60% Favor Giving People Choice on Private Investment Accounts for SS

[adios]

A recent poll conducted for FoxNews by Opinion Dynamics (John Gorman Opinion Dynamics pollster is a Democrat btw):

30. Do you favor or oppose giving individuals the choice to invest a portion of their Social Security contributions in stocks or mutual funds?
SCALE: 1. Favor giving choice 2. Oppose giving choice 3. (Not sure)
Favor Oppose (NS)
29-30 Mar 05 60% 28 12
Age under 30 76% 16 9
30-45 65% 24 10
46-55 54% 33 13
Age under 55 64% 26 11
Over age 55 56% 31 14


Poll on Social Security (http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/033105_poll2.pdf)

[Matty]

http://www.pollingreport.com/social.htm

The sense is that Republicans are going to table their SS plans soon and start engaging in negotiations with Democrats to fix it.

[fluxrad]

What's with you and your polls?

I think back in the day, the vast majority of americans favored putting Japanese immigrants in internment camps.

My point: people a [censored] sheep. Show me a poll where 60% of Americans can point to Iraq on a map or even begin to tell you how Social Security works and maybe I'll start to give "the public" some [censored] credit.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
My point: people a [censored] sheep. Show me a poll where 60% of Americans can point to Iraq on a map or even begin to tell you how Social Security works and maybe I'll start to give "the public" some [censored] credit.


[/ QUOTE ]

By this logic, elections are even worse than polls! Do you support a radical change in how we govern? Should we replace elections with some other standard?

Polls can be meaningful. Are they perfect? No. Do they often constitute the best empirical evidence of the public's will (even if we think disagree with that will/find it woefully ignorant)? Yes. Does the fact that polls constitute the best evidence always mean leaders should always act on that evidence? No. But polls are meaningful, even if we have a disrepect for the knowledge levels of the respondents.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
What's with you and your polls?

[/ QUOTE ]

They're not my polls. I assume your asking why I recently posted the two polls. One reason is that the polls that have been posted on this forum have been used to try and support a position a particular person has on a subject and on these volatile issues it depends on what the question specifically is as to what the results actually mean. The second and related reason is that polls can be used to spin any issue.

[ QUOTE ]
My point: people a [censored] sheep.

[/ QUOTE ]

A tad bit arrogant don't you think?

[ QUOTE ]
Show me a poll where 60% of Americans can point to Iraq on a map or even begin to tell you how Social Security works and maybe I'll start to give "the public" some [censored] credit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly, why should anyone care about what your criteria is for giving the public credit?

[fluxrad]

[ QUOTE ]
By this logic, elections are even worse than polls!

[/ QUOTE ]

No. The one thing the public is relatively good at is picking someone smarter than they are to lead. To wit, our founders specifically picked a representative government because they knew that direct democracy was impossible and, more importantly, that the populace was too unthinking to govern itself (hence the electoral college, as just one example).

However, you're completely right in the fact that sometimes this results in a complete [censored] douchebag being elected to office. Robert Byrd, Rick Santorum, and Orrin Hatch are just a few examples.

[adios]

Notice that the Opinion Dynamics poll is the only poll that asked if people should be allowed to have a choice regarding where their money goes. Presumably people could favor one choice over another by a large margin that supports the status quo and still support people having a choice between the status quo and new accounts by a large margin. This is more or less what is being proposed regarding private accounts, people would get a choice.

[jakethebake]

Democrats are dumb, so obviously a Democrat pollster would mess up the poll, so the results are meaningless.

[fluxrad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My point: people a [censored] sheep.

[/ QUOTE ]

A tad bit arrogant don't you think?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Like I said, "polls" shows ~80% of young americans can't find Iraq on a map. They also show almost as few can find New Jersey on a map. They showed support for Japanese internment, slavery, and that 2/3rds of Americans didn't support the revolution. Today...they show that Americans' opinion of whether or not we should be in Iraq is tied ever-so-tightly to how well we're doing there (the latest shows 60% think we should withdraw immediately).

It's not arrogance that leads me to believe the American people have little ability to lead themselves. It's a deep understanding of history and collective intelligence.

[ QUOTE ]
Honestly, why should anyone care about what your criteria is for giving the public credit?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should anyone care about you posting the results of a poll in the middle of a poker "politics" forum?

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
It's a deep understanding of history and collective intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a genuine question and not sarcasm. I'm not above sarcasm, but this really is a genuine question. How can you claim to have a deep understanding of 'collective intelligence'?

