# Are the Republicans losing on the Leadership front? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 28, 2005, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-republicans-losing-on-the-leadership-front/301590 "2005-04-28T19:25:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2005, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-republicans-losing-on-the-leadership-front/301590/61 "2005-05-02T21:39:31Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Nonsense. By your extraordinarily broad definition of Ponzi schemes, most insurance plans qualify. Life insurance certainly involves a system in which investors put money in, but don’t get their money back, and in which no actual business takes place, and in which many investors don’t get their money back. Medical insurance is even more of a bad deal for most investors. Insurance isn’t a good stand alone investment. The concept of “portfolio” is the key to understanding the value of insurance. Insurance is meant to make a portfolio of investments stronger. So, a portfolio consisting of a house and homeowners insurance is a good investment. A homeowners policy on it’s own is a bad investment. > [@](#): > > Except that these are not investment plans (which are designed to make money): they’re insurance plans (which are designed to protect against lean times). Social security is more like an insurance plan than an investment plan. Social Security is both insurance and an investment, as I have already stated. However, more people actually use the investment portion of the program than the insurance part. Also, most people rightly think of the program as an investment, rather than insurance. If you wanted to cancel the insurance aspects of Social Security such as disability or death bennies, then people would probably grumble, but not too much. If you tried to cancel the investment aspect of the program where retirees get benefits then you would see an army of elderly advance on Washington and burn the place down. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-republicans-losing-on-the-leadership-front/301590/62 "2005-05-03T00:22:38Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > So, according to you guys, Social Security and Stocks aren’t investments? What would actually qualify as an “investment” then? These threads are annoying because I find that most people opposed to social security reform simply have no clue about the basics of finance. If you don’t even understand basic terms, then how can you know what’s best for the discussion? It’s like when you see gun control advocates who don’t know the difference between a revolver and a shotgun. > **[One man's retirement math: Social Security wins](https://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1227/p01s03-cogn.html)** > > At the heart of President Bush's plan to sell Social Security private accounts is a simple notion: You're always better off investing your retireme > [@](#): > > The debate hinges considerably on what people want their retirement system to be. Social Security has always been an insurance program. It was never intended as an investment scheme. So everyone - retirees, the disabled, widows, and orphans - receive guaranteed monthly income. The “return” on their Social Security contributions depends largely on how long they live. Those in their 90s have enjoyed superb returns. Those who don’t live as long benefit less. > > Private accounts, by contrast, involve far more variability, both sides agree. Individuals who enter and exit the market at the right times would undoubtedly do better under privatization. > > But under Britain’s privatized pension system, so many retirees are doing so poorly at this moment that a commission warned this fall that widespread poverty among the elderly may be returning, which could require massive new government spending. > > Presumably, President Bush’s plan would offer the choice to meld insurance and private investment: much less guaranteed income in return for the opportunity - and risk - of earning more in the markets. > > “Because financial asset returns are volatile, benefits under a personal account system would fluctuate,” notes Bill Dudley, an economist at Goldman, Sachs & Co., a New York investment bank. “On a risk-adjusted basis, the privatized account … becomes much less compelling.” > [@](#): > > Further, administrative costs and difficulties for private business could be large as companies, big and small, try to deduct the right amount from a payroll and put it into a private account in a timely fashion. > > A study by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) notes some complexities: 650,000 employers go out of business or start new businesses each year. More than 4 million employers have 10 or fewer employees, often having record-keeping problems and errors. About 12 million to 15 million individuals are self-employed and presumably would have to send money directly to a private account. > > So the complexities of change are substantial. If the extra return from privatization is not very advantageous, “why even consider changes that all agree would be very disruptive?” asks Logue. