And according to a recent Pew poll, they are succeeding. Young people are the only group that is very supportive of Bush's plan.

Well, eventually those young 'uns may start voting, so maybe a policy that only appeals to young and selfish voters isn't entirely stupid.

Of course, given the short attention spans of, ummmm...what was I saying?

Eventually there will be an end point to their politics of division. Look at what happened to Yugoslavia. I can see that happening here now.

This is why education is so key. It has been shown that when those under 30 understand that the Bush plan will cost them more and give them less in benefits they turn against it.

This is not over. The Gobbels strategy is alive and well, you just repeat the lie over and over and shout loud enough to drown out opposing voices-that's what the noise machane is for.

Great line from LA Times this morning:

Opposition was higher among those who had heard a lot about Bush's plan than among those who were less familiar with it.

The referent was the Social Security plan. But it really does not make any difference, does it? It could be any plan!

The R's are wrong if they think the youth will even remember this issue in 2 years. Or care. And I speak as one among their target demographic.

The Democrats and Republicans want the same results from social security. It's just obvious that they have different ideas on how to achieve those results. I think the Democrats want to rely on taxes, where the Republicans want to rely on economic growth.

The problem with the Democrats' approach, is that we've seen the tax rate go from 2% to 12.4% of payroll, and a cap that increases every year. It contributes to an America that is an expensive place to do business, so companies are finding labor elsewhere.

As I posted elsewhere, I think social security reform is dead. It isn't going to happen. The scarey thing about that, is that means that in 2009, the deficits start to grow as the social security surplus begins to shrink.

I think this will leave the government and the Fed with only one solution: Create inflation. Inflate our way out of the mess. You want a $1500 check every month? The government will just print all the money it needs.

The reason older folks are excluded from private accounts is pretty simple. The stock market returns 7-10% on average historically, over a long period of time. But when you are older, you don't have the same investment time horizon that somebody who is younger has. So, flucuations in the market might cause you to lose sleep at night. Sure, there could be 20% returns, or -20% returns. You don't want that risk when you're just a few years away from retirement.

But when you're 23 or 38, that's fine. You'll take that risk because you know over the long term, it'll average out to 7-10%.

Finally got my thoughts together on this whole social security thing. On my blog (my name below is the link). I think that the conservatives are completely betraying their stated beliefs here. They are fine with the government compelling people to save, fine with limiting their investment choices, yet they have all this rhtetoric about choice. What's up? I think they want everyone in the country to think that their retirement funds are tied in with well-being of multinationals. Then everytime their is a progressive/liberal proposal they will start screaming about how this will damage American business and destroy the retirement savings of millions of hard-working Americans.

This tactic only works if the greed oriented young people don't hear about their shit future under Bush & the Repug's continual erosion of job creation, rewarded work and health care.

What huge whack of dough do these would-be stock market barons expect to control from their jobs as burger flippers? If they get sick, it's game over man.

The Democrats and Republicans want the same results from social security.

the dems want to destroy SS too? who knew?

where the Republicans want to rely on economic growth.

Well, nice job of not doing a thing to support economic growth, republi-cons. When you look at GDP and control for the real level of imports and factor out software, we have zip-a-dee-doo-da for growth. When we lose 60,000 manufacturing jobs per month during 2003 (but only report a net loss of 16,000 jobs because McDonalds is reclassified as manufacturing) you have further republi-con economic growth. Republi-con economic growth is related to more money in their pocket. Period. Not sound fiscal policy.

It contributes to an America that is an expensive place to do business,

Compared to the .57 cents an hour average wage in China, every fucking thing in the U.S. is more expensive. By your rational we need to change minimum wage to .36 cents an hour to compete.

so maybe a policy that only appeals to young and selfish voters isn't entirely stupid

A Play Station game with granny and gramps coming to live with them will change their minds. Until that time, with 1 in 10 of 18-29 year olds voting in the last election, we can vote to end their SS and put their funds towards the retirement plans of those who do vote. It would be poetic justice.