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My point: people a [censored] sheep.

[/ QUOTE ]

A tad bit arrogant don't you think?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Like I said, "polls" shows ~80% of young americans can't find Iraq on a map. They also show almost as few can find New Jersey on a map. They showed support for Japanese internment, slavery, and that 2/3rds of Americans didn't support the revolution. Today...they show that Americans' opinion of whether or not we should be in Iraq is tied ever-so-tightly to how well we're doing there (the latest shows 60% think we should withdraw immediately).

[/ QUOTE ]

If what I claim is true i.e. that polls can be used to spin any issue shouldn't we subject these "polls" you mention to some scrutiny before we make conclusions about John Q. Public?

[ QUOTE ]
It's not arrogance that leads me to believe the American people have little ability to lead themselves. It's a deep understanding of history and collective intelligence.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can counter with what is the criteria for a "deep understanding" and "collective intelligence?"

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Honestly, why should anyone care about what your criteria is for giving the public credit? '

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should anyone care about you posting the results of a poll in the middle of a poker "politics" forum?

[/ QUOTE ]

I expected this answer. You have the choice of responding or not responding to these posts. It's that simple. If people don't find the topic worth discussing then they won't respond. So if you don't find the topic interesting why do you respond? If they do respond then they can point out the flaws in the poll and what the polls actually mean. If you followed the same process for your rant about the public you'd put in a form that this is my criteria for giving public opinion credit for being informed, what do you think?

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
that 2/3rds of Americans didn't support the revolution

[/ QUOTE ]

Which poll is this from? Did Fox commission it? Also 2/3 of proto americans wanting to remain British would seem to evince that the populace had some sense.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
Notice that the Opinion Dynamics poll is the only poll that asked if people should be allowed to have a choice regarding where their money goes.

[/ QUOTE ]No, it is not. Look again (assuming you even looked in the first place).

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.pollingreport.com/social.htm

The sense is that Republicans are going to table their SS plans soon and start engaging in negotiations with Democrats to fix it.

[/ QUOTE ]

What a tragedy that will be. I can see it now. The spineless Republicans decide to "cut deals" in order to get *something* done, and all that ends up happening is that
the FICA cap gets lifted and benefits are cut.

I have very little hope that anything else will happen. I'd rather see nothing get done, because then SS will meltdown sooner than later at least.

natedogg

[knapple]

[ QUOTE ]
Democrats are dumb, so obviously a Democrat pollster would mess up the poll, so the results are meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ]

who said a democrat polled this? last time ichecked foxnews is on the FAR RIGHT. I doubt a demo did this. And of course a poll on foxnews would come out showing favor for a bush backed agenda...truth is, do a poll of the us congress.. even repubs dont think this will fly

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
last time ichecked foxnews is on the FAR RIGHT

[/ QUOTE ]
hahahaha
Sure pal! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Perhaps you should actually read the posts in a thread... /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[nanoCRUSHER]

[ QUOTE ]
A recent poll conducted for FoxNews by Opinion Dynamics (John Gorman Opinion Dynamics pollster is a Democrat btw)

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because someone says the Opinion Dynamics pollster leans Democratic doesn't make it so. Fox News often blurs the line by announcing lifelong-Republicans as "Democratic Strategists" ala Dick Morris (Dick Morris DID work for Clinton, but it was known that he was there specifically to lead the president toward more conservative ideals). During Clinton's first term, there was a battle between aides of President Clinton whether to steer him toward a more liberal term (Stephanopolous/Blumenthal) or conservative (Morris).

[knapple]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A recent poll conducted for FoxNews by Opinion Dynamics (John Gorman Opinion Dynamics pollster is a Democrat btw)

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because someone says the Opinion Dynamics pollster leans Democratic doesn't make it so. Fox News often blurs the line by announcing lifelong-Republicans as "Democratic Strategists" ala Dick Morris (Dick Morris DID work for Clinton, but it was known that he was there specifically to lead the president toward more conservative ideals). During Clinton's first term, there was a battle between aides of President Clinton whether to steer him toward a more liberal term (Stephanopolous/Blumenthal) or conservative (Morris).

