Poll shows Bush support on Social Security

from JoeUser Forums
Poll shows Bush support on Social Security


By Donald Lambro
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

A majority of Americans, including nearly one-third of Democrats, support President Bush's proposal to let workers voluntarily invest part of their Social Security payroll taxes in stocks and bonds, a nationwide poll shows.
Despite a blistering national newspaper ad campaign against Mr. Bush's plan by the AARP and a growing chorus of daily attacks by Democrats, a survey of 1,004 likely voters slated to be released today finds strong public support for the idea, particularly among workers younger than 50.


... more at linked article.

emphasis added


Ruh, roh! Sen. Harry Reid and friends.

As Pres. Bush noted in his news conference just a few days ago, in a page out of the Ronald Reagan handbook, he's taking this fight to the American people, going over the heads of the Congress and building up grass-roots support for his plan to "save Social Security".

I applaud these moves, and his boldness in trying to do the right thing to correct the Social Security system, and give us -- the U.S. citizens -- our rightful place in his planned "Ownership Society".

Go, man go!
politics
1,477 views 2 replies
Reply #1 from PolMach Forums Top
Americans are so uninformed on this issue that it totally depends on the wording of the question. If you look at the poll commissioned by the AARP it shows that americans think bush's plan stinks once they hear some of the proposed details.

The reality is that bush's plan deducts 2 trillion dollars out of the social security system immediately and adds it to the national debt. That money is then handed it to wall street. In the meantime a new huge beurocracy is set up to administer the private accounts. If the investments fail, wall street takes the profits and you get to eat cat food in your retirement.

Winners:
* The same wall street investment banks who have been ripping off the public and have had to pay record fines. Banks are Bush's #1 campaign contributers, oustripping the oil and gas and pharmaceutical industries.
* Anyone who owns massive amounts of stock now (once you put that 2 trillion in the market the value of existing stocks will skyrocket.).

Loosers:
* Taxpayers who have to pay back the 2 trillion dollar debt,
* Taxpayers who have to pay the salaries of all these new government employees
* Anyone who's social security "Investments" don't work out.
* Taxpayers who have to pay the medical and living expenses of the people who's investments didn't work out and are forced into public assistance programs.

Let's see. Borrow 2 trillion dollars, invest it in the stock market, make the government bigger. If I hadn't seen bush decide to invade Iraq, I would have thought this is the dumbest decision he could make.
Reply #2 from PolMach Forums Top
Americans are so uninformed on this issue that it totally depends on the wording of the question.
Unfortunately quite true.

Those of us who read blogs and detailed magazine articles have a pretty good grasp of the issue (I say only "pretty" good because, as the man said, the devil is in the details, and, in this case, the details have not even been put forth). However, the general public is thinking about this issue in slogans and sound bites.

I teach media analysis to a high school class, and one day a couple weeks ago I taped an ABC newscast the same night that I taped a BBC newscast, in order to help students understand the limitations of the major network news that most citizens in this country watch.

The contrast was overwhelming. Both ran segments on the social security debate. The ABC segment was mostly horse race coverage. Which way is the momentum shifting? Who has the votes? Which side has the more crafty leadership? Basically, who will win the contest? The central message: this is going to be exciting. The secondary message: the major players are sleazy.

The BBC segment explained both sides of the argument succinctly, in such a way that supporters of either side would be able to nod at their side of the argument and articulate their disagreement with the facts and logic of the other side of the argument. You heard no slogans, no predictions of who would win, no sense of an exciting fight in the making. (My students were amazed at the contrast; only three could articulate a viewpoint on the issue prior to the newscasts; none understood anything on ABC except that evil politicians were at it again; however, following the BBC broadcast, more than half had reasonably insightful comments to make, covering both sides of the issue.)

In my mind, this is the central problem facing our form of government today. Most citizens never experience a reasonable, nonparitisan summary of the major issues. They hear slogans and horse race coverage. Then they are polled and their opinions become the next round of news in the horse race coverage.

The eventual decision, since we do not live in a utopia, is some mix of benefits and downsides... but there is no accountability between the arguments set forth and the results attained. No sense, on the part of the public, that we Americans made a decision and here is where it got us.

Politicians take their messages to the people in slogan form. News networks do the news in the most entertaining and attractive way for the target audience. Citizens make little effort to find reliable, nonpartisan outlines of the issues. You can blame any or all of these, but the result is rather unsettling for those of us who think democracy is so good that it should be exported.
Curtains - Customize Windows with additional styles