Young people need to be made to understand that if Social Security is dismantled, Grandma is coming to live with them!!!

Grandma? Hell, that will be your mother living with you. Seriously, if I were a young worker with a parent younger than 50 or so this would be a legitimate concern for me.

Bu$h'$ $ocial $ecurity plan is actually a part of his program to promote family values. The acceptance of his planned values will be necessary, as several generations of any one family will all be living together under one roof.

The irony is, of course, that it is the youth who will lose the social safety net under the right-wing's phase-out plan.

Like all of these arguments about the GOP's cleverness this ultimately doesn't make sense. Muckdog aside, no actual top GOP person thinks that in the long run large numbers of now young/then retiring older people will actually make 7-10 percent back on their lifetime work investment. And, since there is supposed to be a clawback provision to cut other benefits by the same amount you "earned" in the market the individual ultimately does not come out ahead in any meaningful sense. The division between young and old is short term because in the long term every younger person who isn't living off of inherited wealth or who doesn't earn enough to have social security be absolutely meaningless to their retirment loses out. But by that time Bush will be long gone. I do think the GOP is thinking mid term/mid range. They believe they will energize a new youthful voter for a while, and de-ligitimize democratic politicians for a little while (see e.g. mark schmitt at the decembrist) and that is worth screwing today's youth when they are old because hey,that's a long time from now.

aimai

Look at all of Mucktroll's FUZZY MATH...pulled out of thin air: "uh, yeah, so you can be sure to have 7-10% return, blah, blah, blah."

Right.

Because we all have Merrill Lynch to oversee things for us and guide in the right way.

Let's put aside for a second the fact that having NO GAIN (or A LOSS) is a very likely scenario.

It's still a retarded idea that no one but rich, fat-cat Republicans want. It's another example of selfishness being pushed to trump collectiveness...i.e. the social compact that our liberal democracy was founded on.

The GOP wants the rich to get richer and they want to appeal to everyone's self-interest over the interest of the nation.

It is a stupid, selfish risky plan that serves no positive purpose.

PRIVATE ACCOUNTS TAKE MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF MONEY OUT OF SOCIAL SECURITY, NOT HELP ITS SOLVENCY!!!

THIS 'DEBATE' IS NOT ABOUT SS...IT'S ABOUT THE GOP'S SELFISHNESS AND DESIRE TO DESTROY THE LAST VESTIGE OF THE 'WELFARE STATE' LIBERALISM THAT THEY SO DESPISE BECAUSE IT HELPS EVERYONE AND NOT JUST THE ALREADY RICH AND POWERFUL.

PRIVATE ACCOUNTS TAKE MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF MONEY OUT OF SOCIAL SECURITY, NOT HELP ITS SOLVENCY!!!

The problem with this statement is that there is no money in social security. It all goes in the general fund and gets spent.

Social security is a 12.4% flat tax on the first $90K of income.

Let's put aside for a second the fact that having NO GAIN (or A LOSS) is a very likely scenario.

Do you believe the stock market (SP500) has a negative return over the long term of 30-45 years? Can you show me specific examples of 30-45 year periods where the SP500 has had a negative return or no gain?

but muck, if I may call you that, the question isn't whether the sp500 has x return or y return over 30 or 40 years, its whether for any given individual the return on a specific day (retirement day) will be sufficient to purchase an annuity covering a period that could be as little as one day, or as much as 20-30 years. If its not, what is the fallback for that person? And, if that person dies early, again, there is no telling whether the amount in escrow at that point will be large or small. Certainly there is no necessary liklihood that that old "miracle of compound interest" will have produced sufficient money to provide for the widows and orphans.

