Here's what they think about ya
We're enjoying a surge in traffic to our blog right now, along with an explosion of comments, which is cool. You dudes keep hitting at us because the only way this issue is going to take off is if there's a fight about it. But since not everyone may have time to read through the comments on the blog, I thought I'd excerpt a few snippets of what has been posted lately.
Reading through them, it occurs to me that maybe this helps explain why all the cool kids oppose privatization.
--
"If your people at RTV really cared about people you would be working to end S.S. as we know it."
"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 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."
"Urge your representatives to get rid of social security completely so you can receive your entire paycheck."
"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."
"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."
"By they way, people who oppose individual choice are socialists."
Reading through them, it occurs to me that maybe this helps explain why all the cool kids oppose privatization.
--
"If your people at RTV really cared about people you would be working to end S.S. as we know it."
"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 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."
"Urge your representatives to get rid of social security completely so you can receive your entire paycheck."
"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."
"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."
"By they way, people who oppose individual choice are socialists."
posted by Hans Riemer at 8:44 PM
38 Comments:
Please tell me this sort of drivel (referring to the blog post) isn't an indication as to what my peers think about social security. If anyone under 30 thinks Social Security is a good thing then they didn't pay attention or skipped school with the "cool kids" during economics class.
Why would the "cool kids" want to trust the government with their money? Why would I want to be "cool" if I want to saddle my golden years to some broken down horse that won't even leave a dime for my kids or my wife except some paltry few hundred dollars for my funeral? Why should I be "cool" paying into social security when the "cool" members of congress, our government employees and public educators get to opt out of this "cool" social security and enjoy a higher return on their investment with their own private plan?
You guys at RTV are becoming a joke, I'm sad to have been part of the MTV generation if this is how you guys rebel these days... fight the "man" by giving him all your money... you can trust the government they only want to take your rock and roll away, but they'll take care of you when your old and 50 cent is considered a golden oldie. Give me a break and get a clue!
You dudes keep hitting at us because the only way this issue is going to take off is if there's a fight about it.
Awww....poor baby. Comrade Hans and the rest of the RTV gang don't like have their vision of "the cool kids opposing Social Security privatization" shattered.
Hans, what do you and the rest of the gang propose if you don't like privatization?
Or are you just trying to get hits for your site scaring our generation (again) about the draft?
Rock the Vote’s work doesn’t end when the polls close. We empower young people to create change in their communities and take action on the issues they care about.
Wow... what a complete and utter lie. If you wanted to address issues that youth care about, you'd be promoting Social Security reform. News Flash: People under 30 want to keep their money, not gamble it away with Social Security. I'd say more, but my company is about to move out for Tikrit... oh wait... I'm not in the army... you were lying about the "secret draft" too.
Social Security is nothing more than a pyramid scheme....resembles a shakey house of cards where the young on the bottom get trampled. Alternatives must be in place....don't trust the private sector, fine stick with the govt. plan, but for the majority of us, give us control over OUR money. I cannot afford to give up more of my wages to a government falacy.
"Your estimated benefits are based on current law. Congress has made changes to the law in the past and can do so at any time. The law governing benefit amounts may change because, by 2042, the payroll taxes collected will be enough to pay only about 73 percent of scheduled benefits."
This is a quote straight from www.ssa.gov sample statement. Please tell people the truth about social security, it is NOT GUARANTEED!
"Here's what they think about ya" - I'm thinking that you kids are smart enough to realize that RTV may not the brightest bulb in the knife drawer!
Reading through them, it occurs to me that maybe this helps explain why all the cool kids oppose privatization.
---
If you're going to say something like that, back it up! Just because you think something is uncool does not make it wrong.
Social Security is a fraud - simply look at the Chilean or Galviston, Texas retirement systems to know that privatization works, in real life.
Social Security is one step above counting on winning the lottery for retirement.
