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
35 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
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
I'm not one of the 40% who support Bush's plan. But I certainly don't aggree with the current system. The problems I have with Bush's plan are:
- it only lets you take 4% of your income and invest it outside of our current government social insecurity system.
- it only gives us personal accounts, in effect forced savings into a plan with very few choices managed by government bureaucrats
- Bush has not been specific enough with his plan, for all we know it will be a forced plan on top of the 12.4% young people have stolen from them already.
Instead we should be pushing for real private accounts, gradually ENDING the social security ponzi scheme. I'm glad Bush has opened up the debate. Its sad the AARP/RTV (same thing) don't like debate.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
From Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal:
The 2005 Social Security Trustees Report
The 2005 Social Security Trustees Report lowers the estimate of Social Security's deficit through 2079 to 0.6% of GDP. Last year's Trustees Report pegged the deficit through 2078 at 0.7% of GDP.
Social Security's financial status improved even though the new forecast window adds a big deficit year--2079--to the calculation. And its financial status improved even though the Bush administration assumed:
1. Reduced earnings on the part of the young.
2. Reduced death rates on the part of the old.
3. Lower labor force participation on the part of the young and old.
4. More short term inflation.
5. No change in long-run productivity growth (in spite of very good productivity news).
6. No change in immigration (in spite of immigration running ahead of assumptions).
That's six thumbs on the scales, and still the long-run deficit shrinks.
So why is the headline that the financial status of Social Security has gotten worse? Can you say "an easily snowed press corps"? I knew you could.
anonymous - you're the hack. your record of fact telling is a laughable compendium of half truths, misinformation and outright lies. can't you address the facts contained in the original post, or is it too difficult to spin that much truth? no, instead you redirect attention from the matter at hand and start singing the old "RTV is partisan" tune. you're pathetic. the rule of reason is on the ascendance and you and your elitist cronies are going down.
oh and i'm so sorry that you got your little feelers hurt about being bald. you're a sensitive little guy when it comes to your dome, huh? too bad you're not as sensitive when it comes to ensuring that the weakest and most vulnerable Americans are protected from poverty.
r.edgar - we've been debating, thats what we're here doing. arguments have been made, read and responded to. however, we have a philosophical difference - i believe that every American has a vested interest in keeping the entire working population out of poverty and you do not. the matter at hand concerns the strenth and quality of our social fabric.
SS has a proven record of being a safety net, but I agree we could do better. SS does need to be rexamined and possibly reengineered but NOT dismantled.
Wow, there seems to be a lot of different "Anonymouses" running around now that RtV has decided to let people post anonymously again. It's fascinating that they blocked that option once they started catching heat from people with opposing viewpoints, and now have unblocked it.
Anyhoo, taking up for my fellow Anonymous poster, I have to ask, DREAM and RtV, do you have some sense of how pathetic you seem picking on balding people? And, do you have some degree of embarrassment that the pro-privatizers are the ones posting data, while DREAM and RtV mainly offers shrill ideologies, conspiracy theories, and ad hominems?
Y'all so funny!!
To y'all, I dedicate today's lead editorial in the Washington Post, which seems to describe RtV and DREAM as well as it does Harry Reid:
washingtonpost.com
Dishonest Debate
Friday, March 25, 2005; Page A18
ONE CAN DEBATE the merits of creating personal accounts in Social Security but not the case for fixing the program's solvency problems. Over the next 75 years, as the Social Security trustees reported on Wednesday, the program has a projected deficit of $4 trillion; the longer the nation waits to address this problem, the nastier the tax hikes or benefit reductions that will result. But that's not the impression conveyed by some Democratic leaders. The trustees' report, according to Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), "confirms that the so-called Social Security crisis exists in only one place: the minds of Republicans." The senator's desire to score political points is understandable. His willingness to do so by implying that Social Security is healthy is not.
Democrats defend this opportunism by saying the president is worse. President Bush, they complain, is talking up an alleged Social Security "crisis" in order to ram through an unrelated proposal to create personal accounts. But, in addressing Social Security, Mr. Bush is taking on an issue that the Clinton administration also regarded as important; he is not inventing a problem. He can be faulted for not specifying the benefit cuts or tax hikes he favors to restore solvency, but at least he acknowledges some will be needed. In that context, personal accounts are not irrelevant; they involve risks, but they are potentially a way of cushioning the necessary benefit cuts in the traditional Social Security system.