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-republicans-losing-on-the-leadership-front/301590/63 "2005-05-03T01:41:52Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > Nonsense. By your extraordinarily broad definition of Ponzi schemes, most insurance plans qualify. Life insurance certainly involves a system in which investors put money in, but don’t get their money back, and in which no actual business takes place, and in which many investors don’t get their money back. Medical insurance is even more of a bad deal for most investors. > > Except that these are not investment plans (which are designed to make money): they’re insurance plans (which are designed to protect against lean times). Social security is more like an insurance plan than an investment plan. > > Daniel The difference which makes SS a Ponzi scheme is that the people who got in first were not putting enough money in to pay for their retirement - they relied on more people coming into the program and using their money to supplement their own retirement income. After the baby boom retires, the number of people entering the system will begin to shrink, making it an increasingly bad deal for late arrivals. That is exactly how a Ponzi scheme works - it depends on future particpants to pay money back to earlier entrants. Eventually, you run out of new participants, and the system collapses. To be fair, it didn’t start out as a Ponzi scheme, because no one saw the baby boom coming. And it doesn’t have to finish as a Ponzi scheme - at some point we’ll reach a minimum, and probably start increasing again. The true nature of the problem with social security is that it’s not a true investment vehicle - it’s an entitlement program which makes guesses as to how many people will be in the workforce a generation or two from now, and sets current deduction rates accordingly. That’s guaranteed to cause either overages or shortages in the system. Of course, overages will never happen because if the government found that a demographic shift caused the system to be flush with cash, that money would be spent. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-republicans-losing-on-the-leadership-front/301590/64 "2005-05-03T01:58:18Z")
Arguing about whether or not SS is a Ponzi scheme is really just a distraction. It would be more fruitful to debate the merits and shortcomings without using controversial terms like “Ponzi”. If someone is really stuck on that issue, please open a thread devoted to that topic. The problems with SS, other than what **Sam Stone** outlined is that it’s a one-size-fits all system that ties up HUGE amount of capital in ultra-consrvative investment vehicles. The rich aren’t really affected, because they have lots of alternatives to invest their money in other places. The poor are stuck with an effectively low rate of return. If that’s what they want, fine-- they can choose US Treasury notes for their Private Accounts. But if they want to invest in other vehicles, they should be able to do so. On that general basis, I’m all for Private Accounts. But Bush’s “plan” is really only a partial plan, and until he and Congress can come up with a way of addressing the transition costs, it’s hard to say yeah or nay to it. Presently the Dems are stonewalling discussions and (from a political standpoint) why shouldn’t they-- the President isn’t getting much help from his fellow Republicans. It’s that latter part that points to a failure of party leadership. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 11:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-republicans-losing-on-the-leadership-front/301590/65 "2005-05-03T11:32:51Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > The problems with SS, other than what **Sam Stone** outlined is that it’s a one-size-fits all system that ties up HUGE amount of capital in ultra-consrvative investment vehicles. The rich aren’t really affected, because they have lots of alternatives to invest their money in other places. The poor are stuck with an effectively low rate of return. If that’s what they want, fine-- they can choose US Treasury notes for their Private Accounts. But if they want to invest in other vehicles, they should be able to do so. On that general basis, I’m all for Private Accounts. Isn’t this true only if Social Security is an investment program? When examining the program based on its actual purpose (maintaining a modicum of security for elderly Americans) it seems incredibly successful. The only question is how do we ensure that it continues to be as successful as it is, not how do we scrap it because it isn’t the best vehicle for investing in oneself. It really appears that folks look at this program in two very different ways, and many seem to regard the well-being of retired Americans as a valuable outcome. It is sad that things have come to this. I wish more people who speak about their love for America had more love for Americans. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-republicans-losing-on-the-leadership-front/301590/66 "2005-05-03T11:33:54Z")
Check that last bit: it should be “many seem to regard the well-being of retired Americans as NOT a valuable outcome.” ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-republicans-losing-on-the-leadership-front/301590/67 "2005-05-03T13:01:19Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Arguing about whether or not SS is a Ponzi scheme is really just a distraction. Fair point; while I consider that allegation to be absolutely absurd, I’ll drop the argument. **Debaser** , yes, my cite included Bush’s name in the questions; that’s a fair point. However, Fox’s polling questions talked about people’s “right” to put “their contributions” into a private account; surely you can see how their own language influenced the answers they got, especially given that most folks don’t understand that the money they put into SS isn’t the same as the money they’ll be getting out of SS? Even so, remember that Bush won the election this time. If you’re correct–if attaching his name to SS reform is what’s poisoning it–then it speaks of a significant malaise in the administration. Which is what the OP is about. Honestly, I don’t think that’s the case. I don’t think Bush’s name is dragging SS change down. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-republicans-losing-on-the-leadership-front/301590/68 "2005-05-03T13:09:45Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Arguing about whether or not SS is a Ponzi scheme is really just a distraction. It would be more fruitful to debate the merits and shortcomings without using controversial terms like “Ponzi”. If someone is really stuck on that issue, please open a thread devoted to that topic. You’re right. I knew we were highjacking the thread, and didn’t want to derail things too much. However, when people call me out as a liar, I feel I need to defend myself. But, Social Security is a ponzi scheme. Just because certain people on the left throw a temper tantrum every time they hear the word “ponzi”, why should we stop calling the program what it is? Sometimes it’s difficult to rise above the level of one’s opponents. I’ll drop it now, so that the thread has a hope of continuing without sidetrack. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-republicans-losing-on-the-leadership-front/301590/69 "2005-05-03T13:16:58Z")