When I read that RTV had a new campaign called "I love SS", I figured it was a clever, sarcastic jab at SS since nobody under 30 could possibly support it. Why would I favor 14% of my income being taken from me by force before I can decide how to spend it myself? Alas, RTV is neither clever nor sarcastic, they are just sad.
I can't help but think that whoever posted this post knows nothing about persuasion. If anything, he demonstrated a mindblowing arrogance that will do more to hurt his cause than anything. More proof that RTV is out of touch.
By the way, is Rock The Vote actually on AARP's payroll? Nobody at RTV wants to answer the question.
www.socialsecurityforall.com
"Trust us, there is more than enough money in Washington to pay Social Security benefits for future generations: It's a question of priorities and values. The politicians always find the money when they need to."
They find the money by borrowing it from somewhere else, or by just going further into debt. That's the way our money works, we have a fiat money system where the value of our money is based not on the work you did to recieve it, or any material backing it like gold or silver, but on the increasing national debt. So, in other words "finding the money when they need to" both increases tha natinal debt and decreases the value of the dollar. (Like when they decide to print more money or raise the minimum wage, which may sound like a good idea, but the farmers, ranchers, and fruit growers of america can afford more mexicans (with work visas) at 5.25 than at say 7.00)
Anyways all you cool kids are probably lost by now anyways. Oh, and that social security trust fund you keep hearing about, it's gone. That's one of the places "the politicians always find the money" for things like defense, and my favorite government program, welfare. Did you know that in many states, people on welfare "make" the equivilant of $10.00 an hour? No wonder they don't just go to the local fast food joint, which is almost always hiring!
Sorry for rambling, there are just a lot of "welfare state" programs like this that I am extremely pissed that I am being coerced into supporting. I would much rather give my money to a local charity that is ten times more efficient than the bloated monopoly we call government.
There is no Social Security trust fund. That money has already been spent.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/04/20050405-4.html
Lets not saddle our children with the same Ponzi scheme we inherited from our parents.
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v120/lpmember/croc.gif[/img]
More like CROCK the vote!
I wonder what some of your sponsors would say about your organization diverting from its emphasis on voter registration, towards being a liberal PAC
I think, and I am far from being socialist!, that the SS is an amazing thing when handled carefuly. It works pretty good in my country. You, the ones who are strongly against its privatization, should have a deeper look at what is going on arround your country. Maybe will you find some good inspiration.
To be honest, I do hate giving my money away to SS, but at the end of the day I know if I get sick as hell, it'll garantee me support, like it does for people today.
If anyone wants to educate themselves about Gavleston's Privatization plan, read below from the creator of the plan. Particularly take note of Guaranteed Benefits. That's right GRAURANTEED, Dream!!!!
-
-
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.
"To be honest, I do hate giving my money away to SS, but at the end of the day I know if I get sick as hell, it'll garantee me support, like it does for people today."
Disability benefits are hard as hell to get from SS. My 56 year old mother who has a bad back/neck from an auto accident, diabetes which lead to metal plates in her left foot, can barely stand and has problems walking (needs help from a cane), plus all her mental issues which she takes 8 or 9 different medications for; with all this, she was denied SS disability benefits and was told she's still considered young enough to work.
Wasn't the Ponzi scheme outlawed before Social Security went into effect? There's gotta be some legal angles there to get it abolished. Going private is just a bandade to have a better chance of postponing what's bound to happen to all ponzi schemes. Social Security is a scam. Duh! Why do we keep electing people that haven't done the right thing about it? I blame Political Price Fixing. Anyone wanna back me up on that?
Charles Ponzi himself landed about 12.5 years in prison for his scheme. I'd be happy if the legislators who are keeping the government-controlled ponzi scheme on life support would land just half that amount of prison time (per legislator, anyway; otherwise, they'd get what, a couple of days apiece?). RockTheVote should be called BuyTheVote, because that's what this system is about: political price fixing to the extreme. Give us just two choices for elected office, both of them chosen by others in the price fixing game. Wow, a choice between two bad candidates, and one of them offers me social security! Excuse me while I vomit.
