Bush Failing in Social Security Push

[Neil D]

[]http://people-press.org/reports/images/238-1.gif[/]

The new poll indicates that the Social Security debate is packing a powerful political punch. It finds that just 29% of Americans approve of the way that Bush is handling the issue. This is the president's lowest approval rating for any policy area, and is considerably lower than his overall job approval rating of 46%. Moreover, by a 65%-25% margin, most say the president has not explained his Social Security proposal clearly enough.

Further, the public expresses much more confidence on this issue in the AARP, which is strongly opposed to private accounts, than they do in the president or in Republican congressional leaders. However, Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan, who has offered a qualified endorsement of Bush's plan, also is widely trusted on Social Security. And while just 42% say they mostly trust Bush on Social Security, Democratic congressional leaders earn no more trust than the president (41%).

[]http://people-press.org/reports/images/238-2.gif[/]

The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Feb. 16-21 among 1,502 Americans, suggests that the public agrees with Bush that the Social Security system is facing funding problems. Two-thirds (67%) think that the Social Security program will run short of money in the future.

[]http://people-press.org/reports/images/238-3.gif[/]

Yet even among supporters of private retirement accounts, the proposal's major appeal is not that it will make the program more financially secure. More than half of the supporters of private accounts (52%) say they favor the idea mainly because private accounts will give individuals greater control; just 20% support private accounts because they will make Social Security more financially stable.

[]http://people-press.org/reports/images/238-4.gif[/]

Pew's SS findings

[Ron Lambert]

Most of those who oppose the idea of privatizing social security accounts are those over 55 who believe that this will result in a reduction in their benefits. The Democratic Party, with its irresponsible and reactionary opposition to the idea, has encouraged this belief. Democrats have even gone so far as to pretend there is no problem with social security that needs to be fixed. Nothing could be more dishonest than to try to deny the reality that social security is headed for serious trouble.

If the administration can convince the over 55 people that their benefits will NOT be cut, then the poll numbers could be reversed.

Social Security is essentially a Ponzi scheme, and as such faces an inevitable train wreck when the huge Baby Boomer generation (those born just after WWII) begins retiring. What is wrong with Social Security is that the money you pay into it over a lifetime is not invested, is not even saved in account. Congress misappropriates it to help finance the general national budget. So when you retire, the money that pays for your benefits only comes from the money that is coming in today from workers who are still paying in to the system.

It has always been difficult to do anything about Social Security as long as there is such a willingness to indulge in demogoguery and scare tactics. Because of this, it is only a president who is in his second term and whose party controls both houses of Congress who has any chance to push the idea of Social Security reform. President Bush deserves credit for trying, since he is the best positioned of any president in modern history to do this. He may not succeed because of politics as usual, but he deserves credit for making a sincere effort.

[bevin]

The American SS scheme, unlike the standard European/Australia-NZ one, claims that you are saving for your own retirement.

To a certain extent, this claim is true. The more you put in, the more you will get out.

However there are two things going on that led to Ron's comment liking it to a Ponzi scheme.

(1) The money is being loaned to the US Govt.

(2) The payout is not being done on a strict "here's what you put in, here is the interest, here is what you get out" financial model. Instead the payouts are being set by politicians to win votes.

The first is NOT a problem. The Government can always print money to pay off the loan. However it might not buy you the goods that you hope it would buy.

The second is no more a problem with the American scheme than it is with the European scheme.

All the economists agree on two things.

(1) The system is not going to collapse in the next twenty years, and

(2) Noone can predict the economy twenty years from today.

Bush, as usual, is lying to do something he wants to do for a different reason.

IF THERE WAS A MAGIC WAY FOR PEOPLE TO INVEST THAT WILL DO BETTER THAN THE CURRENT SCHEME THEN WHY ISNT HE PROPOSING THE GOVERNMENT USE IT?

Bush'es motives are simple. He wants to put money into the stock market so the prices will go up so that he and his cronies can sell their shares to suckers, and make a profit off the working and middle class. It is all about looting the country. He has done it with oil. He has done it with war. Now he wants to do it with Social Security.

/Bevin

[Ron Lambert]

How could anyone be so stupid as to believe that there is any way Social Security would not collapse in twenty years if things are not changed? What else does anyone think could happen when we reach the point where for each person receiving benefits, there are only two or three workers paying in to the system to fund those benefits?

