Why Aren't The Dem's Injecting the SUCCESS of 401k Plans into debate?

[Vinnie From Indy]

Nary a word is spoken about these programs which have been around for 15 or so years and widely used as an adjunct to SS retirement money.

[Blue_State_Elitist]

1. That might work...

That's why.

[oppositionmember]

2. Good suggestion...

Not like people don't have a lot of alternatives or opportunities to get a piece of the "ownership society." Point is that most people are not disciplined, or have personal setbacks, or are just unlucky in life. When they get old, they don't have any money. This was the case in the 1930s (as always) but the Depression ensured that a significant portion of the population found itself in this situation. Even in the 1960s seniors were much poorer than the rest of the population. The generation now dying off had the best of both worlds - guaranteed retirement income, plus long-term stock market gains, plus long-term increases in housing values. But now we're in a different world entirely and who knows who will end up with sufficient assets to live out their lives in relative security (other than George W. Bush's "haves and have mores"). God this debate is fucked up!

[sandnsea]

3. Again, Dorgan did today

Maybe people should stop bitching and start reading what our Senators are actually saying.

[Vinnie From Indy]

4. LOL - A Little Cranky Today?

Lighten up Francis!

[sandnsea]

6. nope

I'm always cranky.

Last night, somebody mixed up Obama and Ford. How the hell do people have the balls to run around bitching about Democrats when they don't even know the difference between two completely different men?

The bitching gets old.

[liberal43110]

5. Because it's not the point, and because it's what Bush is doing!!!!!!!!

Social Security is the bedrock of the modern social service programs that have made the United States a modern civil society. Social security is an insurance program against severe poverty and is one of the most successful programs in our government's history: one of the best examples of how the federal government can be a force for good in people's lives and in our society.

401(k) plans--whether successful or not--are risky financial instruments that most people do not even understand.

Essentially, Bush is introducing 401(k)s into the debate, only he's now calling them "personal retirement accounts." Whatever you call them, they introduce an element of extreme risk into a program that any humane civil society would have.

Why don't democrats talk about successful 401(k)s? Are you kidding? One, it misses the point that Social Security is an essential program in maintaining a civil society (period). And two, that's Bush's argument: that the vagaries of financial markets should replace the foundation of Social Security.

[Just Me]

7. Thanks. Very succinct post.

I always like those!!! :bounce:

[Vinnie From Indy]

8. I think you are suffering from a severe case of 'Projection"

Social Security is the bedrock of the modern social service programs that have made the United States a modern civil society. Social security is an insurance program against severe poverty and is one of the most successful programs in our government's history: one of the best examples of how the federal government can be a force for good in people's lives and in our society.


I agree

401(k) plans--whether successful or not--are risky financial instruments that most people do not even understand.


I agree

Essentially, Bush is introducing 401(k)s into the debate, only he's now calling them "personal retirement accounts." Whatever you call them, they introduce an element of extreme risk into a program that any humane civil society would have.


This is incorrect. What Bush is attempting to do is to take the money that the government collects for Social Security and divert it to what he calls "personal accounts". Bush is NOT "essentially" introducing 401k's into the debate. 401k's and what Shrub is proposing are not the same animal by any stretch. 401k's are voluntary investments made by a worker in addition to the involuntary confiscation of taxes by the government to fund the worker's SS account. Your statement would be more accurate if you restricted it to the similarities, like the risk and uncertainty, between 401k programs and shrub's plan rather than claim that they are "essentially' the same, which they are not.

Why don't democrats talk about successful 401(k)s? Are you kidding? One, it misses the point that Social Security is an essential program in maintaining a civil society (period). And two, that's Bush's argument: that the vagaries of financial markets should replace the foundation of Social Security.

I hardly think considering an issue that might be an effective counter argument to the ShrubCo. assault on SS allows you to make such an incongruous and sweeping claim about "missing the point". In fact, I would venture to say that it is you that has missed the point of my posting.

Your last point is just dead wrong. Shrub has never said "the vagaries of the financial markets should replace the foundations of Social Security". You made that part up. What he has said is that Social Security will be broke in 2042, be afraid, it's a crisis, he cares and a great deal of other BS, but he didn't say that.

Passion is good, but so is precision and accuracy.