For Charles Ponzi's story, read this:
Charles Ponzi entry in Wikipedia
The Masons invented Social Security, and they funnel a bit of everyone's earnings into a fund for purchasing candles, spellbooks, and domestic pets for use in their satanic rituals. Just as those who buy drugs support terrorism, those who get a job and work support satanism. Please help to Free the Masons so that you won't have to make the difficult choice between quitting your job or giving aid and comfort to those who mutilate kittens.
hey dream, you want to correct your assertion that the majority of workers get less from the privatization system? Are you sure? Positive?
I read your little report. The only way you get more benefits from social security is if you die and you have a wife and 2 children and the children are young. The children will receive benefits until they are 19 and then that's it.
You honestly think the majority of people in Galveston are dropping dead when they get married and have 2 young kids? There must be an epidemic there. We must need to send the government in to see why so many fathers or mothers are dropping dead in Galveston with 2 young kids.
Anyway, what a joke. Get the facts straight.
Under the Private plan, you get a lump payment of up to $200,000 and the amount that has already been paid into the account. And of course your personal life insurance that every parent should have, which costs $20 a month for a 30 year term and a payout of $250000.
How pathetic you liberals can be when you don't want to support something just because it is supported by Bush.
Later
Yeah, this is a really critical discussion. Gonna change the fucking world by the revelations in this thread. GD, you'd think that someone invented the atom bomb in here. I bet todd is a chronic caller to the Baby Jesus, er, Sean Hannity, show. Bush is trying to lower my take-home pay to enrich his buddies at Halliburton.
I'm goin with the RC Collins' retirement plan, one gray m&m at a time.
Everyone knows Bud Dickman's a commie.
ImtheAmericanDream:
How about raising the income cap by a significant enough amount ($200K) to encourage long term solvency
No. Most of that money would come from the pockets of already overburdened small business owners. That's an estimated at most $242 billion over five years that is better at work in the economy providing jobs. In addition, the small businesses have to make up the extra tax money lost by cutting their biggest expense, which is wages and that means young people will lose their jobs.
Oh and raising the income limit only pospones SS deficits for at most five years.
dream - if SS was such a good idea then why do members of Congress and other public officials (including us public college professors) get to opt out for a private account while the rest of you get stuck with SS?
My private account is mine, and has already made me a greater return than SS and I've only been teaching for three years... imagine if I keep teaching for another 27 years.
The facts are that SS is a tax, and a terrible burden on our country. Employers lower wages to pay for their 'contributions' and in the end SS returns nearly nothing when compared to private accounts. If you want your money to be thrown into that system then why don't you let the rest of us have private accounts while you put your trust and faith into SS?
Is RTC taking AARP dollars to oppose privatization or not? RTV refuses to comment on this issue. Why?
Seems to me like there is still a large number of people in the younger generation who are opposed to privatization as well. And there are reasons to question this proposal.
Don't you think it makes sense to take the time to examine our options and make the best choice? No one is saying that SS shouldn't change. They are saying that there might be some better solutions...let's make the right chocie, because if we reform SS too hastily...the younger generations will have to pay for it.
Dream, is certainly an apropos name, you can't see past your illogical position to see that those who are in authority to take our money and tell us what we can and can't do with funds taxed for SS are in a completely different system!
As a college professor working for the state of Texas I have NEVER paid SS tax... EVER... and I'm not the only one, the majority of public professors pay into the private pension plan and I wonder why if SS is such a great plan?
this site is a bunch of michael moore crap. 3/4 of the stuff on here isn't true. Read Factcheck.org and dont listen to anyone that bashes a side. This site is hurting america and giving our youth a bad mentality
I have to agree with all that has been said. I am actually thinking of starting my own website. If anyone is interested in starting a moderate website where people on both sides of the party our welcomed, email me at bhyde4@hotmail.com We can do this and stop the extremism that continues to persist.
