Burnt Orange Report
News, Politics, and Fun From Deep in the Heart of Texas
|
|
Burnt Orange ReportNews, Politics, and Fun From Deep in the Heart of Texas |
|
 |
 |
December 21, 2004Private Accounts revisitedBy Nathan NanceGuest post by Nate Nance There are some interesting findings in the WaPo/ABC News poll that came out today. On the surface, it looks bad, when asked if they support privatization 53% responded yes. But a new question that asks them if the support private accounts if the government has to borrow $2 trillion dollars support drops to 46% with 47% opposed. The really interesting stats are with those who support privatization, though. When informed of the risks of putting your retirement in the hands of the stock market, 62% said they would not put their money into private accounts. Of the 37% who would put their retirement in the private accounts, only 7% would put it all into the market, while 53% would put some and 23% just a little. While a large portion of those polled supported private accounts, they supported it for other people. The majority wanted to keep the traditional government entitlement program and allow the choice for others. If we start a PR campaign that educates people about the transition cost (the $2 trillion figure) and that it weakens traditional social security to have private accounts, the Bush position becomes a lot more untenable. He would really have to spend his "political capital" to get privatization through. This is a guest post by Nathan Nance. He can be reached at nate_nance@yahoo.com Posted by Nathan Nance at December 21, 2004 07:06 PM | TrackBackComments
Private accounts are a great thing. But you shouldn't do it through borrowing. Some tough decisions need to be made. I say raise the retirement age to 70, and quickly. I'm sorry, but 65 is no longer old. I don't see why we need to subsidize people's retirements, especially if they're healthy. Let's make it illegal to fire people before age 70. That will free up tons of money if they raise the retirement age. And why not get rid of the cost of living increases for one or two years. Heck - I haven't gotten a raise for 3 out of 4 years. Why are senior citizens automatically entitled to a raise? Honestly - people might complain for a little while if you did this, but at the end of the day, it's more of an inconvenience for people. It would not be the end of the world. Posted by: Downtown Lad at December 21, 2004 08:07 PMPrivate accounts are a horrible idea. Can you imagine the influence peddling that will go on once you start loading up big corporations with tax payer money? This is typical huckster stuff- take taxpayer money and give ti to the richest people in America- the ones who fatten politicians’ reelection campaigns and then convince the regular Joe he is getting some sort of hokey 401K plan- all because benefits will start to erode in 35 years. …and yet at the same time, there are no worries whatsoever that the world’s oil supply is going to run out in 30 years- why is one a crisis and the other isn’t? …suckers… Dowtown Lad - How old are you? Posted by: Nancy at December 21, 2004 08:50 PMI think we need to phase out Social Security for high wage earners, raise the retirement age, and allow for partial privatization. Older Americans who have high incomes should not be receving what is intended for those that have less. People are living longer, and raising the retirement age is a reasonable way to reform the system. Also, younger workers who want to opt out in favor of a partial privatization should be able to do so! Its my money! I think Democrats tend to think of it as "OUR" money rather than "MY" money. I earned it, I should be able to see the benefits of it. Risk is my choice. Posted by: Adam at December 22, 2004 09:19 AMI have some problems with means-testing Social Security- namely that when it becomes a program only for the poor and working class, the rich will attack it and try and get rid of it. It'll just become one more class division that we don't need. But I am, of course, a big proponent of privatization. And this poll sounds kind of slanted. I mean, I could take anything, ask people if they support it and then just tell them all of the risks without telling them anything about the rewards and most of them will start hedging their bets. Like, if you were to ask the average Joe "Would you like a free steak dinner?" most would say "yes." If you then said "If I told you that this steak might very well cause you to have a heart attack, would you still want it?" or "If I told you that a large number of people choke to death on steak every year, would you still want it?" Assuming that the person had only a limited understanding of steak (which is true of privatization) they would probably end up worried about it. The problem isn't privatization, its the poll. Posted by: Andrew D at December 22, 2004 09:29 AMIt's important to remember that Social Security is a safety net for everybody. I don't like telling people they have to pay for something they don't ever get to use. The system was never meant to be the sole support of retirees. For a lot of people it is, though. One of the things that needs to be adressed is the poor wage earnings that keep people from saving money for retirement in the first place. I really don't see why we need to spend trillions of dollars to completely overhaul a system that is in fairly good shape when we can get to the source of the real problem. Posted by: Nate at December 22, 2004 08:09 PM"Class division" and "The rich." Sounds like Andrew is having class issues. I think "The Rich" right now are just as vague as "The Christian Right" or "the Liberal Elite." Post a comment
|
|
|