For the record, **Debaser** , I don’t think you’re a liar; you’re just sadly mistaken :). Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-republicans-losing-on-the-leadership-front/301590/70 "2005-05-03T13:17:08Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > **Debaser** , yes, my cite included Bush’s name in the questions; that’s a fair point. However, Fox’s polling questions talked about people’s “right” to put “their contributions” into a private account; surely you can see how their own language influenced the answers they got, especially given that most folks don’t understand that the money they put into SS isn’t the same as the money they’ll be getting out of SS? I don’t think the words “right” and “their contributions” are inflammitory. If people disagree with the “right” in question, then they can say so. Putting “their contributions” into private accounts is exactly the matter at hand. Can you think of a way to re-word it that is less influential? It seems pretty matter of fact to me. > [@](#): > > Even so, remember that Bush won the election this time. If you’re correct–if attaching his name to SS reform is what’s poisoning it–then it speaks of a significant malaise in the administration. Which is what the OP is about. Bush is a lightning rod. After the close election anything associated with his name is going to be controversial. This doesn’t speak to the success or failure of his second term. There’s nothing he can do at this point to stop a certain segment of the population from hating him. A question like “Do you prefer private accounts for your social security contributions to the existing system?” is obviously going to get a much higher response rate than “Do you prefer Bush’s handling of Social Security?” By naming Bush you are limiting the question in a number of ways. Maybe the reader hates Bush. Maybe he loves him, but disagrees with his handling of Social Security reform. There’s a hundred things that can muddy the waters when you make the questions specific to Bush. The fact remains, every cite I can find shows big support from younger workers for private accounts. Young people want private accounts for their SS contributions. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-republicans-losing-on-the-leadership-front/301590/71 "2005-05-03T13:18:09Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > For the record, **Debaser** , I don’t think you’re a liar; you’re just sadly mistaken :). Heh! Thank you, sir. I do appreciate that. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-republicans-losing-on-the-leadership-front/301590/72 "2005-05-03T13:35:35Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > (I do think it will burn out eventually, but this isn’t a requirement of a Ponzi Scheme. If I created a Ponzi scheme exactly like the original, would it cease beinga ponzi scheme simply if I paid back $.01 to every person defrauded?) What is the problem here? Ponzi schemes are illegal because they are fraudulent because they are doomed to crash. You, and the similarly-misinformed **Sam** , have offered no explanation of why SS is \*necessarily \* doomed. It is not. It is therefore not fraudulent, and to use the name of a famous fraudster to describe it is inaccurate at best and well-poisoning at worst - if done unknowingly. Now that you know better, for either of you to continue to make that assertion is worse than that, it’s simple lying. Clear now? Or are you willing to take the time to go find out what the term means before using it again? You too, **Sam**. > [@](#): > > Social security is a bad deal. I want out. It doesn’t take advantage of compounding interest and doesn’t give me control over my own money. What part of “It isn’t your own money” don’t you understand? It’s a transfer tax, not an investment plan. Where the fucking hell did you get the idea that it was? You’re passing on some of your money to other, generally older people, and someday others will do it for you. That’s it. You can still stubbornly insist that “Young people want private accounts for their SS contributions” if you like, but you’ve already been shown polls more recent than your 1999 ones that show the opposite. Can you do any better, or do you still plan to keep on railing? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-republicans-losing-on-the-leadership-front/301590/73 "2005-05-03T13:41:07Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > I don’t think the words “right” and “their contributions” are inflammitory. If people disagree with the “right” in question, then they can say so. Putting “their contributions” into private accounts is exactly the matter at hand. Can you think of a way to re-word it that is less influential? It seems pretty matter of fact to me. I can think of about two dozen ways: the other polling questions asked on my previous cite used different language. “Right” isn’t inflammatory: it’s **influential**. Phrase something as a right and Americans are unlikely to be against it. Phrase something as an option, and you’ve got less weighted language. “Their contributions” makes it sound as if the contributions belong to the person contributing. They don’t. They’re a tax, not a contribution. Consider an AP phrasing of the same question: > [@](#): > > “President Bush has proposed that workers who are currently under age 55 should be given the option of investing a portion of their Social Security taxes in the stock market and in bonds, while at the same time reducing the guaranteed