Please answer with specifics, rather than with vague generalities.

aimai

Muckdog: One should not fall into the S&P historical return trap..as you may know, that return is based on a 500 company diversified portfolio normalised by capitalization....the average Joe cannot afford to by a board lot of each stock as the cost is prohibitive. Furthermore, an attempt by the average investor to trade the SPUs (S&P futures contracts) is not a viable plan as the transaction costs are onerous.....a means test of retirees is more certain method of providing a SS return for all who need it, wherein wealthy people continue to pay but receive a diminished benefit determine by net worth.

Although the online investing boom of the late 1990s brought many new investors to the market, stock market investing is beyond the realm of most individuals and the learning curve is steep......"if it ain't broke...don't fix it"

Just today the bushies have really declared war on SS. If the dems stick together, SS is saved. Lets see if the cowardly wimps have any balls!

stock market investing is beyond the realm of most individuals and the learning curve is steep......"

Nail Hammer, Head, and that is the GOP motivation for the scheme.

Republican motivation in life always has to do with capitalizing on this factor.....57, 58,59,sucker. There is a sucker born every minute and as usual the "it'$ all about me republican$" want to be there to capitalize and pounce on the least suspecting for their own personal gain.

Some FACTS bear repeating:

The Bush adminstration has admitted that privatization will not address the longterm shortfall in social security insurance after 2042. They have admitted there is NO CRISIS. They continue, however, to spread propaganda and "advertise" their agenda to "selected audiences" at taxpayer expense -- AND they use the SS Agency itself to promote their radical point of view.

They used false numbers to project what they see as coming shortfall -- i.e, they projected out into "infinity" rather than 10 years in the future, which is the standard economic practice (done because it's hard to predict even one year ahead, let alone an "infinite" number of years).

The "shortfall" in funds that serve as INSURANCE against destitution in old age and disability for all Americans could be easily covered by demanding honest accounting from the government (not the Enron-style accounting obfuscation the Whitehouse uses) AND removing the 90K ceiling on payroll taxes. In fact, if the ceiling was removed, the overall rate people pay could probably be dropped to 3% with the system staying solvent. It's really not that hard.

We have to continue putting the real facts out there, because the Whitehouse will keep the misinformation coming....

Well said Goyo

You can invest in the SP500 via mutual funds. Vanguard has one that costs .18% per year.

Link.

Check out the historical returns. Over the long term. Who cares about 2000-2002. It's just a blip on the long term chart.

I thought social security was a 6% flat tax on the first $90k of income. Where did this 12.4% come from?

Just today the bushies have really declared war on SS. If the dems stick together, SS is saved. jj

Yes, it's true. On ABC news it was announced that the Bushites are planning a campaign called '60 stops in 60 days." The next two months are going to be a full court press in an attempt to pursuade under 30 Americans that Bush is their economic savior.

ABC's Terry Moran is a total shill for Bu$hco, the only mention he made of the Democrats at all was to say "they are trying to keep younger workers from having choice on personal accounts." No mention at all of the risk these accounts would hold nor of the clawback or the other strings attached to them. If anyone has access to tonight's ABC news report they will see one of the most biased reports they have ever seen.

This is the 'line in the sand issue.' Bu$hism is going to put a permanient imprint on America by destroying the New Deal social contract between the people and their government and replacing it with a selective Darwinism where those born into wealth are guarenteed to stay on top and everyone else is just one misfortune away from economic disaster. Or they will go down trying.

The political future of America for a number of years will be largely determined by this issue. If Bush wins on this issue then he will win on everything: If you care about the war, a possible future war and the draft that would result from that war and any other issue such as the idea of a national sales tax which was repudiated by Bush before the election but is suddenly being mentioned again as of late, then you've got to fight on this issue.

If Bush is not successful then the rest of his radical re-structuring of American society to guilded age polices at home and imperalist policies abroad can be at least modified and as working people see that the Democrats have remembered how to fight perhaps also beaten.