Dream, You're right I have no control over the investments, however my account is currently gaining a higher rate of return than anything SS would ever pay. Sorry to hear your mom's plan was mismanaged, but our plan is working just fine. Now, after saying that, I DO NOT want this plan or SS I want my own account or no SS at all. It is not the government's role to make sure we save our paycheck, and this system is currently responsible for lower wages and employment. The system is broke, lets fix it but lets not defend the dead horse that got us into this mess in the first place.
Yes, AARP and RTV (er, LibDemRTV that is) .. They say politics makes strange bedfellows. Looks like a match made in heav... (er..)
The .gov can have my ss money (I'm 40) - IF they shut it down.
I'm blown away by the stupidity of many RTV members who post here. Do a little research into why social security is such a mess, exactly how likely you are to benefit from it if it gets privatized, and just how much control you'll actually have before you spout such insanity.
Social Security is a good thing. Let's not forget, we do live in a society. It should be managed much better, I'll admitt, but I'd hate to live in a country where we don't feel any obligation to care for the weakest among us.
This isn't about being paritsan. It's about really caring about the future for this country and honestly believing we're heading in the wrong direction.
Cry me a river anonymous. This is the most charitable country in the world. You probably don't give anything to charity, but that is not how a liberal gages charity. Your definition of charity is measured by how many people I can force to pay into a socialist scheme that is supposed to care for the poor. Then you feel all nice and warm inside.
My definition of charity is providing someone with real means to an end. That's right, don't ensure poverty upon someone like the current SS system does. Show them how there money can work for them. Allow them to own a private account that is an actual asset. This may be the only asset the poorest among us may own. They can then watch how an invest works. They can watch there interest compound and grow. If the unfortunate person passes, they can leave there asset to a surviving spouse or child. This child will see this asset and understand that investing or proper money management is important. Then who knows, maybe we will have a more educated and informed society generations to come. To me, that is compassion. Active participation and learning. The current system already proves that no one learns anything except how to raise taxes.
Your compassion is misguided my friend.
I believe your compassion is misguided.
Do you honestly believe that privatizing social security will make us all educated and rich? That is giving this plan a little too much credit. Some people will benefit from privatization but many, maybe even you, will not.
Your passion for this issue seems to stem from what you alone could potentially gain. I see that as selfish.
As I said earlier and a point you seem to have missed, I'm not cheerleading for social security the way it is now. It is messed up, but privatization will not be the blessing to save us all. Bush knows this too. That is why he is selling this plan to town hall meetings with preselected audience members who already agree with him.
And labeling someone a liberal, which believe it or not isn't an insult, does not make my oppion matter less than yours.
This has nothing to do what I alone will gain. Believe me, I'm 28 and well on my way to not have to rely on any SS program, private or not. I'm more concerned with what will be there for my daughter. Explain to me who will not benefit from private accounts and why? And don't give me this crap about the stock market being to volatile. Even your liberal leader Bill Maher doesn't believe that. Anyone making that arguement really shows their lack of understanding of the stockmarket and is trying to scare people.
I can think of many ways people get screwed in the current system. For one, if your a black male, your life expectancy is shorter than when SS starts paying benefits, but I guess your compassion doesn't cover them. Who gets screwed next when the age is raised by politicians?
Next, how about the return you get. I don't think anyone is trying to get rich off of SS, but to get a 70% return on what I put in or at best 100%, that is ridiculous. Even the AARP agrees that SS funds should be invested in the stock market as a solution to the problem, but they believe only the gov't should do the investing and not you should have no say in the matter.
Anyway, why are you even arguing the matter? The proposal is going to be voluntary. You can stay in the existing system and I can take a so called risk and go the privatization route. Liberals are usually for choices.
Post a Comment
<< Home