Sure, Congress could "print more money" to subsidize Social Security then, but this would cause an enormous increase in the national debt, which would adversely affect all aspects of the national economy with such things as runaway inflation. It would mean essentially that foreign investors, like Saudi Arabia, would be paying for America's Social Security benefits. And what happens if all those foreign investors in America who finance the national debt decide that the investment does not look like a good thing anymore (or what if Saudi Arabia's oil wells run dry), and they do not buy any more of the national debt instruments, but rather begin trying to unload or even demand payment on what they already have? Even mighty America can go bankrupt. Any nation's currency is only as good as the confidence people have in it.

The other option would be for the Social Security deduction to be so drastically increased that those two or three workers for each beneficiary are paying in one-third to one-half of their income to Social Security.

Anyone who thinks either of these things would be OK had better hope they never live to see such times.

[bevin]

Quote:

---

How could anyone be so stupid as to believe that there is any way Social Security would not collapse in twenty years if things are not changed?

---

How could anyone be so stupid as to not realize LOTS of things will change over the next 20 years.

20 years from now

(1) The USA will be just another mid-sized country

(2) The world economy will be dominated by Asia and Europe

(3) Petrol will not be the dominant fuel

(4) Machines will be doing a lot more of the manufacturing

(5) Most of the high-flying stock USA companies of today will have collapsed

(6) The workers will be needed for such things as maintenance, human care, and esthetic endeavors - and they will be able to charge what they want to

In short, Bush is proposing a drastic change based on linear extrapolations in a highly non-linear world. And he knows he is. That is called LYING.

/Bevin

[Ron Lambert]

It is not certain that any of those things you list will occur ever, let alone in 20 years. The USA become just another mid-sized country? Sounds like wishful thinking worthy of the French.

But even if true, all those things you list would cause Social Security to fail even sooner and more decisively.

[Nicodema]

Could we kindly refrain from ethnic slurs here?

[Bravus]

Good call, Nico.

Partisan posturing aside, there are at least three issues I can identify:

1. There will need to be changes to Social Security to cope with the Baby Boomers' retirement. There are a wide variety of such changes available.

2. All discussion of this issue is necessarily based on projections and assumptions. That requires a certain amount of humility and clarity on the part of *everyone*: show me your assumptions and tell me why they're valid, don't call me stupid for making different ones.

3. Of the various solutions available, Bush's proposed solution is only one option. So rejecting Bush's solution is not the same as assuming there's no issue and voting for no change.

Possible changes could include an increase in the Social Security levy ('tax' is apparently a dirty word so I'll self-censor), provisions to stop government looting the reserves, and reduced benefits with accompanying other social benefits (more medical care, etc). Heck, even the Soylent Green and Logan's Run solutions exist!

There is an issue, and it makes sense to address it now, because the size of the changes made will have to increase the longer the problem is left alone.

My personal perspective is that taking a small tax increase off the table before the discussion even starts is a very unfortunate move. Governments around the world are locked into this mentality that less taxes and less services are an unequivocally Good Thing, whereas when people can see a direct benefit for themselves from a 'tax' they will often support it.

My other perspective is that funnelling a lot of money into the pockets of investment firms will tend to reduce the overall pool of money available for Social Security. I'm willing to be convinced that I'm wrong about that one.

I think the interesting point from a US politics point of view about this debate is that it hasn't split along party lines: there are *lots* of Republicans who are very uncomfortable with Bush's proposed solution. That could just be because they think it will be a tough sell to the electorate, but I prefer to think that they're more principled than that, and have evaluated the idea on its merits and found it wanting.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

Could we kindly refrain from ethnic slurs here?

---

Ethnic slurs?????

I was bothered by JUST the slurs....ie the following-

[:"green"]

Most of those who oppose the idea of [/]

[:"blue"]

The American SS scheme, [/]

[:"blue"] Bush'es motives are simple. He wants to put money into the stock market so [/]

[:"green"]How could anyone be so stupid as to believe that there [/]

[:"green"] Anyone who thinks either of these things would be OK had better hope they never live to see such times. [/]

[:"blue"]

How could anyone be so stupid as to not realize [/]

[:"green"]Sounds like wishful thinking worthy of the French. [/]

Maybe that last remark was what you were thinking about Nico...

