Move On - Scare Elderly With Social Security Ad

Many "retirees" such as I will be in a few years are obliged to seek ways to supplement their income already. I can't wait until the age of seventy to get full benefits so will get far too little to make ends meet.

Phoenix32890
One must fight fire with fire. Bush's entire presidency is based upon fear. It is his principle weapon. At the moment he is using lies and fear to foster his proposed crippling of the social security system. IMO turn about is fair play.

Times Editorial.
In Wednesday's State of the Union speech, President George W. Bush will no doubt escalate his campaign to replace Social Security with private retirement accounts. We don't know exactly what he'll say, but we're willing to bet that he won't say "private accounts," even though privatization is exactly what he's calling for, and exactly how he and other administration officials have described their scheme hundreds of times before. But the polls and focus groups that Bush says he ignores show that the public doesn't like to hear the word "private" when the topic is Social Security. So the administration now says only "personal accounts," and in a 104-page book on selling the plan, it urges congressional allies to do the same..
"Crisis" is another word the president is likely to avoid on Wednesday, even though he and his team have used it countless times to describe the state of Social Security. But those pesky polls also show that the public rejects that notion - and the public is right. So the president has now taken to replacing the "c" word with "serious problems," which he says will result in a system that will be "bankrupt," "broke," "flat broke" or "flat bust" by the time today's younger workers retire. That's also not true. If the "b" words fall flat, perhaps Bush will move on to "d" and start warning that Social Security is doomed, defaulting, dreadful and in a dadgum fix..
However the White House spins it, it's all code for "private accounts.".

au- Do you really READ the papers? Nowhere has Bush said that he would REPLACE social security with private accounts. He is talking about diverting a SMALL PORTION of the social security taxes that could be used in private accounts.

It think that you have fallen into the exact mindset that MoveOn wants.

so Phoenix have you looked a the cost for this re-arrangement of social secrity? Somewhere in the Trillions is what I have read.(on top of our current national debt)

Re: Move On - Scare Elderly With Social Security Ad

He also said that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, so I think the American people can be excused if they view the president's assurances with a certain degree of skepticism.

In any event, Bush has no reason to complain. During the campaign he said that Kerry would raise taxes, despite the fact that Kerry insisted he would not (although he did state that he would repeal many of the tax cuts that Bush instituted). The Bush campaign justified this claim by saying that, after adding up all of the programs that Kerry promised, there would be no other way to fund them except through a tax increase.

And now it looks like MoveOn.org has done the same thing: added up the costs of what Bush has promised (or hinted at -- Bush hasn't actually come up with any kind of proposal yet) and concluded that there is no way to pay for them except by cutting benefits, even though Bush has insisted that there will be no cuts. Is that fair? Well, sauce for the goose....

Phoenix32890
Yes I read the papers and the Bush proposal will not solve the problems of Social Security. In fact many if not most say it will in the long run intensify the problem. It is indeed privatization. I would ask do you read the papers if you had you have have read about all the negatives related to Bush's proposal. Regarding the fear factor Bush''s insistence that the system is in imminent danger of going bankrupt is an out right lie. Indeed the system needs tweaking and creative thinking not major surgery. Bush is like the surgeon who is about to cut off the wrong leg.
If either of us has fallen for anything I would say it is you for Bush's claptrap.

Note: AARP has also come out against Bush's proposal and is launching a 5 million dollar campaign to fight against it.

au- I have really no concern over the stand that AARP takes. IMO, without going into a long discourse, I think that AARP has their own agenda.

Anyhow, I will watch the State of the Union address tonight, as I hope others will, and draw my own conclusions.

Phoenix32890
Might I be so bold as to suggest that after you listen to the speach which are just words you do a little research on the subject. There are literally volumes on the subject available.

Don't you realize that this is just a first step? You don't tear down SS all at once, you do it a little at a time so people will accept it.

Jeez. Wake up!

Cycloptichorn

Is that a slippery slope argument?

The 'slippery slope' argument implies that such actions would be inevitable, and not driven by an ideology bent on a certain end, such as in this case.

Therefore, no.

Cycloptichorn

Cyclo - you do realize AARP was busted for those phoney poll results they published about privatizing Social Security, right?

I don't give a tin sh*t about AARP one way or the other. My problems with the Bush Social Security privatization plan have nothing to do with the opinions of some old people.

Cycloptichorn

JustWonders: Get with the program. "Privatizing" is no longer being used by the Bush folks. They now talk about "personal" accounts.

As for the AARP having their own agenda: How shocking. And who, exactly, does not have his or her "own agenda"? Why, I bet even the Bush team has its own agenda.

Sometimes the false naivete around here astounds me...

A slippery slope fallacy is an argument that says adopting one policy or taking one action will lead to a series of other policies or actions also being taken, without showing a causal connection between the advocated policy and the consequent policies. A popular example of the slippery slope fallacy is, "If we legalize marijuana, the next thing you know we'll legalize heroin, LSD, and crack cocaine." This slippery slope is a form of non sequitur, because no reason has been provided for why legalization of one thing leads to legalization of another. Tobacco and alcohol are currently legal, and yet other drugs have somehow remained illegal.



Seems like a slippery slope to me.

D'artagnan- But of course. Everyone has their own agendas. The point is, that it is a gross disservice to people if falsifications are used to drive home a point. IMO, those who are against privitizing, need to address each of President Bush's points, and illustrate why they think that the idea is untenable.

As for me, I wish that I could have taken a good portion the money that I have put into social security, and handled it myself. I know that I would be better off financially. How do I know? 'Cause through careful, extremely conservative investing over the years (I think that my husband and I are from the "chicken" school of investing ) we have a return from our investments that is a much better deal then we are getting from social security.

republicans lie leading to democrats lie leads to republicans lie leading to----------no wonder I am not a member of either party.

The problem is, Phoenix, that the vast majority of people who invest their money personally will lose money. If people were good at investing money, we wouldn't need social security.

It's been well-understood for years that most of the smart, successful people in society aren't really going to profit at all from SS. Tough titty, I say; that money goes into supporting the legions of idiots that manage to handle all the dirty jobs in our society, and cannot invest well for themselves.

Also, how much money is lost into the system from the admin costs of all these accounts? We're talking about literally over a hundred million new investment accounts, which all have to be personally (and publically) managed in order for the sort of profits you are talking about to happen. How much are the fees for this going to be? Where is the money going to come from? This loss has to be taken into account.

There are a lot of issues about this plan that seem simple when first brought up, which are in fact quite complicated.

McG:

I understand yer point, but there is far more than a casual connection between privatization now and the complete removal of SS later. It's carefully calculated steps.

Cycloptichorn