Social Security benefit they get when they retire. Depending on what happens to those investments in stocks and bonds, their Social Security benefit could be higher or lower. Do you support or oppose this proposal?” > [@](#): > > Bush is a lightning rod. After the close election anything associated with his name is going to be controversial. This doesn’t speak to the success or failure of his second term. There’s nothing he can do at this point to stop a certain segment of the population from hating him. At the same time, there’s a certain segment of the population that loves him. That’s what “controversial” means: there are folks on both sides. I don’t think what you’re describing is going to have a strong effect. In any case, as President surely his overall influence on issues should be **positive** : he’s got a better bully pulpit than literally any other single human being on the planet (with the possible exception of the Pope). If his use of the bully pulpit is having the net effect of driving people **away** from his viewpoint, then the Republican party is in delightful disarray. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-republicans-losing-on-the-leadership-front/301590/74 "2005-05-03T14:07:10Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > “Right” isn’t inflammatory: it’s **influential**. Phrase something as a right and Americans are unlikely to be against it. Phrase something as an option, and you’ve got less weighted language. I see your point. I don’t think the word “right” is nearly as influential as tying Bush’s name to the question, but it is a bit of a loaded word. However, I do think people should have a “right” to make their own investment choices, including how thier Social Security funds are invested. > [@](#): > > “Their contributions” makes it sound as if the contributions belong to the person contributing. They don’t. They’re a tax, not a contribution. But, they **should**. That’s what sucks about the existing program. > [@](#): > > Consider an AP phrasing of the same question: That phrasing is horrible. It ties Bush’s name to the subject at hand, which is highly inflammitory (one way or the other). It states “Depending on what happens to those investments in stocks and bonds, their Social Security benefit could be higher **or lower**.” This is worded very poorly. The amount will vary with the swings in the market. But, it will not be “lower” than the existing payouts. When you are dealing with a 20 year or longer timeline the stock market has never had a negative return. Bonds are even more sure of a postive return. The return might “vary”, but saying that it might be “higher or lower” implies that regular social security payments might overperform a privatized account. This simply isn’t possible. > [@](#): > > In any case, as President surely his overall influence on issues should be **positive** : he’s got a better bully pulpit than literally any other single human being on the planet (with the possible exception of the Pope). If his use of the bully pulpit is having the net effect of driving people **away** from his viewpoint, then the Republican party is in delightful disarray. You make it sound as if the president exists in a vacume. He’s trying to convince poeple that private accounts are a good thing. But, at the same time there is a whole left wing out there sending the opposite message. They have most mainstream media sources behind them still and are effectively countering the president’s message. Also, huge groups like the AARP are opposed to any change in the status quo of Social Security and are fighting hard on this. It’s impressive to me just that Bush has gotten this far with Social Security. The issue wasn’t even on the table before and now it’s at the forefront. Polls show it’s of top importance for Americans now and most young people are in favor of private accounts. The fact that Bush hasn’t gotten a 100% immediate success doesn’t mean that the Republican party is in disarray. It’s to be expected. This is going to be a tough fight, and we’re just getting started. I’d be wary of underestimating Bush on this. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-republicans-losing-on-the-leadership-front/301590/75 "2005-05-03T14:18:15Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > I see your point. I don’t think the word “right” is nearly as influential as tying Bush’s name to the question, but it is a bit of a loaded word. However, I do think people should have a “right” to make their own investment choices, including how thier Social Security funds are invested. I understand you believe that; however, the fact that the wording matches your opinions doesn’t mean the wording is unbiased :). > [@](#): > > It states “Depending on what happens to those investments in stocks and bonds, their Social Security benefit could be higher **or lower**.” This is worded very poorly. The amount will vary with the swings in the market. But, it will not be “lower” than the existing payouts. When you are dealing with a 20 year or longer timeline the stock market has never had a negative return. Bonds are even more sure of a postive return. The return might “vary”, but saying that it might be “higher or lower” implies that regular social security payments might overperform a privatized account. This simply isn’t possible. I’m no economist, but I seem to recall certain retirees losing their entire retirement fund in the S&L crisis of the eighties and the Enron debacle of the late-90s/early Naughties. Why would folks who divert SS taxes into private accounts not face the same peril? > [@](#): > > [M]ost young people are in favor of private accounts. Again, other polls show that most young people are NOT in favor of private accounts. Whether or not you agree with the wording of these other polls, I think the issue is sufficiently unclear that you ought to quit repeating this statement as if it’s settled. