AARP: Seven in 10 Boomer Plus Voters Oppose Private Accounts

[RamboLiberal]

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=73082

With the mid-term elections rapidly approaching, Social Security remains a critical issue to Americans age 42 and older (boomer plus voters), many of whom are approaching retirement. The third in the weekly series of "AARP Election Watch: Pulse of a Generation" opinion tracking surveys, released new data today about voter preferences on Social Security. When given the choice, an overwhelming 79 percent of all respondents want candidates who are elected from both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate to work to strengthen the existing Social Security program, rather than work to create new, private accounts.

AARP found that there is great resistance among likely boomer plus voters to use Social Security tax dollars in order to fund private accounts. Seven in 10 respondents oppose private accounts (71 percent). In fact, there is a great deal of intensity of opposition to private accounts. Those who oppose private accounts were more than four times as likely to strongly oppose private accounts (57 percent) as to somewhat oppose them (14 percent), while respondents who support private accounts were almost evenly divided between strongly support (9 percent) and somewhat support (8 percent).

"Social Security is the only guaranteed benefit that most people will have when they retire," said David Sloane, senior managing director of Government Relations for AARP. "Americans recognize that private accounts carved out of Social Security are not the answer, and are looking for other action to improve the current system."

Candidates who support using Social Security taxes to fund private accounts and who want to capture the 42 plus vote could be hard pressed to do so. Nearly two-thirds of likely voters (64 percent) said they are either not at all likely (38 percent) or not very likely (26 percent) to vote for a candidate who supports using the Social Security taxes to fund private accounts. Older respondents in particular report they are not at all likely to vote for a candidate who supports private accounts (43 percent ages 61 plus; 34 percent ages 42-50 and 35 percent ages 51-60).

The full "AARP Election Watch: Pulse of a Generation" election survey can be found at: http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/general/rx_pulse_2006.pdf

[Warpy]

1. Those private accounts looked great in the booming 90s

when we had a stock market that was inflating by double digits. The market has been flat now for about 7 years, and they no longer look so hot.

There is always an age divide on Social Security, with workers under 40 thinking they have a better idea than paying insurance premiums for their elders to live on and allowing younge folks to pay their premiums to support the system when they're old and they never got rich quick.

Plus, workers under 40 are never told it's an insurance program, not an investment program, and they always buy the lie that it won't be there for them when they retire.

My pop died last winter at 89 and told me they were telling the same damn lies back in the 30s when the program first started.

It's no surprise workers over 40 start to appreciate the security in social security. They know by then that the arrogance and conceit of youth that the world was their oyster and riches would flow to their superior intellect naturally were fantasy and that a life of declining wages and robbed pensions will leave them with less than they'll need to survive on when their bodies will no longer allow them to work.

[sandnsea]

2. My dad said the same

He was 73 when he passed last year, and said the same thing about 5 years ago. They keep repeating that lie hoping to build up several generations to believe it, like they did with unions and welfare. Maybe one of these days people will figure out if they're lying about social security and trickle down, they're lying about everything else too.