Personal Social Security Retirement Funds (Gallup Poll Shows 62% Favor It!)

PollingReport.com ^ | 10/31/03 | Gallup

[NYC Republican]

CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Oct. 24-26, 2003. N=1,006 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"A proposal has been made that would allow people to put a portion of their Social Security payroll taxes into personal retirement accounts that would be invested in private stocks and bonds. Do you favor or oppose this proposal?"

Favor Oppose NO

10/03 62 34 4

11/02 57 40 3

9/02 52 43 5

6/02 57 39 4

4/02 63 33 4

1/02 63 33 4

11/01 64 31 5

8/01 62 34 4

3/01 63 30 7

6/00 65 30 5

[NYC Republican]

Apologies for the format... This is a wedge issue that the Republicans should definitely push again -it has huge support... It helped Elizabeth Dole, and helped Bush in '00. He should definitely push for it again...

Kill the Democrats' lie about robbing their money and placing it into "risky investment schemes".

[ken5050]

The Dems are now gonna come out against mutual funds...

[TommyDale]

Risky scheme. The AARP won't stand for it, nor will the DemocRATS. I have been in favor of this for over 35 years, ever since joining the work force. The only people opposed to it are those who are already recipients, or those political candidates who accept contributions from those recipients (AARP).

[Atlas Sneezed]

It helped Bush in '00

---

So why hasn't he DONE anything about the issue? Four years and no action!

[NYC Republican]

So why hasn't he DONE anything about the issue? Four years and no action!

The timing wasn't great. With the Stock market dropping so much the past few years, it provides the Dem liars with ammunition to scare people, especially seniors (note - their monewy wouldn't be touched, and this is VOLUNTARY! - it's all fear instilled into the public by the lying Dems).

Now that the market's about to hit 10k again, he should definitely fight for it again, much more forecefully than before, AND EXPOSE THE LIES!!!

[NYC Republican]

It's all OPTIONAL! No one has to do it. It's giving the investors the OPTION of putting aside a small amount of their retirement funds aside at higher yeilding (you'd hope) securities. I don't understand why most of the public doesn't realize this...

[sirshackleton]

I wouldn't be surprised to see that, what with the scandals the mutual fund community has had to endure recently. But damn, if you thought the Dems couldn't marginalize themselves any further, that will REALLY be the end of them. That's pretty much the best way for people who can't afford to buy individual stocks to get into the market.

[ken5050]

I agree..but, you can take this to the bank..what we're hearing now about the mutual fund scandals is just the tip of the iceberg..this has been going on a long time...lots of folks getting rich..and it's rotten all the way up to the top...indeed...many of the tops managers and directors at the fund companies have been indulging...it's gonna get real ugly...and soon..

[inPhase]

Might be too many things on the Prez's plate, but we must keep it in the news.


Personal Social Security Retirement Funds (Gallup Poll Shows 62% Favor It!), Beelzebubba wrote: It helped Bush in '00

[Ganndy]

Here are some comments from the web....

Persons over 65 now make up 21 percent of the population. That will increase to 35 percent by 2030 and 42 percent by 2075. The number of workers paying payroll taxes for each retiree is now 3.7. In 2030, it will be 2.4 and in 2075, only 2.0. Without reforms, the burdens will be intolerable.
The mantra of Democrats - now including Dean - is that the Medicare and Social Security trust funds will be "solvent" until 2026 and 2042, respectively.
In fact, the funds begin to pay out more than they take in much sooner - around 2016. The later dates are when the funds go totally broke. Instead of contributing surpluses to the federal budget, Medicare and Social Security taxes will have to supplemented with ever- increasing - and ultimately immense - contributions from income tax revenues.
In chilling testimony before the Senate Aging Committee in July, Social Security trustee Thomas Saving said that to maintain current benefits, by 2025 Social Security and Medicare will use up 28 percent of all federal income tax revenue and 47 percent by 2040.
"Clearly, elderly entitlement programs are out of control," he said. "If nothing is done, by 2060, the combination of Social Security and Medicare will account for more than 71 percent of the federal budget," double today's level. Bush and all Democratic candidates say that spurring economic growth is the way out of the nation's fiscal woes. Bush's formula is tax cuts. The Democrats' answer is tax increases.

Out

[TommyDale]

I know that. Sorry, I was being sarcastic, using the words that the opponents would use. Like I mentioned, I have been in favor of this since before it ever became a possibility.

[NYC Republican]

I know that. Sorry, I was being sarcastic, using the words that the opponents would use. Like I mentioned, I have been in favor of this since before it ever became a possibility

Of course I realized that, the frustration was aimed towards the Dims and those believing the lies. Thanks

[mewzilla]

Sounds great. But what happens when millions of idiot investors lose their shirts and demand gov't bailouts...?

[Choose Ye This Day]

It's a small iceberg. I'm not concerned.

Besides, the smartest thing for Bush to propose with this personal accounts issue is to allow investors to opt in to investing in passive index funds, where there is no professional money manager, just an unmanaged broad list of stocks. That will nip in the bud any Dem screeching about Wall Street scandal.

And I'm a big proponent of managed funds otherwise. I just think for Social Security accounts, we ought to just stick with the S&P 500, Wilshire 5000, Lehman Bond, etc... indices.

[NYC Republican]

Sounds great. But what happens when millions of idiot investors lose their shirts and demand gov't bailouts...?

From my understanding, only a small sliver or savings can be deposited. Even if they go into one of the least risky products (i.e. Treasuries), it's still a higher rate of return than the 1% or so they currently earn.

[mewzilla]

Bet they'd still demand a bailout. We'd be better off demanding the Feds cut spending and taxes so we could keep more of our own money to invest, period. That 1% idea sounds like training wheels for investors or something, which is fine in the long-term I guess, but people should be saving for retirement now.

[speekinout]

The only people opposed to it are those who are already recipients, or those political candidates who accept contributions from those recipients (AARP).

You're correct about AARP, which has much in common with Union mentality.
But I don't think you're correct about the views of people who are collecting. Very few think that SS will be taken away from people who already collect. And many know that they are getting about a 1-2% return on the money they paid throughout their careers.
Not many really want to see their kids and grandkids ripped off like that.