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-republicans-losing-on-the-leadership-front/301590/76 "2005-05-03T14:40:25Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > It’s impressive to me just that Bush has gotten this far with Social Security. The issue wasn’t even on the table before and now it’s at the forefront. Polls show it’s of top importance for Americans now All he’s succeeded in doing is increase the size and solidity of those of us who think it’s a bad idea, detailed or not. Before, there was some general willingness to consider the issue. Now, there is not. The drown-the-government ideologues are in \*worse \* shape on this now, not better. Bush has succeeded in making any substantive changes politically impossible. I will agree that’s an achievement, though. > [@](#): > > and most young people are in favor of private accounts Bullshit. Your only cite for that is from 1999. All \*recent \* ones presented to you here show exactly the opposite. Do you consider yourself an honest debater? ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-republicans-losing-on-the-leadership-front/301590/77 "2005-05-03T14:42:26Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > I understand you believe that; however, the fact that the wording matches your opinions doesn’t mean the wording is unbiased :). Of course. A good question might be: “It **should be** a right for a person to invest portions of their social security payments into private acccounts.” Then the reader could choose for themselves if they agree that it should be a right. > [@](#): > > I’m no economist, but I seem to recall certain retirees losing their entire retirement fund in the S&L crisis of the eighties and the Enron debacle of the late-90s/early Naughties. Why would folks who divert SS taxes into private accounts not face the same peril? The S&L scandal involved banks going under. This isn’t really applicable to social security. These days you would only be adversly affected by a bank insovlency if the bank in question is not FDIC insured, which is rare, or if you have a crapload of money in the bank and are over the insured amount. A company going under like Enron would only have a big negative effect on an investor if they were holding a single stock that accounts for a large percentage of their portfolio. No one that I’m aware of is advocating individuals be allowed to invest social security funds into single stocks. They would buy index funds, or regulated mutual funds. These funds never have more than a fraction of a percent invested in any one company. A single bad apple like Enron going under would not have an effect on such types of funds. > [@](#): > > Again, other polls show that most young people are NOT in favor of private accounts. Whether or not you agree with the wording of these other polls, I think the issue is sufficiently unclear that you ought to quit repeating this statement as if it’s settled. All the polls I’ve looked at do. The one poll that didn’t was more about Bush than about private accounts. I’ll try and find some more relevent polls later… ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-republicans-losing-on-the-leadership-front/301590/78 "2005-05-03T14:44:24Z")
[quot]Bullshit. Your only cite for that is from 1999. All recent ones presented to you here show exactly the opposite. Do you consider yourself an honest debater? [/quote] Bullshit yourself. Check out the page I cited earlier: it lists Fox results from LAST WEEK that support his contention. You may object to the wording of Fox’s questions, but it is patently false to claim that all recent cites have shown **Debaser** to be wrong. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-republicans-losing-on-the-leadership-front/301590/79 "2005-05-03T14:47:50Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > The S&L scandal involved banks going under. This isn’t really applicable to social security. These days you would only be adversly affected by a bank insovlency if the bank in question is not FDIC insured, which is rare, or if you have a crapload of money in the bank and are over the insured amount. > > A company going under like Enron would only have a big negative effect on an investor if they were holding a single stock that accounts for a large percentage of their portfolio. No one that I’m aware of is advocating individuals be allowed to invest social security funds into single stocks. They would buy index funds, or regulated mutual funds. These funds never have more than a fraction of a percent invested in any one company. A single bad apple like Enron going under would not have an effect on such types of funds. Hmm. You may be right. Nonetheless, I’m not convinced that it’s an impossibility for people to lose money via the proposals that Bush has set forth. We didn’t predict Enron before it happened, and we can’t predict what future scandals will plague Wall Street. I’m not confident that anything is 100% safe, not even index funds. > [@](#): > > All the polls I’ve looked at do. The one poll that didn’t was more about Bush than about private accounts. I’ll try and find some more relevent polls later… Oh, c’mon. It wasn’t more about Bush than about private accounts: that’s just hyperbole. It mentioned Bush, but it was clearly about Bush’s **proposals**. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-republicans-losing-on-the-leadership-front/301590/80 "2005-05-03T14:49:43Z")
Plus in post #46 I stated that I was in error by using the 1999 poll because I didn’t notice the date on it. I then provided two other polls from sources other than Fox News which are from this year that back up my statement. Plus, the Fox News poll was run by Zogby, which is generally considered to be an ubiased and trustworthy pollster. I don’t know why I bother to continue to respond to you, **Elvis**. You’re becoming hysterical. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-republicans-losing-on-the-leadership-front/301590.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-the-republicans-losing-on-the-leadership-front/301590.md?page=5)