Demagogy is free

Great Debates
1

Here’s a cute political ad. The only problem is it’s totally dishonest. My thesis is that this approach works, unfortunately.

Some seniors will be frightened into voting against Republicans. Most viewers won’t realize how dishonest the ad is. Democrats who do understand that the ad is untrue will mostly vote for their party anyhow. So, there’s an upside to this sort of campaign and little downside.

That’s too bad, because we will tend to elect convincing liars. Also, the potential for demagogy makes it politically risky to sensibly discuss Social Security, which means we cannot easily deal with SS’s problems. These problems (and those of Medicare) are not quite upon us now, but they are potentially calamitous 10 - 30 years in the future.

BTW, here are some of the untruths in the ad:[ul][]Retired people and those near retirement couldn’t participate in the privatization, so they coulnd’t lose any money. []Participation would be totally voluntary. Only those who wanted to take risk would be at risk. []Participation would be a small portion of the fund who choose to privatize, not the entire SS Trust Fund. []Actually Bill Clinton in 1999 discussed putting part of the SS Trust fund into stocks. Those who chose to put part of their investment into securities would certainly have bonds as a choice. [/ul]

2

And this is different from the status quo in what way?

Enjoy,
Steven

3

First off, I couldn’t get that ad to play for me (I have Flash, it just didn’t seem to want to work; oh well). That being said, I’ll assume that yours is a fair summary of it.

I agree that these types of ads are unfortunate, but I don’t seem them as anything new. Parties have been running ads that bend or break the truth for some time. The type of people who rely on TV spots for their election information are indeed susceptible, but they’ll probably be hit with these kinds of smear ads from both sides, so it probably evens out. Those of us who know these ads are full of crap anyway will tend to ignore them, and derive our opinions from credible sources. It does make it a little harder to be an informed voter, and probably drops the signal-to-noise ratio in the vote.

Jeff

4

ElJeffe, here’s a still from the ad. However, the full ad really must be seen to be appreciated. The combination of music, animation, sound effects, and talking Bush toon is really something. Even though I’m on the other side, I admire its crude vitality.

5

ROFLMAO!
How about those jokesters at the United Seniors Association ? Now there’s some serious senior-targeted demagoguery!

6

When the Republicans do it, they don’t use a cheesy Flash ad, it seems.

7

Okay, I finally managed to get that ad to work. While officially, of course, I find it offensive and troubling, unofficially that was pretty damned funny. I suppose if people are going to campaign via deceit, they may as well at least do it in an amusing fashion.

Juanita, serious question: The points in url you linked seemed fairly well cited. Can you tell me which ones, in particular, are inaccurate? For the record, I don’t think anyone here said that lying was a distinctly democratic ploy.

Jeff

8

Heh. That has to be the cheesiest Flash animation I have ever seen. The Dems don’t have much money to spend on this, do they?

Transcript. There are other graphics popping up here and there, but this is the gist of it.

9

Oh poppycock! If these “untruths” were in the add, it would imply that the ad said:

[ul]
[li]Those close to retirement could have lost some portion of their benefits. It made no such claim. [/li][li]That the plan was not voluntary. The ad said no such thing.[/li][li]That stock market participation would have been a high percentage of the SS fund. I didn’t hear that either (perhaps it is implied in the cited 40% decline number, I don’t know).[/li][li]That Clinton didn’t discussed SSF privatization. Funny, I didn’t hear Clinton mentioned… (and so what if he discussed it?)[/li][li]That bonds would not have been a choice.[/li][/ul]

The first subject in the cartoon looks to be in his mid-30s. The second subject looks more senior, but even suggesting that the ad implied that seniors would be disproportionately affected is like suggesting the NJ laws are definitive about candidate changes within 51 days of the election. It’s just not there.

The fact is, if this SS privatization plan had been put in place a few years back, I, like most people, would have moved a substantial portion into the stock market. And they, like me, would have lost their shirts. And they wouldn’t be real happy right now. This ad does little more than raise a valid issue with privatizing social security. Sure, it’s partisan, but what do you expect - it’s a political ad!

Frankly, I tend to side more with the Republicans on the social security issue. I’m concerned with the privatization plan, but I’m even more concerned with the status quo. So why can’t the Republicans effectively communicate the issues to the American public with regards to the Social Security?

