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
128 Comments:
"All the cool kids oppose privatization"
Sounds like something a drug dealer would say to get kids to believe what they think is cool.
I think I've got this whole MTV-AARP-Socialism thing figured out.
I'm not one to believe conspipracy theories, but I now think that MTV must now own a part of Alpo dog food. They don't want Social Security changed into a real retirement program because it would decrease the sales of dog food to the elderly.
Comrade Hans probably owns a fortune of dog food stock. So he has put his comrades in Cuba to work producing dog food, diverting it through Canada and the into the United States to satisfy the hunger of millions of starving retired folks who've lost a fortune with Social Security.
The dog food companies are right now lobbying your congressman to keep Social Security as unfair as possible so that their sales don't decline.
(meant entirely as a joke, but sure makes you think!)
You've only told the parts of the poll that support your socialist goals.
The column of those aged 18-29 who have heard a lot about Bush's proposal is:
approve (of Bush's proposal) 46%
disapprove (of Bush's proposal) 45%
Don't know 9%
Of course I'm one of the ones who disapprove of Bush's proposal. For reason's given earlier:
- only allows you to invest (divert?) 4%
- does not create private accounts, only personal accounts managed by government bureaucrats with a small number of options for investment.
- There is very little detail to Bush's plan yet. For all we know it is another 4% of forced savings ON TOP of the 12.4% we have taken from us already.
I want to be able to take back the money that is getting thrown into the Social Security black hole and invest it in my own account. Bush's plan does not (yet?) state this.
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
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.
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"
From all of the posts that I've read RTV actually endorses a restructuring of Social Security, just not a dismantling. So, for all of you spinners out there, STOP trying to scare people.
Instead, use your time more constructively to propose a solution that
1)honors our commitment to American workers, their survivors and the disabled
2)protects at least a minimum standard of living from the fluctuations of the market and corporate malfaesance; by all means risk away above and beyond a safety net
3)doesn't pass off trillions of dollars of "transitional costs" debt to my generation
4)disallows bankers and bureaucrats from playing with and/or profiting from my hard earned money at their leisure
DO those things and I don't care what party you're from; I'll support you all the way.
Multi-Anonymous (Bald included)
STOP posting heritage foundation and cato institute propoganda on this site. those groups, and others like them, are nothing short of paid mercenaries from the extreme right wing and banking/investment corporation on this issue. you're irresponsible postings only exacerbate the partisan problems associated with this issue.
SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT A PARTISAN ISSUE. IT AFFECTS EVERY AMERICAN EQUALLY. DON'T FALL FOR THE SPIN OR THE HYPE.
THIS IS A COMPLEX ISSUE THAT DESERVES IN-DEPTH RESEARCH AND DEBATE, NOT SCARE TACTICS TO FORCE US INTO THE "RIGHT" DECISION.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
"Hitler would have said..."
SHAME ON YOU. Instead of invoking Hitler on this issue of marginal financial importance, how about you use it on a blog where it is relevant. Have you any idea what is happening in the Sudan right now, RIGHT NOW? People are being slaughtered all over this planet because of racist and religious hate politics. How dare you invoke evil so flippantly. Remember Rwanda. Remember East Timor. Remember Cambodia. Remember the US doing nothing? SHAME ON YOU.
Social Security was created in the wake of the Great Depression when millions of Americans lost their entire savings to a corrupted, mis-managed, overly speculative and over valued market that most investors did not understand.
Social Security was created to keep the elderly out of dire poverty after a lifetime of work.
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.
Agreed, the formulas used then don't add up anymore because of changing demographics.
However, we should NOT throw away that hard earned lesson from our grandparents.
Social Security should be fixed, possibly even overhauled. It should not be bankrupted next year by a privatization scheme that will only put us several trillion dollars more into debt.
All the smart, compassionate kids oppose privatisation.
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?
I've read the heritage, cato and socialslavery website. Like many people in this country, I am simply philosophically opposed to their agendas. I also disagree with the manner in which they frame this debate - simplistically. Financial vagueries of different proposals are red herrings at this point; this debate is really about a much larger problem: Standard of Living for American workers.
Agreed - the standard now is too low, but the idea that market economics will make it "all better" is dangerous and irresponsible. With the current trend of wealth consolidation, the middle class will soon become modern serfs (attached to their impossible debt rather than land) to the corporate aristocracy. Dismantling the idea of SS is another step in that process.
As I've said in the past (Noid - please go back and read past posts),
I have as much faith in an unfettered and unregulated market system as I do in communism, NONE.