The outcome of the Social Security fight of 2005 will see one of two Americas: In one outcome the New Deal is totally repealed and the irresponsable policies of this administration run rampant and go into overdrive while the Democrats continue to look like a wimpy party that would be incapable of leading anyone anywhere.

The other future is more hopeful. Yes, we would have an incompetent lame duck president for 3 more years but starting with the midterm election a reinvigorated, unified Democratic party could gain seats in both houses, possibily gain control of one or both chambers and also build on the gains seen at the state level in 2004. Remember the futher you go down the 2004 ballot, the better the Dems. did. Keep the pressure up on your Senators and house members and keep reminding young voters that scince they don't trust Bush on the draft issue, why should they trust him with their money!

Tall16,

You pay a 6.2% tax on SS and your employer matches the 6.2 for a total of 12.4%.

Check out the historical returns. Over the long term. Who cares about 2000-2002. It's just a blip on the long term chart. Posted by muckdog
Dow Jones Industrial Average
Dec. 31, 1964: 874.12
Dec. 31, 1981: 875.00
The Dow Jones before Bush took office was 11,497.12
The Dow Jones closing today is 10,833.03

Only a fool would take your bet, especially since we have the fine examples of the UK and Chile, in which over half of the senior are worse off for being privatized.
In fact, the UK is now speaking of ditching their system in favor of the American one.

Who cares about 2000-2002.

Well let's say we had piratized accounts and you had to retire during that time requiring you to take our your clawback annuity during the cycle when the market crashed....that's who would care muck, and if that was you, you would care.

The British Social Security privatizing didn't go well
Privatization is a disaster say Brits.
Isn't it strange how all those Republicans who say the government can't run any program, although Republicans are the government, now want that same government to make investments for people?
Here is a study of various privatized plans. Of course, Bush has no specific plan on the table so at this point, no one can know what he is talking about, including Dubya himself and muckdawg.

Only a fool would take your bet, especially since we have the fine examples of the UK and Chile, in which over half of the senior are worse off for being privatized.

And it's even worse if a person in those countries had any length of unemployment between jobs. Just think of the problem if someone had to change jobs five times, with unemployed periods between each job (the average in the US).

Don't look now. Muck has absolutely no money in the market. It's all a big wet dream to him.

No plan for the Social Security phase out yet he wants blanket support for the unknown. Down here in the South we call that buyin' a pig in a poke and it's not the kind of thing an honest seller asks the buyer to do.

Bush should propose a specific plan and then see if it plays from Palm Beach to Portland and everywhere in between.

Well, Bush doesn't have a plan. Now how in the hell are we suppose to support something when we don't know what we are supporting. This asshole really does believe that those outside his elitist group are stupid. What is pissing me off the most is that while we are having our attention and energies directed toward SS Reform, health insurance, education, jobs, etc., are not being addressed at all. Thanks George, you pr--k. Sorry, but I am just pissed off tonight at all this crap. Hey George, did Gannon do you good lately?

You guys aren't even well-read on the history of the US stock market.

I bet Mike can't tell me the rate of dividends during the period he cites.

And Phidip, you must not read my blog, else you'd know where I stand on the market.

And the annonymous guy who thinks that 2000-2 would've doomed a retiring senior, needs to see a chart. Say a 65 yr old retired in 2002, and started working at age 18. S/he'd have been working for 47 years and contributing since 1955.

How'd the market do from 1955-2002?

What is pissing me off the most is that while we are having our attention and energies directed toward SS Reform, health insurance, education, jobs, etc., are not being addressed at all. Thanks George, you pr--k.

You're welcome. You really should look outside your reality-based world. No worries...er, except that SS Crisis, yeah that's it...

George the pr--k: Or maybe I need to do cocaine, because I think that is exactly what Gw does. No one could see the world through the lenses of Gw unless he was on coke.

Tall 16, I don't know about 6%, but the FICA tax rate was raised in the 80's to prevent SS going bankrupt. the middle class had to eat it so benefits wouldn't have to be cu-

never mind.