Or, perhaps a better question, why do they choose not to?

10

Because they’re scared to. They’ve been so demonized as evil trolls out to wrench money from the arthritic hands of the helpless senior citizens that every time they open their mouths about the issue, they drop in the polls. The voting block that cares most about this - senior citizens - is more concerned about keeping the benefits they have than about future retirees being able to have more. From the republicans, they hear, “This will help your children,” and from the democrats they hear, “This will cut your benefits.” Hard to fault someone living off their SS check for fearing some slavering republican with eyes of flame is going to swoop down and steal his wheelchair, when he has nothing to go by but the ads on TV. The republicans could have done a better job about explaining how it would work to the general public, but at this point, it’s probably too late. Privatization will have to wait awhile. All MHO, of course.

Jeff

11

Sorry, ElJeffe, it was kinda rhetorical, as I knew the answer, and thought it was obvious. Is it any surprise that the Democrats, whom are pissed because the national agenda is now focused on Iraq, try to shift the debate back to one of “their” issues? (uh, that’s rhetorical, too).

12

My god! A NEGATIVE CAMPAIGN AD!!! THAT NEVER HAPPENS!!!

:rolleyes:

13

—SS privatization—

Shhh! Don’t call it that! It’s a lie! (even though it used to be the title of the plans until it was deemed to not sell well in focus groups)

The fact is, when this plan was being pushed hard, the main arguement you heard was “look: the stock market is earning way more than you are currently making in the SS trust fund: therefore, it’s bilking you!” It’s quite true that Clinton was talking about the plan involving stocks: that’s what EVERYONE was talking about! At the time, it wouldn’t have made any sense to NOT be talking about stocks.

The bottom line is this: if politicians on both sides of the asile hadn’t gotten greedy, the increase passed way back during the Regan era would have kept the program solvent for long into the distant future. But people from both sides decided to dip in: to pretend that the surplus from SS counted against the debt. That’s like me running up massive credit card debt, then taking out a mortgage, using that money to run up MORE debt, and claiming that my credit card debt is much smaller (ignoring entirely what I owe on my mortgage).

14

Close, but not quite, Apos. Actually, Social Security has an enormous unfunded liability of literally trillions of dollars. If SS were a private company, it would be insolvent by that amount. SS actuaries assume that future income will cover benefits based on past work. It’s more-or-less a pay-as-you-go system.

The 'SS surplus" is the excess of money taken in over money paid out. It’s small compared with the unfunded liability, but it’s a substantial figure. That money has always gone to pay for general federal government expenses. In effect, the rest of the government borrows that money from Social Security.

The tricky part is that the amount of money that the government borrows from SS isn’t counted as part of the deficit, although it should be. I believe the Reagan administration introduced this sleazy accounting in order to come closer to balancing the budget.

The effect is not on SS, but on the budget. Without this trickery, the budget would show a lesser surplus or a greater deficit. SS has enough money to pay its bills now, but it will go bankrupt absent a reduction in benefits and/or an increase in assessments. This assumes that the rest of government will pay back their debts when SS income falls below outgo. Also, when this happens, SS will become a net cost to the budget, rather than a source of income. The difference will have to be made up by higher taxes, lower spending, or increased debt.

In short, the mishandling of the SS surplus masks a problem in the budget, but has no effect on SS.

15

Consider buying LOW. This is essential to selling high later. I would have no qualms about plowing money into the stock market right now unless I was less than 10 years from retirement. Then, I would want to have money in bonds.

Bonds are relatively safe and are just as common an investment as equities (stocks).

Also, the market can only benefit from regular investment through SS. Just like 401(k)s buoyed the market for years, and still do. Crashes suck, but are buying opportunities for the brave. Dollar-cost averaging and a cool head could produce some good gains by bucking the trend and buying the right stocks now. “Contrarian” - folks who usually make money over time.

SS, as presently constituted, is a Ponzi scheme. Within 20 years or so, absent enormous economic growth, benefits will have to be cut, the age increased, or taxes increased dramatically. Possibly all three, given the Boomer demographic spike.

