And if so, would it insterest you to know that only 17%(CNN poll) to 35%(FOX poll) of your fellow Americans agree with you?
http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?p=social+security+poll&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&ei=UTF-8&u=www.pollingreport.com/social.htm&w=social+security+poll&d=Br8kj5IFN4Be&icp=1&.intl=us
2006-12-01 08:21:45 · 15 answers · asked by Tofu Jesus 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I honestly don't know enough about the whole thing. I'd be in that catagory that just wouldn't know for sure what to do. Problem for me is I've been paying in my whole life thinking that it would be there for me. They didn't bother to make a big deal about it till it was too late for those of us dealing with lay offs and children and elderly parents to be able to sock enough away to cover it all. My parents could afford insurance, I couldn't. Kind of got stuck in a bad spot where this is concerned. As it is now it may not be there at all or very limited at best when it's my turn. If the government wouldn't have tapped into that fund for other things the money might be there. I mean how many people planned and now are hearing "oops.....sorry we can pay your pensions we promised", "oops the stock market dropped", "opps, we've changed the tax rules now and you won't be getting what you though you would"........I mean I don't know if there is a safe and secure means to plan.
2006-12-01 08:42:49 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Believe it or not, I do. Not government controlled privatization, either. Give me back every cent I've ever paid into Social Security (with interest) and let me invest it. Most normal people can do much better investing wisely than the government, anyway.
The problem is, all the money we've put in over the years isn't there. It's all been spent. There is NO Social Security Trust fund. People my age and younger are just throwing their money away, paying for the deficit spending of previous and current administrations.
2006-12-01 20:38:40 · answer #2 · answered by john_stolworthy 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes.. Our politicians have been enjoying it for years. Unlike our social security plan if the payee does not live to collect , his/her family gets the money , not some stranger who out lived the payee. Whats wrong with being in charge of your social security.. Why should the government be able to take your money and then decide your heirs have no right to what the government took out of your checks.. The government doesn't want it privatized because then they can't touch it...
2006-12-01 16:51:40 · answer #3 · answered by bereal1 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No I don't. People forget that Social Security was set up as a safety net when the stock market failed during the depression. Most people still need that safety net. People that can afford it are still free to invest.
2006-12-01 17:09:09 · answer #4 · answered by wyldfyr 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No I don't. To leave large scale public retirement money in the hands of private investment firms is only asking for corruption of the worst magnitude... making Enron or the Savings and Loans scandals look like petty theft.
2006-12-01 16:27:44 · answer #5 · answered by Feathery 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That's fine, they can keep "investing" in that poor program to get 1.5% interest. I would like a choice. Even If I am able to buy US savings bonds I would make 22.3% on my money (over the liftime of employment of fourty five year in 10 year notes with reinvestment upon maturity).
The fact is most Americans do not even know how Social Security works nor do they know how to invest their money. Their ignorance is costing me thousands of dollars.
2006-12-01 16:48:15 · answer #6 · answered by mymadsky 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No I don't. What I do support is stopping the government from raiding the surplus in Social Security to make it look like our budget is in better shape than it really is.
2006-12-01 16:26:24 · answer #7 · answered by Paul P 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Like we need another $2B deficit on the federal government? Its one of those things that sounds good until you see the fineprint, which most people didn't bother to look at when they re-elected Bush. Like most Republican ideas, its a bad idea designed to hurt people who need social security the most.
2006-12-01 16:34:53 · answer #8 · answered by thehiddenangle 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I am on the fence. On one hand, I am perfectly capable of investing my own money. On my left hand though, I agree with the liberals, a lot of people are not that bright and need someone to think for them. I am afraid if they were allowed to think for themselves we would have a bunch of elderly impoverished people on our hands.
It would be PERFECT if you could opt out if you are reasonably intelligent.
2006-12-01 16:27:11 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I do believe in it because it would keep the politicians from looting the trust fund the way Billybob Clinton did to produce his so-called balanced budget.
2006-12-01 16:37:37 · answer #10 · answered by ? 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