THE LESS THEY LIKE THEM." We thought that summed things up pretty nicely, but again the Enemies of Justice said this was "misleading" and whatnot.
So it was again with some satifaction that we read the lead paragraph for a story in the Washington Post which said, "Barely a third of the public approves of the way President Bush is dealing with Social Security and a majority says the more they hear about Bush's plan to reform the giant retirement system, the less they like it, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll."
Clearly, we got the Post's attention. They turned our claim into a question, tested its veracity and found it to be pleasing.
Oh, and, by the way, in that Washington Post poll....only 40% of 18-29 year olds said they support the Bush Social Security plan.
Right.
So in the spirit of the blogosphere, I thought I'd just take a minute to point out how wrong you all are, and how right we are, and you're just a bunch of liars, and we're telling the truth.
Here's a good example. A little while back, the privatizers went ballistic about a poll that we conducted with the AARP, attempting to figure out whether young people care more about private accounts than they do about benefit cuts or debt increases, etc, since that has been quite a sticking point for private accounts plans.
The headline for our press release about the survey said, "POLL OF YOUNG ADULTS FINDS SUPPORT FOR PRIVATE ACCOUNTS PLUMMETS IN FACE OF BENEFIT CUTS, BORROWING." Right away, the wingers were saying this was a "push poll" and all that.
So we were pleased to see CNN report yesterday in the Morning Grind, "Bush and his allies may think they're making progress, but it's more complicated than that. Several recent polls also show that support plummets once folks are asked about possible trade-offs -- the federal borrowing required by such accounts, which even Bush agrees would do nothing to make Social Security solvent, the roller-coaster nature of the stock market, or the possible benefit cuts or tax hikes necessitated to keep the existing program in the black."
Isn't that, like, exactly what we said?
Then, the subhead for our press release said, "THE MORE YOUNG PEOPLE LEARN ABOUT PRIVATE ACCOUNTS, THE LESS THEY LIKE THEM." We thought that summed things up pretty nicely, but again the Enemies of Justice said this was "misleading" and whatnot.
So it was again with some satifaction that we read the lead paragraph for a story in the Washington Post which said, "Barely a third of the public approves of the way President Bush is dealing with Social Security and a majority says the more they hear about Bush's plan to reform the giant retirement system, the less they like it, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll."
Clearly, we got the Post's attention. They turned our claim into a question, tested its veracity and found it to be pleasing.
Oh, and, by the way, in that Washington Post poll....only 40% of 18-29 year olds said they support the Bush Social Security plan.
Right.
posted by Hans Riemer at 4:18 PM
17 Comments:
I resent the fact that you equate being bald with being old. For the record I'm young AND bald. Why don't you stick to the facts buddy or do you not have any that support your argument?
I resent the fact that you insinuate that being bald means you're old. For the record I'm young AND bald. Why don't you stick to the facts buddy or do you not have any that support your argument?
Wow, what a hack organization rock the vote is. As a young American, I laugh at these idiots with their claims of "non-partisanship" as they consistantly hold up left-wing positions as correct. Same with the racial privacy initiative. RTV took the social racist position of needing to use race to classify groups based on their "privilege" or "disadvantage" (read socially superior or inferior, respectively). Here's hoping you guys get your head out of the sand and realize most young people (including this one) are now laughing at you fools. Btw, where was that victory party for President Bush that you held for Clinton after he won? ....Right
The Washington Post article was pretty good in my opinion.
I'm glad people are debating this issue. Especially younger voters, because these choices will effect us the most.
Imtheamericandream, you can go after privatization all you want, but do you really want to go after my baldness? What if I told you I was a woman? I swear, I thought you liberals were supposed to be all PC and crap. Why don't you stick to the topic.
One comforting thing is that for all the noise from the "rock the vote" crowd, when election day came, the kids nearly all STAYED HOME.
Only about 18% of the youth voted, which was the same as the previous general election. So spout off your incorrect data, it matters not.
QUOTE: Bald Anonymous - you have yet to answer to the message of this original post. you have yet to answer my BIG question (all assumptions aside) YES or NO: Should there be a standard of living guarantee for all Americans after a lifetime of work? Should it be a right? Part of our social fabric?
Answer:
Actually I am not Bald Anonymous, but I would like to answer your question.
No there should not be a standard of living guarantee for all Americans after a lifetime of work. It is absolutely not a right. The United States Government is not here to socially redistribute people's money. Number one, we are NOT a democracy (ie: mob rule). We are a constitutional republic, and the constitution states nothing about a "standard of living" that we need to live by. A "standard of living," by the way which is much better than many European nations.
Number two, I should not be held liable at the point of a gun for aiding those who don't have the intelligence to save for their own retirement. We all make choices in our lives, some are good, some are bad. If you cannot realize which are which, you are undeserving of my money. I went to college, I graduated with a degree, I chose to marry a wonderful person who also has a college degree. Neither of us grew up in wealthy families. We put ourselves through school by hardwork, scholarships and student loans. How many people can say that? Now we have two brand new cars and just bought our first house. Now we also put away money each week into an IRA (as well as a savings account for our first child). How much money per week? Around $50 per week goes into our IRAs, and that will increase as our pay increases. If everyone did that -- even $5 a week -- there would be no need for Social Security. What if you don't have it? Do you pay for cable? That's $40 a month. Do you pay for internet, or even high speed? That's anywhere from $10 - $40 per month. Shutting off your lights when you leave the room, and not running the a/c or heat as much would also save you money. Do you take 20 minute showers? Can you carpool to work? If you cannot chose to sacrifice to save for your retirement, you certainly aren't entitled to any of my money.