Oh, and showing GWB pushing an old woman to her apparent animated death is a low of lows, even for the most partisan DNC 'Rats. While the ad avoids overtly lying, it implies all the untruths december alleged. 'Pubs lie also, yes, yes, a thousand times yes. But, that is the usual bait-and-switch tactic folks use when confronted with an unpleasant truth damaging to their side:

This topic sucks. Look at this, over here!

16

—Consider buying LOW.—

This is he single most insane piece of advice ever given for stock investing, and unfortunately, it’s given alot. The correct response is “low compared to WHAT?” If anyone knew what was “low” and what was “high,” making millions in the stock market would be a breeze for everyone! The whole point is to buy low compared to the FUTURE: but no one knows the future: and what most people take “buy low” to mean is “in reference to the past.” But the past is no guide to future stock prices. The market could just as well fall more (in which case you should have waited to invest) then go back up on any given day.

—Dollar-cost averaging and a cool head could produce some good gains by bucking the trend and buying the right stocks now.—

I mispoke. Dollar-cost averaging is the single most ridiculous idea ever flouted by professional amatuers in financial news agencies who need SOME advice to sell to potenial stock investors.

Stocks are day to day, month to month, generally a random walk: usually because any possible anticipation of stock changes are taken advantage of before you can do so. Dollar cost averaging, however, encourages you to pretend that past prices are a good guide to future prices (in reality the only real guide you have is the present price: if stocks are low, they might go high… but they’re just as likely to STAY low… but chances are they’ll stay relatively close to the present price). If you think of betting on successive coin flips, dollar cost averaging suggests that you should bet more and more (including possibly anything won from the last bet) on each successive flip. But that’s insane: no flip is necessarily more likely to be up or down than the last.

A much better strategy is to have an equal riding on each day/month. Invest a given amount, and when the market goes down, buy more, when it goes up, sell so that you keep the same original amount in. Dollar cost averaging suggests that you should have much more money riding on the later months rather than the former months. That’s ridiculous: because it leaves you having to worry about WHICH months the market is up, and which they are down. That’s a terrible strategy to play against a random walk, even as a growth strategy.

The sad fact of the matter is that most economists regard financial predictions in the same way that psychologists regard horoscopes. They’re a bunch of ad hoc advice given strange after-the-fact justification.

—Also, the market can only benefit from regular investment through SS. Just like 401(k)s buoyed the market for years, and still do.—

This is a Ponzi scheme turned into investment strategy. A Ponzi scheme involves getting people to invest in something regardless of its prospects: just to keep it going. But no one should hope for the market to be “buoyed” by anything: they should hope that it accurately reflects the best judgement of the real prospects of the companies invested in. The whole problem that we find ourselves in now is precisely due to ridiculous and thoughtless overinvestment (a bubble) in just about everything (as if EVERY company could succeed, even those that directly compete with each other!)

—SS, as presently constituted, is a Ponzi scheme. Within 20 years or so, absent enormous economic growth, benefits will have to be cut, the age increased, or taxes increased dramatically.—

A Ponzi scheme requires the idea of needing to pump in more and more money to cover the last round. SS doesn’t actually have that problem, due to both the long-term prospects for growth (continually up and up) and the fact that the boomers can’t live forever (thank goodness!)

17

Gosh, I defer to investment guru Apos. Maybe the historical success of the market over, well, virtually forever is just a fake. Now you’ll tell me that long-term investing is a Ponzi scheme.

Gosh, this (paraphrasing) “past history is no guarantee of future returns” analysis is new to me. Of course, I’ve lived in a van down by the river for the last 20 years.

If you think that “buying low” is bad advice, ah, that explains your dislike for the equities markets a lot. Stick to money markets, or something you can understand.

Great editing, BTW. Will a DNC suck up please address the bond issue, or the topic.

18

OK, let’s pick just one:

Please demonstrate how the ad even implied anything to do with Clinton.

19

If the Pubbies had done it:

“Saddam Hussein is gonna pour anthrax on your Granny!”

20

Uh, the Pubbies do do it, if by “it”, you mean run campaign ads. And, they aren’t running the type of hyperbole your example suggested. They don’t have to, because the facts are on their side. :smiley:

AZ Cowbay, the ad says that the SS Trust Fund would have lost 40% of its value. Not only is that completely untrue about Bush’s plan, but it’s closer to being true of a Clinton suggestion. So, the ad blames Bush, when there was more reason to blame their own guy.