I have a feeling the AARP isn't going to take this shit lying down. And if I had to guess who has a better shot at ginning up sympathy from the American Heartland--Grandma or Grover Norquist--well, let's just say I remain sanguine about the next couple months.
Posted by Matt Davis at February 24, 2005 06:33 AMThanks for link Yuval - just one quibble. the blog is named "Legal Fiction." It's confusing given my URL, I know. I would have done a better job coordinating if I had any idea I would be blogging this long.
Posted by publius at February 24, 2005 07:03 AMHell, if you ask a (white) Democrat in Mississippi why they’re still a Democrat, they’ll probably cite Social Security.
I love how this is supposed to be "intellectual heavy lifting." We're all just a big mess of uneducated goons to you guys, too dumb to understand the big issues but we might still vote Dem if the checks keep coming and our Oxycontin supply doesn't get cut off.
too dumb to understand the big issues but we might still vote Dem if the checks keep coming and our Oxycontin supply doesn't get cut off
Only the majority of you. The proof is in the ratio of the federal pie you get compared to inputs.
Posted by phidipides at February 24, 2005 08:04 AMI live in a southern red state, a lovely,prosperous area to which the "snow birds," clutching their SS checks, flock in winter, and to which retirees from all over come and build a house to retire in. Though I can't tell you what percentage of this county's economy depends on social security checks, I know it's not inconsiderable, even in a community with other resources.
This is 80% Limbaugh country, but I don't know anyone who doesn't love Social Security. Attitude towards gay marriage? Just get it off TV; that's all they want. "Don't ask; don't tell."
Posted by PW at February 24, 2005 08:23 AMPW has it about right on SS and the gay issue. While southerners don't really like seeing gay couples on TV only the most hard core rednecks really care what people do in private.
Posted by rlprather at February 24, 2005 08:29 AMI don't think folks realize that the monthly check from Social Security could AND SHOULD be significantly larger. If over a 45 year period, a working person had a portfolio of diversified investments, they'd REALLY LOVE that social security check instead of having it just barely make ends meet.
Remember, a 45-year period of working and dollar-cost averaging into a diversified index of stocks.
Posted by muckdog at February 24, 2005 08:43 AMMuckdog,
Why won't you recognize that SS is not an direct investment program? If you don't like the broader, social benefits of living in this wonderful country of ours then why don't you just shut the fuck up and move to Iraq?
muck, a diversified portfolio is great. But a lot of people don't really have the money to put into securities to really make it work. Plenty of families get by on less than 50K a year; how much are they likely to be able to plow into the market, after house/car/utilities/clothing/food?
You can say that they would have 6.2 percent more money if Social Security disappeared; but a significant portion of those people would blow that money and spend their retirement years either starving or dragging down their children's standard of living.
Posted by Matt Davis at February 24, 2005 09:40 AMBut a lot of people don't really have the money to put into securities to really make it work.
I can attest to this statement, muck. After paying the expenses of raising children, there isn't a whole lot left to save, much less invest. You must not have any offspring, or you would know this.
Posted by pessimist at February 24, 2005 09:46 AMOh, and when will the Repubs reveal their proposed benefit cuts? All of this talk about higher returns via private accounts is a smoke screen to cover over their planned total benefit cuts.
Bush keeps on talking about 2018 because he wants to rob the trust fund and panic people into accepting lower benefits--that's the "stick." The "carrot" is the "opportunity" to gamble with loaned money in a attempt to make up for huge benefit cuts. Whether you opt in to the gamble or not, Bush is proposing huge benefit cuts...
Posted by Paul at February 24, 2005 09:51 AMSeveral years ago, I was part of a project that was to be rolled out across the country. We on the project team had to travel around the country. After about 6 months of this, we started fighting about who had to travel to the 'banjo states'. Unless you were in one of the major cities (Atlanta, Dallas, New Orleans), you were pretty much guaranteed dealing w/your basic edumacational simpletons.
Because I had transferred up from Texas, I was often stuck 'with my kind of people' in toney places like Jonesboro, AR; Memphis, TN; Tyler, TX; and Jackson, MS. Don't get me wrong; there are some wonderful people there. But the casual bigotry, ignorance and general stupidness left a mark. You don't have enough money to EVER make me transfer back to a banjo state. My wife was born and raised in San Antonio and says that she'll see me in hell before we ever move back there.
To finally get back on point, the folks I worked with in say, Shreveport are much more likely to need the guaranteed benefits of Social Security than the people commenting on this blog. Much as I hate to admit it, Muck is 20x brighter than many of my fellow 'murcans I dealt w/down there. These folks will invest in rooster egg farms if you let them. I may disagree w/99% of the things Muck has to say, but I would be willing to bet he would do a whole lot better than your average resident of Waco, TX when it comes to investing your money.
Posted by weinerdog43 at February 24, 2005 05:18 PM