Yeah, sounds like a good explanation to me. Much of the political case for Social Security depends on the economic ignorance of American citizens (fear about losing money, the "gamble" charge, the reassurances about the "trust fund", historical rates of return, etc.) The more you know about basic economic issues, the more sense the President is making.
That's no guarantee that the President's plan is the best, nor is it to say that the plan isn't vulnerable to some fairly subtle economic factors that require further expertise to anticipate. But the basic point remains: people who do not understand basic economics and are willing to put their futures in the hands of others are afraid of change because that's when their vulnerability cannot be denied. When you believe in the magic cupboard, the scariest thing in the world is that someone will turn off the magic.
JG
· 4 years ago
The 800 lb fallacy, of course, is that SS isn't a retirement plan.
There are other problems with this story as well; for one it assumes those who say 'they’re doing an excellent job of preparing for retirement '--really are.
I suspect many people who owned huge blocs of Enron or MCI thought they were sitting pretty as well.
Rob
· 4 years ago
Personally, I'd be for the ultimate in prvitization: No social security program and people handle their own money.
Rob
· 4 years ago
The 800 lb fallacy, of course, is that SS isn’t a retirement plan.
Then what other purpose does it serve?
Gary Gunnels
· 4 years ago
I am well prepared for my retirement. I still think that Bush's effort to create ever more bureaucracy to run a non-privatization pension system is hogwash.
Their support is likely predicated on the fact that they have bought into the idea that this is indeed privatization without looking at the fine print.
Rob
· 4 years ago
I suspect many people who owned huge blocs of Enron or MCI thought they were sitting pretty as well.
Which is why smart investors don't put all their eggs in one basket.
Andrew
· 4 years ago
Then what other purpose does it serve?
It pays for the disabled for one. When I was in high school my mom had cancer and was on disability, so each month my sister, mother, and myself each received a social security check.
All Comments
That's no guarantee that the President's plan is the best, nor is it to say that the plan isn't vulnerable to some fairly subtle economic factors that require further expertise to anticipate. But the basic point remains: people who do not understand basic economics and are willing to put their futures in the hands of others are afraid of change because that's when their vulnerability cannot be denied. When you believe in the magic cupboard, the scariest thing in the world is that someone will turn off the magic.
There are other problems with this story as well; for one it assumes those who say 'they’re doing an excellent job of preparing for retirement '--really are.
I suspect many people who owned huge blocs of Enron or MCI thought they were sitting pretty as well.
Then what other purpose does it serve?
Their support is likely predicated on the fact that they have bought into the idea that this is indeed privatization without looking at the fine print.
Which is why smart investors don't put all their eggs in one basket.
It pays for the disabled for one. When I was in high school my mom had cancer and was on disability, so each month my sister, mother, and myself each received a social security check.