Democrats are right that the Bush tax cuts have created a much bigger crisis: Their impact on the deficit over the next 75 years, as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office, is about three times greater than the Social Security shortfall projected by the trustees. It is also true that Medicare poses more of a problem than Social Security. Mr. Bush dodges that larger problem, pretending that he put Medicare on the road to reform when, in fact, he and Congress mostly added to its fiscal problems by creating a new entitlement for drug reimbursements. But it's hard to take seriously the Democrats who say that Mr. Bush should switch focus from Social Security to the much bigger problem of Medicare: If they aren't willing to play a constructive role on the supposedly "minor" challenge of Social Security, why should anyone believe that they would behave constructively if the administration wanted to fix Medicare?
The nation faces a severe economic threat from the aging of its population combined with escalating health costs. The sooner it begins to grapple with this problem, the less painful the solution will be. For Mr. Bush, that would mean acknowledging the need for more revenue. For the Democrats, it would require for a smidgeon of honesty about Social Security's state.
© 2005 The Washington Post Company
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
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.
to the Multi-Anonymous out there - your accusations of SS Protectors posting mainly " shrill ideologies, conspiracy theories, and ad hominems?" while privatizers are the ONLY people offering "facts" is just plain silly. check out the RTV blog and website, the AARP website and the AFL-CIO website to name just a few and you will find facts, you just don't happen to like the conclusions that we draw from them. also, ad hominems? your personal motivations are the least of my concerns. but try throwing that at your partner Bald Anonymous - he has accused me of hating freedom, despising choice and basically being un-American no less that 5 times. What exactly is shrill about wanting to protect people from the vicissitudes of the market and thus the possibility of poverty? I would argue that screaming "SS is in crisis AAHHHH" is a bit shrill considering the much larger problem of Medicare reform.
Bald Anonymous - no, i'm not sorry that you're bald. no, i'm not sorry that i made fun of your crying session. i happen to think that its hilarious that you think just because i want to protect SS that i'm a bleeding heart, pc obsessed liberal. polish your dome on that. oh and btw i'm balding a bit too, aren't we all (men and women) going to lose some hair at one point or another? go get some confidence while you're helping yourself to some realism.
SS is a tax based system. If we want to address the "solvency issues" we simply need to redefine some taxes. But, that is beside the point at this stage in our discussion - Multi-Anon are ignoring my statement that leaves the door wide open for SS change. Hardcore (read libertarian) pro-privatizers are pathetic bc they won't even consider the idea that there are other viable options out there to be discussed.
and about your Washington Post EDITORIAL (read opinion) - "personal accounts are not irrelevant; they involve risks, but they are potentially a way of cushioning the necessary benefit cuts in the traditional Social Security system."
--> 1)at what cost?, 2)to whom?, 3)how much risk?, 4)potentially? and 5)what are the other "ways of cushioning"??? anyone want to take a stab at that? Sorry, you can't answer 1-4 because there IS NO single plan on the table, it is all hype and hyperbole masquerading as policy. the administration is policy fishing and they're changing their lure obsessively bc they're not attracting any fish. in fact, the more lures they cast, the more fish they scare away.
see
http://people-press.org/reports/
display.php3?ReportID=239
scroll down to SS: Young People Less Supportive (the ANWR data is interesting too: more Americans than not want to preserve ANWR from drilling!!)
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???
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?
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
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.
Buckshot- voter apathy is a problem throughout this country, not in any single demographic. why do you think that is? oould it perhaps be the lack of choice? i tend to think that Dems and Repubs are 96% exactly the same; that same cultural and intellectual stagnation of the status quo that is pulsed into Americans' heads 8 hours a day from the tv.
segue into Jen's comments. are two new cars, a house and a life insurance policiy the sign of a happy and healthy human existance? i think not.
Jen - you missed the key word in my question, "SHOULD". Our Constitution was written so that it could be changed by the people and for the people if we so desire. I suggest a larger discussion about minimum standards. and as a Libertarian, you didn't comment on my minimum wage analogy - that part of your belief system is just too unpopular to defend, huh?
and Jen, sorry to burst your bubble, but we are a democracy, a special kind of democracy called "Representative Democracy".
and btw, most people would argue that the standard of living in Europe and Japan is much higher than the States - universal medical coverage, housing, community resources, environmental health (clean water and air), and LESS TIME AT WORK!!