[/ QUOTE ]

so what exactly wasn't i readin bc?????? hmm?ibeleive i mentioned how foxnews is far rigth, and if you dont agree with that,then you must live on neptune.itsno secret foxnews is the bill maher channel for conservatists

[InchoateHand]

I can't belive there are still idiots out there trying to convince people that the SSS isn't in trouble. Even worse those morans at AARP seem to actually believe it. These next 30 years are going to be rough for everyone.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't belive there are still idiots out there trying to convince people that the SSS isn't in trouble. Even worse those morans at AARP seem to actually believe it. These next 30 years are going to be rough for everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

I love the new and improved Inchoate!

[adios]

I did read it and the question about choosing has nothing to do with what's being proposed by Bush. Nothing, nada it was a totally loaded question.

Would you favor or oppose making the Social Security system voluntary, so that people can choose not to pay Social Security taxes and not to get benefits?"

Nice try at spin doctoring. Here's what I wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
Notice that the Opinion Dynamics poll is the only poll that asked if people should be allowed to have a choice regarding where their money goes. Presumably people could favor one choice over another by a large margin that supports the status quo and still support people having a choice between the status quo and new accounts by a large margin. This is more or less what is being proposed regarding private accounts, people would get a choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

No other poll asked the question should people be offered a choice of where to put a portion of their money that is withheld from their paychecks in payroll taxes. Next time you make one of your assinine posts with some poll with loaded questions I hope people keep these polls in mind.

[nanoCRUSHER]

[ QUOTE ]
I did read it and the question about choosing has nothing to do with what's being proposed by Bush. Nothing, nada it was a totally loaded question.

Would you favor or oppose making the Social Security system voluntary, so that people can choose not to pay Social Security taxes and not to get benefits?"

Nice try at spin doctoring. Here's what I wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
Notice that the Opinion Dynamics poll is the only poll that asked if people should be allowed to have a choice regarding where their money goes. Presumably people could favor one choice over another by a large margin that supports the status quo and still support people having a choice between the status quo and new accounts by a large margin. This is more or less what is being proposed regarding private accounts, people would get a choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

No other poll asked the question should people be offered a choice of where to put a portion of their money that is withheld from their paychecks in payroll taxes. Next time you make one of your assinine posts with some poll with loaded questions I hope people keep these polls in mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Recently Bush has put the caviat that someone CAN choose whether or not they put the proposed 10-20% of their SS money into stocks/bonds. However, it should be noted that if you choose not to invest your money, your rate of return would not match that of current return-on-investment. Another thing that SS reformers don't like to say is that you it would be quite hard to make money in the market considering the stipulations they have. For instance, all returns up to (Current Inflation% + 3%) would be taken away instantly. For example, current inflation is approx. 2.7%, so everything under 5.7% would be taken away from your "private" account, essentially to pay off the interest on the treasury bonds used to borrow all the money to finance the system.

For the record, I'm not a SS "saver" or "reformer." I'm an "abolisher." It's entirely too large of a bureaucracy, and it hides the true cost of our budget deficit, which would now be near $600 billion if not for SS.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Recently Bush has put the caviat that someone CAN choose whether or not they put the proposed 10-20% of their SS money into stocks/bonds. However, it should be noted that if you choose not to invest your money, your rate of return would not match that of current return-on-investment. Another thing that SS reformers don't like to say is that you it would be quite hard to make money in the market considering the stipulations they have. For instance, all returns up to (Current Inflation% + 3%) would be taken away instantly. For example, current inflation is approx. 2.7%, so everything under 5.7% would be taken away from your "private" account, essentially to pay off the interest on the treasury bonds used to borrow all the money to finance the system.

For the record, I'm not a SS "saver" or "reformer." I'm an "abolisher." It's entirely too large of a bureaucracy, and it hides the true cost of our budget deficit, which would now be near $600 billion if not for SS.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good post, I agree with your points. I posted an article about 6 weeks ago or so from the WSJ that basically made the same points you have in your post.

My original post pertained basically to the problems with these polls. Your post actually supports that notion in my mind in that the devil is in the details. The choice between "private" accounts and the "status quo" is not as clear cut as many of the proponents of private accounts would make them out to be. Perhaps if a poll was conducted where the details of what Bush was proposing was asked, the results might be different than the Opinion Dynamics poll. I'm a person that follows the markets actively and trades. I know that the one can make a lot of money in the markets but that doesn't mean that I'd select the "private" option necessarily because of the additional risk factor in having to beat inflation more or less (with limited choices to do so) to do better than one would do choosing the "status quo."