I find it interesting that the same people attack me with these vague comments about facts and my desire to "lead people astray" refuse to answer many of my questions and concerns. The only truth I know is what I reason from the facts available to me. I believe in FDR's New Deal. I believe that we can maintain a minimum standard of living for all working Americans while also maintaining a free market system that allows for upward financial mobility; a system that rewards individual innovation and hard work NOT corporate structures.
Here are a few samples of my concerns from past posts that have been blithely ignored by the privatizers and libertarians.
-------------------------
"Anyone want to address my previous comments about protection from corporate malfaesance OR treating complex problems so simplistically OR the Ayn Rand allusions??"
------------------------
"I think that all of you Libertarians take Ayn Rand way too seriously... yes, noble concepts, but exponentially harder to do on a macro scale than say. Not that we shouldn't be educating people about personal financial responsibility, we should."
------------------------
Quote from Jen "Take some personal responsibility for once in your miserable life. You are only entitled to what you can earn for yourself."
So, if Ken Lay and his cronies at Enron decide to enrich a few hundred people with illegal business practices at the cost of hundreds of thousands of stockholders, then those who lost are at fault? Those people and pension funds who invested their retirement savings in Enron DID earn that money and ARE entitled to some renumeration, right? Who's miserable now? Me, because I have to help support my once independant grandparents. Ohh, the rich get richer, Libertarians, and the poor get poorer without some sort of organized intervention. They called the consolidation of wealth and power feudalism several hundred years, robber barony a hundred years ago and fascism 60 years ago. What do you call it? Market Adjustments?"
------------------------
"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???"
we're up to 12 repeats now
-------------------------------
I'll keep saying it until this issue is put to bed,
1)There IS a problem with Social Security that must be addressed; but it is not a crisis situation. Thus, we should take a long, hard, in-depth look at the philosophy and the economics of the current system and its proposed alternatives as a nation. We should NOT be scared into taking immediate action.
2)Medicare, Education and Iraq ARE crisis issues
3)"Personal accounts are NOT a solution to the issue [longterm SS solvency]", says Pres. Bush (emphasis added:)
4) Less government, please. Less bureaucracy, please. Less corporate power, please. More local community control, NOW.
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.
Multi-Anon and bp - care to address any of my concerns, comments, or questions? Or would you rather continue with your political hatchet job?
do you really care about the future of this country or does the "excitement" of political wrangling supercede truth and the Rule of Reason?
Who cares what President Novelli said, when President Bush said, "Personal accounts do not solve the issue [long-term SS solvency}"
>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????
RE: The Hidden Dangers of Privatization article
"Social Security Is An Insurance Not Pension Plan"
Well if this is the case its awfully bad as an insurance plan. I could buy a life/disability insurance plan on the open market for a small fraction of the cost of Social Security. If you want it to be an insurance plan, lets shrink it dramatically so it can concentrate on providing those benefits, although it still would be cheaper to go with a private insurance plan.
"Those that have investment accounts rather than savings accounts, which often pay higher interest rates, are at the mercy of the very unreliable stock market and millions of dollars as we all know have already been lost there. "
Unreliable stock market? The stock market has averaged 11%/year between 1926 and 1999. Any large drops in the stock market have always recovered, and recovered quickly. I have to admit that you can rely on one thing with social security, whenever the ponzi scheme is falling apart you can rely on the government to increase taxes.
Why does this article assume that companies will drop their pension and 401K plans if social security is privatized? I could only see them doing that if privatization is so successful that it is better than an employees current 401k? And why would they drop any company disibility insurance?
The calculator used by the author is not a comparison of social security to private accounts. Instead it is a calculator comparing social security to what the Democrats want us to believe the Bush plan will entail. (note Bush has not been very specific about his plan).
ANY accurate calculator that compares social security to true privatization of social security funds into a balanced index fund will have privatization come way out ahead (with money left over to buy life/disability benefits).
I find it funny that the author admits how hard it is to get disability benefits under social security. I met a disabled vet the other day who had been trying for several years, despite being considered disabled by the VA.
The author of the article you posted stated:
"Note: The author in 2001, fought for 1-1/2 years to get her own Social Security Disability benefits. During this time she used up all her life savings, pension money and was on the verge of bankruptcy before her claim for benefits was finally approved in June of 2003. She then had to spend over half of her SSD check each month on health insurance premiums, medicines and co-pay fees until she became eligible for Medicare in June of 2004. She now relies totally on these benefits due to several incurable health conditions, and daily has to deal with the stress of living on the brink of total poverty in addition to her illnesses. "
Well thats what social security will get you!
