Posted on 09/30/2011 1:39:34 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
In further support of Ed’s theory that the third-rail curse is behind us, a CNN/ORC poll released yesterday evening shows that a majority of Americans think Social Security is either “in crisis” or has “major problems.” Perhaps even more importantly, a majority of those polled said they favor at least partial privatization.
Twenty-two percent said the Social Security program is “in crisis,” up from just 17 percent in 2005, while another 49 percent said the program has “major problems.” A full 52 percent said they favor “a proposal … that would allow workers to invest part of their Social Security taxes in the stock market or in bonds, while the rest of those taxes would remain in the Social Security system.” Just 46 percent opposed. In October of 2008, those numbers were quite different: Just 36 percent favored the proposal, while 62 percent opposed it.
But few are willing to say Social Security is unconstitutional. Nearly three-fourths (73 percent) say the program passes the constitutionality test, while less than one-fourth (21 percent) says it doesn’t.
Not surprisingly, opinions about Social Security vary significantly with party affiliation and age. The vast majority of Republicans (65 percent) favor partial privatization, while a majority of Democrats (54 percent) oppose it. Similarly, those aged 18 to 34 are the most likely to want to be able to invest at least a part of their Social Security taxes for themselves. Sixty-five percent of that age bracket favored the proposal, compared to just 33 percent of those 65 and older. Indeed, support for the proposal steadily decreased with age, from 65 percent among 18-to-34-year-olds to 55 percent among 35-to-49-year-olds to 48 percent among 50-to-64-year-olds to 33 percent among the 65+ crowd.
This poll, then, suggests Social Security is pretty safe stumping material, the many disapproving headlines Rick Perry has garnered with his strong censure of the program notwithstanding. I’d say that’s progress. But as Ed pointed out, we desperately need the same shift of opinion on Medicare reform if we truly want to solve the debt and deficit problem. Paul Ryan’s proposals for Medicare reform might not have paid off in NY-26 — and they might not pay off in 2012 — but the appetite for Social Security reform today was surely whetted by George W. Bush’s unsuccessful proposals in the early 2000s. In other words, it’s never too soon to start promoting ideas, even if candidates don’t make them the keystones of their platforms.
duh....
Guess who first suggested privatization.....Bubba
More evidence that Americans are too intellectually lazy to save their country.
OF COURSE NOT....
Any politician who has DARED to mention it in the last 30 years has been run out of town on a rail. Just like the Democrats intended.
What do you think OBAMACARE was really all about?
So were the Democrats stupid, or just lying?
Or both?
RE: More evidence that Americans are too intellectually lazy to save their country.
Is it because Majority of Americans do recognize Social Security is in need of reform? OR is it something else?
Unfortunately, they probably also think that the needed reform should consist in the rich paying more for it.
Those who get laid off at 62 and can't get another job go on Social Security due to this economy.
Yeah, Social Security is in need of a serious fix right now and a Tax increase is the stupid answer.
The right answer is to purge the dead and those who do not qualify and raise the social security age for anyone under 40 now.
The only “reform” is to end intergenerational theft. I don’t think that is what they have in mind.
We had this discussion in the early 80s. Reagan saved SS for 50 years (until around 2035).
People have been scared by the media and by the investment community, which smells a chance to get their hands on the immense amount of money in SS.
Here’s the things to realize:
1. SS does not currently involve investments of any kind
2. No one makes money off of SS except retirees
3. SS is completely, 100% free of profit skimming and corruption
4. SS is completely protected from inflation
5. SS is completely protected from stock market dips, or dips in the value of gold, or dips in the value of bonds, or any other kind of investment setbacks
6. Any investment scheme has the potential for abuse and fraud. Be very wary of any “too good to be true” schemes
7. Any investment scheme will need to both do better than inflation and do better then the investment company’s overhead (which is typically around 15%). The stock market has failed this for at least 12 years going, and it doesn’t look any better for the future.
8. Be especially careful about feedback. Imagine for a second that we had all our national retirements in the stock market, and somebody noticed that at a worker to retiree ratio of 2:1, more money would be taken out of the stock market than would go in. What would happen? Answer: a bigger market crash than in 1929. Who would invest in the stock market if they knew it would lose money?
9. Any government investment program would be a huge expansion of government, in a really socialist way
10. Any government investment program is saying, in effect, you think that the government can invest your money better than you. That is not a conservative position.
Frankly, I think it is all a scam. SS is not in anywhere near the danger that people think. I don’t think any of us would be worried about SS if it were not in Wall Street’s interest to scare us. SS is fully funded until 2035, that’s 25 more years! Why the heck are you guys scared of something that won’t occur for 25 more years? Yeah, sure, it will ask for its money back (that we stole to minimize our past deficits) but even if we decide that we don’t want to pay it back, even then, the funding is good for 75% of SS payments for the rest of time!
We shouldn’t let people push us around. Be suspicious of the “we need to give your money to the government so it can give your money to Wall Street” crowd. This is just TARP in an enlarged version, with far more potential to cause a disaster.
RE: SS is fully funded until 2035, that’s 25 more years!
That implies that it will NOT be fully funded in 26 years.
So, what happens to the 40 year old guy who pays into SS when he retires at that time? And what happens to those depending on it who are in their 70’s and depending on Social Security?
RE: Be suspicious of the “we need to give your money to the government so it can give your money to Wall Street” crowd
Are you saying that the Federal Government’s own THRIFT SAVINGS PLAN (TSP) available for ALL Federal Employees is an example of this?
Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) is a defined contribution plan for United States civil service employees and retirees as well as for members of the uniformed services, administered by the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.
The TSP offers investors 10 funds in which to invest. Five are individual funds (one dealing with government bonds and the other four tracking specific market indices) while the other five are “Lifecycle Funds” designed to professionally change the allocation mix of investments among the individual funds during various stages of the employee’s Federal service. All TSP funds are trust funds that are regulated by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and not the Securities and Exchange Commission.
TSP has been in existence for 25 years.
Isn’t this an example of “we need to give your money to the government so it can give your money to Wall Street”
If you answer is NO, then you have to tell us to believe that this system will likewise go bankrupt in 30 years.
If your answer is YES, then why can’t we consider such a plan to replace Social Security?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.