Americans Wary of Stocks for Social Security - Poll

[truthpusher]

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=7547834&src=rss/ElectionCoverage

Americans Wary of Stocks for Social Security - Poll
Sat Feb 5, 2005 08:09 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Fifty-six percent of Americans think the stock market is too risky for Social Security funds, according to a Newsweek poll released on Saturday.

<snip>

The 56 percent who were wary of putting retirement money into the stock market contrasted with 36 percent who said such investing was a "necessary risk to improve the rate of return of Social Security funds."

complete story:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=7547834&src=rss/ElectionCoverage

[Warpy]

1. The DNC needs to get some ads out ASAP

Ads that mention ENRON and WorldCOM and how people were WIPED OUT by investing in companies that lied to them.

They need to tell the TRUTH: Social security is insurance against not having your investments work out the way you thought they would.

[Vincardog]

8. Why don't we do it?

Anyone want to form a PAC and get some information out there?

[otohara]

13. The Securities Corps. Are Set to Spend $40 Million

right now MoveOn is running ads in states where chimp is visiting.

How ironic - he tells the crowd yesterday that "his opponents are using scare tactics" the Bush faithful nod their heads in agreement.

[merwin]

2. Wasn't social security invented because of things like the stock

market crashing?

[calimary]

3. Please also remember that the privatizer pirates were all out there

starting to rear their ugly heads about this WAY early in bush's term, until the corporate scandals of Enron, Worldcom and the rest of 'em hit the headlines. Then, all of a sudden, POOF! They just mysteriously all shut up and disappeared. Crawled back into their hidey holes to lay low for awhile til the scandals blew over. Which they did. And now, these weasels are back and quite full-throated. THAT, ALONE, should be a red flag waving in EVERY American's face. WHY were these people not bullish on privatizing Social Security when the Wall Street sneaks and slickie-boys were taking their perp-walks? Why did we hear NOT A PEEP out of them when Kenny-boy first came under scrutiny? WHY weren't they courageously still out there beating their drums about this?

[Yavin4]

4. Yep.

It was kind of ugly seeing old people literally dying in the street. Taking care of children, the elderly, and the sick is a sign of a civilized nation. When a society abandons the weakest amongst us, then it crumbles, and it's no better than the animal kingdom where only the strong survive. IOW, a society will start to regress.

[merwin]

6. Bush is the master of walking backwards, IMHO

[aquart]

11. My goodness. I believe it was.

[LiberalFighter]

5. What % of those saying necessary risk invest in stock market themselves?

[Skip Intro]

7. Maybe the SS issue IS a diversion

Didn't Pelosi say that?

Maybe the drones, now that its coming down to their own pocketbook and their own sacrifice, are finally coming to.

Selfishness will eat iteslf.

But if bush doesn't stand a chance with this, and Dems saying it was all a diversion, it might be smart not to put too much into this particular fight - IF we really have all but already won it.

What would it be a diversion from tho?

war on Iraq - past/present/coming attack on Iran/coming something else that we don't know about????

[Vincardog]

9. We need to fight like hell on this and every where else too.

We can not play dead and let them steal another step on the march to fascism.

[Skip Intro]

12. I agree, not another inch

just being hopeful about the reason we haven't yet seen "bush is lying on SS" ads yet.

I haven't seen any, anyway.

and trying to see the strategy. It would make sense not to fight a battle you've already won. Resources aren't limitless.

This SS issue could be put to bed for good with a couple of strong ads delivering the message that "bush will cut your social security, Democrats will save it."

Say it clearly, plainly, somberly, and loudly.

But if both sides know "the people" won't go for it, then it is good to ask why bush brought it up to start with. Either to do it or to distract with it. It doesn't appear doable, its political poison. It makes more sense as a distraction. And sounds like SOP from rove.

Dems will win the SS fight. Everybody knows it.

I'm leaning toward diversion.

Which leads me to ask, "diversion from what?"

[VegasWolf]

10. Damn, Meryl Lynch et al will be so pissed. They were so looking

forward to gigantic xmas bonuses next year.

[Straight Shooter]

14. I'd like to know the income percentile of the 36% who are okay with this

They think it's a "necessary risk"? Maybe they're not risking much of their future security, so it doesn't matter to them.

I think 56% is far too low a number, and it will be easily chipped away with his blatant Pavlov dog techniques of changing people's minds. 65% agree with bush that there's a "crisis." Is this the same 65% who fell for his WMD "crisis"?