More rebuttal to Rock the Vote here at my blog (I am 23 years old):
http://www.willisms.com/archives/2005/04/rock_the_vote_t.html
Rock the Vote is amazingly lame.
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
Rock-the-vote is attempting to make the ridiculous case that somehow the idea of private accounts does not benefit young people. According to the political director of Rock The Vote: "To us, it's totally black and white. This is the first generation ever that would be asked to pay for their own retirement and Social Security at the same time. This is what private accounts do. They saddle young people with an unfair burden."
Go ahead. I know you'll want to read that again and again to see if the comment makes any sense at all. After you've read it a few times you'll see that it doesn't.
Somehow this "Rock the Vote" myrmidon thinks that as long as the money is being taken from your 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.
This position is pure idiocy. There is only one reason this Rock The Vote idiot can make such a stupid utterance -- because he's talking to young people who have been "educated," if that is the word, in our fabulous government schools. Come on, let's face it. You really have to be profoundly ignorant to listen to a statement like that and not run away screaming. Come on, allowing someone to put their own money into a private account with their name on it is saddling them with an "unfair burden?"
Diverting part of the Social Security payroll taxes into a private account that the government can't touch is the only way to ensure that the younger generation will have any money at retirement. As it stands now, all of the money being paid into the system by those of working age is being spent on older retirees. There is no money being saved, there is no retirement. There's no special account with their name on it, there is no lockbox. 30 or 40 years down the road, there is unlikely to be anything remotely resembling the Social Security of today waiting for those that retire.
Those opposed to private accounts also can't do simple math. Even at the average return of the stock market, they would receive exponentially more money at retirement than they would through the Social Security system. It's too bad private accounts are dead.
[copied from http://boortz.com/nuze]
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.
kevin said;
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.?
How about looking at Chile for starters
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/10/eveningnews/main679435.shtml
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 have to say...its awesome to see people posting on here who are actually educated about how bad the current SS system is. I was worried when I visited this blog that it would be just more liberal tripe about how benefits are guaranteed (which they certainly are not). I certainly was not surprised to see RTV opposing privitization. Thanks to those who are posting rebuttals to that position and giving the real facts.
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.
The rantings of the authors are idiotic. If you are so ignorant as to think that our generation is going to receive any benefits with the current system then you have been swallowing a lie.
R. Edgar has it right. 4% isn't enough for my greedy self, but we have to support the current and upcoming retirees as is our reponsibility. How about we cut HUD, the Dept of Education, the IRS (institute the fairtax) and the whole problem goes away.
By they way, people who oppose individual choice are socialists.
Fact: Every time the government gets involved, it's slower, more incorrect, more corrupt, and costs five times more.
Looks like all the cool kids aren't as informed as they should be. The proposed private accounts are no different from your current 401K. Or don't you have one of those. It's not the risky stock market gambel it's made out to be. Would you rather have 14% taken out of your paycheck and put into the general accounting fund (sorry, no such thing as a SS trust fund or a lock box)to be spent on government programs with no guarantee you'll ever get it back and what you might get back with little or no return or have your money go into an investment account with your name on it that guarantees you a return far greater than SS could ever promise and guarantees you receive that return at retirement? It seems like a no brainer to me.
Look, this website and blog has put up some very disturbing and certainly misleading "factoids" as they're called. The only lies out there are the ones I see posted on this site. Nothing will be taken away from anybody. Noone's benefits will be cut at all. The system is comepletely voluntary. The only people who lose are the uninformed and misinformed "cool kids" who unknowingly miss out out on the opportunity of their lifetime.
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.
LoL. With the leaders of both parties belonging to the same coven. I feel pitty for those who belive that any of this has the slighest meaning. they are heirs to Hassan I Sabbah. Sit back and enjoy the show. you live in interesting times.
Slack be yours.
Bob Dobbs
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.
r. edgar musta had a typo. Fool is a better fit don't ya think?
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
If a private company was trying to sell people a scam like the current Social Security program, the government would have already stepped in, closed them down and hauled somebody off to jail.
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
"All the cool kids." Probably because all the "cool kids" get all of their "cool news" from swill like this site. Not much for objectivity here, are we? Where are the "I Love Social Security Reform" t-shirts? Why doesn't your poll actually ask what people think about reform instead of just asking where they heard about it?
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.