Nevertheless, there are some points made on both sides that need to be addressed and were addressed. And I do appreciate Bevin and Ron for bring up those points and discussing them...There are some good points on both sides of the issue. While the generalizations are not conducive to the discussion , they do indicate the mindset of the individuals....

I think what is needed is to ask questions- For example,

Is SS "broken"?

Is SS a viable program? Can we continue to use it if we tweek it to make it a more viable program?

Is there a better program out there for SS that gives better results? What are it's weak points? What are the strong points?

Do we have examples of those programs in other countries ?

Can we ask a generation to sacrifice while we fix SS into someting better? Can we run two programs at the same time while phasing one out and phasing one in?

These are questions that are reasonable and can be ressearched out on the web....Gentlemen, and ladies...start your search engines and find those answers and report back here....

[Bravus]

There's an interesting dynamic between the personal and the social here. The way Social Security works now is that those working pay for those who have retired: those who laid the foundations for the workers' current lifestyle. This promotes a more social ethos, where people are interdependent.

A privatized system, where each person saves for his/her own retirement[1] (which is what largely happens in Australia now), is much more individualistic. It can tend to selfishness - 'I have to get mine while I can' - rather than to a concern for others and an appreciation for our inter-relatedness.

It is also a much more precarious system: the whole of society is much more stable than an individual life. One bad investment decision, or some Enron-style malfeasance, and all your lifelong retirement savings can be gone. Even a stockmarket crash just before you retire can dramatically lower your quality of life in retirement, or even make it impossible to retire.

[1] I do know that Bush's current apporach calls for only a small proportion of the SS funds to be in private accounts, but I don't believe that would be the on-going approach: it would be ramped up over time. I'm willing to be convinced that assumption is wrong.

[Nicodema]

I won't be retirement age for another 27 years. To me it is simply yet another rug being pulled out from under me after those who laid it down got THEIR use out of it. Guess I just have to rely upon the Lord to provide for me. That's OK. He's more trustworthy anyway. He's seen me through nearly a year of unemployment, keeping me in freelance work and now my nanny gig for my ex's new baby. He's provided me with low- and no-cost health care services I needed, too. Whatever I need, He supplies.

[Ron Lambert]

My comment about "wishful thinking worthy of the French" was not an ethnic slur, it was political sarcasm. Many Europeans openly exhibit great envy of America, and some, like the French, frequently make it clear they resent the fact that America so completely dominates Western Civilization in virtually every respect. To them, America becoming just another mid-sized country would truly be a fulfillment of their fondest wishes.

[Nicodema]

I wouldn't characterize what the Europeans exhibit as "envy" -- more like contempt and in some cases, deservedly so -- but I'll accept your explanation about what you meant, anyway, with the remark about 'the French.'

Sorry - that whole "freedom fries" nonsense a couple years ago left a really sour taste in my mouth!

[Dr. Shane]

Envy and contempt are cousins of a sort, arn't they. We often hold contempt for those we envy.

Bush may not get private accounts - time will tell. But he is likely to get meaningful Social Security reform of some kind. Bush knows how to negociate and everyone knows something needs to be done. Democrats just don't want history to record that a Republican did it.

[Ron Lambert]

History does record that it was Democrats who were responsible for authorizing the practice of raiding the Social Security fund to help pay for things in the general federal budget, which is what got us into the present mess.

[bevin]

Quote:

---

Many Europeans openly exhibit great envy of America, and some, like the French, frequently make it clear they resent the fact that America so completely dominates Western Civilization in virtually every respect.

---

Having just spent a week in Russia with some German's, while watching a mixture of European TV statiosn, I find your position somewhat dubious.

I never heard anyone express envy of the US.

I never heard anyone express that America dominates Western Civilization in ANY respect.

I never found anyone who thought President Bush was a good president.

They uniformly viewed the American nation as dangerous, self-serving, and arrogant.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Between 50% and 60% of Americans vote. Only about 10% of them are actually informed about the issues. Most people simple care more about the other things in life to take the time needed to get informed.