Another issue is the simple fact that private accounts would be voluntary. If you don't trust that "risky" scheme called the "Stock Market," then don't pay into it. But look closely at your social security statement -- at any time they can (and will) raise the retirement age, lower benefits, or both. With a private account, that would be your money, they could never touch it. The private account would be yours, and if you died the entirety would go to your family. Can social security make the same claim? Private accounts help hard workers such as myself and my husband. People who are having around 6% of our income stolen from us and redistributed to retirees. Do you think we will ever see the amound of money that we pay into the system? Of course we won't.
As a Libertarian, I feel your views do closely tie in with socialism (though it sounds odd because you claim that communism doesn't work. The government is not here to take money away from hard-working individuals and give it to people too stupid to save for their own retirement. The government is not here to provide a "standard of living." You need to provide that for yourself. Where did this entitlement mentality come from? It certainly hasn't come from the people who are making any sort of money. Actually, I mean the people who made good choices in their lives. Take some personal responsibility for once in your miserable life. You are only entitled to what you can earn for yourself.
And before you ask, yes I do contribute to charities and churches. That's where the help should come from, not the government.
And to answer another question I'm sure will come up, if someone dies I really don't care. Do you realize how inexpensive life insurance is? My husband and I both took out life insurance policies to ensure that the other wouldn't be left out in the cold. It costs around $30 a month, less than many cable plans.
This article could have been written today. Nothing has changed in the past 9 years except that a deficit of trillions became a surplus of trillions that once again became a deficit of trillions.
Social Security: From Ponzi Scheme to Shell Game
http://www.slate.com/id/2405
the real takeaway messages:
1) There is a problem with SS.
2) Privatization is not a solution to aforementioned problem.
3) The size and security of future retirement benefits ultimately depend on the country's general prosperity at that time in the future.
I just love you supporters of collectivism. It is so cute, all the assumptions that you make. I have a lot of problems with Bush but I also have a lot of problems with other statist people like you. You expect the government to fix all the problems. The social security program is opression and robbery. What if I wish to be free and give my earnings to whatever or whoever I want. Stop generalizing the youth. Not all of us are the sheep that follow our public school teachers, politicians, and karl marx. Keep you greedy hands out of my life you slacker.
I don't support Bush's plan.
(it will put the feds into the stock market, where they do not belong, that is not privatization)
I don't support your plan.
(just like his plan, it is socialism)
I don't support Social Slavery.
I am not bald.
I am not a number.
I am young.
I work.
I am an individual. (do you know what that is?)
Your surveys just show how democracy has limits. Majority does not matter when it comes to liberty. I don't care who supports what. It is my life and my work. Stay out of it.
Oh yeah, by the way....SS, like the other SS, was started by the Nazis.
Intheamericandream:
Should there be a standard of living guarantee for all Americans after a lifetime of work? Should it be a right? Part of our social fabric?
No. The forced "investment" of 12.4% of my paycheck everyweek is immoral because it violates my right to do as I please with my money. In addition, I fail to see how being forced under the threat of jail to participate in a government run pyramid scheme that will cost myself and others in my generation money when we do retire is compatable with the concept of liberty. I am responsible for my own retirement and I want you and others like you to take your hands out of my wallet and fund your own retirement.
If no, perhaps we should lose the minimum wage while we're at it, huh? We'll just let the market take control and fair play will inevitably ensue... sorry, but I have as much faith in unfettered and unregulated market economics as I do in communism - NONE
That's a good idea. The minimum wage prices lower skilled workers (ie. young people) out of the job market because many businesses see the wages they are forced to pay as not worth hiring the low-skilled worker.
Okay.
So the big problem here looks like a matter of preferance. Which do you prefer?
Independance and Personal Responsibility?
or
Comfort and Security?
We catch a lot of flak here at this blog from advocates for privatization. The little hellions seem to have a lot of time on their hands. Actually, suggesting that they are young is probably generous since in all likelihood most of them are balding.
Typical liberal. The thought never occurs to you that some young people can break free of the government schools, the liberal media, the "entertainment industry",and "non-partisan" liberal hacks like Rock the Vote.
Oh, and, by the way, in that Washington Post poll....only 40% of 18-29 year olds said they support the Bush Social Security plan.
I don't like the Bush plan. I want to control all of my Social Security "investment". I want to invest all of it how I see fit. Hell, I don't even want to "contribute" 12.4% right now because I really can't afford it and put myself through school right now. The Bush plan only lets me "invest" it in investments the government approves.
Socialism Kills
Allow for private accounts and end the ponzi scheme! Http://www.CatoInstitute.org
hey mr. imtheamericandream,
What is your definition of liberty? Liberty does not involve mandatory programs that you may not even approve of. Liberty is doing as one pleases.
I like how you refer to Libertarians as elitists considering I have lived in poverty. My parents were at one time homeless. Hard work got us out of the hole with no help from the government using another person's earnings.
The "corporate malfeasance" is being addressed in many ways. Ken Lay goes to trial in June and Enron is no more. Greed is a nasty thing and some people do it well. However, RTV and AARP are smokin' the same stuff on this SS issue. It's just NOT your money, so hands off!
I am just wondering how anyone would really believe Soc. Sec. is a good thing! It is the absolute worst investment ever! Gov. bonds and CDs, would be a pretty safe bet. I am sorry you can't see that the current system is not a sure thing! The elderly people who have paid all their hard earned money for years are finding out the have a choice of eating or medicine! They really thought the SS. system was going to be their for them too... Sorry about you! Good luck!
Post a Comment
<< Home