QUOTE from Jen "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." Umm don't you think thats a bit shrill? with the same reasoning i could argue that "As a bicyclist, I should not be held liable at the point of a gun for aiding those who don't have the intelligence to build and fix the roads they drive their cars on"
fact of the matter Jen is that we live in a debt society, without our tremendous national and consumer debt, the world economy would come crumbling down (see more recent magazine cover and articles than I care to quote). its actually a very scary situation. but, i don't think that we'd be any better off by allowing our less ingenious and less responsible counterparts to wallow in poverty. the rest of us would be thereby degraded and the real cost of social services would be exorbitant. so, libertarians, i suggest you spend more of your time educating your fellow citizens on how to be personally solvent and how to think long term financially and how not to buy so much cheap plastic crap they don't need from Wal-Mart.
your third issue, Jen, is all speculation. we don't know if private accounts will be voluntary or not. we don't know what percentage will be available for private accounts. AND there is a distinct possibility that one option is the purchase of certain annuities which are NOT transferable upon death. there is no plan, so until there is, please don't sell pies in the sky.
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 (pensioners, stockholders, universities, citizens of vested municipalities) 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?
Come on Libertarians, you've got to admit some faults in your plans if you want the rest of us to take you seriously. Give us an honest account of the trillions of $$ in transition costs and talk about the cost of shredding our social fabric and remaking it. Please don't insult our intelligence by pretending like it's all so simple; nothing on that macro scale is simple.
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
The Cato Institute is a right-wing hatchet group posing as a think-tank. The only thinking going on there is directed by the flow of uber-conservative millions of dollar bills.
Looks like the Libertarians have come out en masse all of a sudden. What, did you get an email telling you where to spew your rhetoric? Next thing we'll be inundated by the LaRouche Youth. But, I'm glad that at least some of you can form a distinct opinion of the Social Security matter that is not a pipe-dream version of Pres. Bush's message (there is NO PLAN people!!)
Kevin, thanks for telling the truth about your view on the minimum wage.
I find it interesting that none of you chose to adress my concerns about corporate malfeasance.
Personally, 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.
anonymous - "Independance and Personal Responsibility? or Comfort and Security?"
please stop treating massively complex issues so simply. you act as if there were only two sides to this issue, when in reality there are many.
I think most of us want a combination of Liberty, Comfort, Prosperity, and Security.
The youth of America deserve an in-depth dialogue not simplistic and value laden generalizations. We're the ones that are going to pay for the solution to the Social Security problem, there should be full disclosure for what we're buying.
I just want to express my disappointment with RTV. For a group that claims non-partisanship, you certainly advocate a lot of partisan positions. I wonder if you are endangering your tax-exempt status which I assume you have. More importantly, I find it amazing that a group presumably targeting the young is in cahoots with the AARP.
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.
blog - i can't find any statement by RTV that could be construed as partisan, but i'm not here to defend them. i've voted republican in the past and i've voted democrat in the past and i've voted green in the past; but my ability to reason, not partisan politics tells me that protecting Social Security is good for America. surely RTV could have the same line of reasoning, no?
hey mr. anonymous (bald or otherwise) - I define liberty as "The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing."
I believe that my choices become limited and degraded when my fellow working citizens suffer in poverty needlessly. I still don't get what's wrong with a minimum standard of living for all workers; the sky is still the limit. Buy as many cars and yachts as you want, just ensure that every child in this country has a comfortable and supportive homelife while you're at it.
Anyone want to address my previous comments about protection from corporate malfaesance OR treating complex problems so simplistically OR the Ayn Rand allusions??
Oh, and Mr. Anonymous - just because you were once poor and now are not does not preclude you from being an elitist, it would just happen to make you the worst kind of elitist.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
anonymous said "Okay.
So the big problem here looks like a matter of preferance. Which do you prefer? Independance and Personal Responsibility? or Comfort and Security?"
I don't see it as an 'or' choice. For example the current social security system provides none of the above. If we had real private accounts we would have all of the above. Its more like a choice of no independence nor responsibility with a plan that provides only meager comfort and security versus private accounts that provide:
- independence from government bureaucrats who can change the rate of taxation, retirement age, benefit amount at any time.
- responsibility for planning your own retirement. Instead of just accepting what Social Security can provide, individuals can choose how much to put away and what types of risk they are willing to have.
- comfort, private accounts have the capability of providing a much better return than social security. The US stock market had an average return of 11% from 1926 to 1999. A good balanced index fund will be able to return a gain much higher than social security with no long term risk for the investor.
- Security, with private accounts the money is yours. Should you die you can pass this money off to your offspring. Not only that but you could afford to buy life/income insurance that will provide you and/or your heirs with an income should something happen. This insurance is much cheaper than even a fraction of what you pay into social security.
Rock the Vote is amazingly lame.
http://www.willisms.com/archives/2005/04/rock_the_vote_t.html
By the way, it is ironic to see Hans Riemer calling anyone old. He's well past age 30.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
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