This problem is even more challenging overseas since most forms of media in other nations is extreamely biased and sometimes even controlled by the state. In many areas of the world the only objective news available is found on the Internet. I suspect many don't take the time to get propperly informed.

In my home we get European news reported from Germany as carried by SafeTV and it seems pretty balanced in its coverage of the US in world politics. I don't know how widely spread that broadcast is in Europe. We also get several channels through the air waves from Mexico. Those are very biased in their coverage of the US in world politics. Brother Ron's statement is true insofar as it applies to Mexico. I cannot speak for Europe.

If you question how the US dominates western culture just turn on the TV or radio in another country. You will hear American music even through the natives do not understand the language and see American TV shows and cartoons which have been translated. Walking into any store you will find Coca-cola, Frito-Lay and M&Ms. Returning home you will not hear that nations music on American radios, nor see their TV programs on American channels or see their junk food sold in American convience stores.

[bevin]

Quote:

---

If you question how the US dominates western culture just turn on the TV or radio in another country. You will hear American music even through the natives do not understand the language and see American TV shows and cartoons which have been translated. Walking into any store you will find Coca-cola, Frito-Lay and M&Ms. Returning home you will not hear that nations music on American radios, nor see their TV programs on American channels or see their junk food sold in American convience stores.

---

The TV in Russia contained a wide range of Russian and European shows - and indeed maybe <10% USA-produced content. Mostly it was Russian made. Remember, most Russian's don't speak any English.

The Radio had a range of Russian music and maybe 10% American. I got to listen to hours of it on my trip from Nizhny Novogorod to Sarov and back.

Indeed you found Coca-cola and M&M's in the stores. You also find a lot of Asian food in American stores. A couple of wide-spread mass-produced foodstuffs does NOT a cultural dominance make.

If I turn on the TV in my American home, I find British, Mexican, Chinese, and other material in about the same proportion as I find American in Russia.

On the radio I hear music from all over Europe.

Ever heard of the Beatles?

Sorry - you are just plain wrong. The USA does NOT dominate world culture. Just the part of it that you see.

/Bevin

[bevin]

Quote:

---

This problem is even more challenging overseas since most forms of media in other nations is extreamely biased and sometimes even controlled by the state. In many areas of the world the only objective news available is found on the Internet. I suspect many don't take the time to get propperly informed.

---

Actually I find it very hard to get objective news in the USA - especially of other countries.

There was a fascinating interview today on the radio with Chinese journalists, who were commenting on the incredible biases in the American media's coverage of China.

I know my Russian acquaintances were appalled when I suggested that maybe their media's coverage of the Moscow Theatre events was being censored a year or so ago. They were adamant that it was not so.

The coverage from German television of the Iraq occupation is much less censored / distorted than the American media's coverage of the same.

The 27 year old Banker from Kharzacstan that I sat beside on the airplane coming to Boston from London had just spent a week in the USA. I asked him where he wanted to live. He told me Kharzacstan - so much for your envy theory.

My 30'ish year old Chinese colleague described Russia as being 'like Northern China 40 years ago' because China was so far ahead of that status now.

It has been an interesting week...

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Actually if 10% of the shows in Russia are American shows that is quite impressive since they are only translated and dubbed due to demand. I suspect there are more in German, French and Italian however I know there are more in Spainish.

Of course the local country's programs are going to dominate their programming. However little if any forgien programming is on American TV unless you have cable or satellite.

Asian food is available in American supermarkets in areas where asians live and ethnic stores but not in convient stores.

American singers draw crowds when they tour overseas and only a handful of groups (mostly Brittish) can even tour in America and make any money.

America has the greatest influence on western culture than any other single nation and perhaps more than all other nations combined. This will only serve to aid it later when it enforces the mark of the beast.

kind of <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/129933-offtopic2.gif" alt="" /> from Social Security.

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Envy and contempt are cousins of a sort, arn't they. We often hold contempt for those we envy.

---

Some might. Those tend to be two different categories in my head, personally. I can see why those who behave contemptibly might wish to rationalize the inevitable effect of their cause as something other than what it really is, though. Humans have an endless capacity for putting themselves in denial, and wanting to pride oneself on being envied rather than face the fact that one is laughably contemptible is just another example of that capacity.

*shrug* - Games people play with themselves. Not my problem.