And so ends Rock The Vote. Rock The Vote, a political action group dedicated to registering high school seniors and college students to vote, is just about bankrupt at this current point. Now that seems like a tragedy until you consider what Rock The Vote stood for when it came to how those young voters should vote. Rock The Vote was basically a liberal-voter registration aimed at recruiting young voters who did nothing but party and get them to vote on election days for those candidates who were worthy of the youth vote – liberals. This is evidenced not only by their website’s themes (tax cuts for the rich chatter) but also by the organizations they supported. Of particular interest was when Rock The Vote joined with AARP to attack Social Security reform, even though the majority of the youth vote supported Social Security reform.Rock the Vote's fundraising fell by 22% in 2003 to $1.3 million. The group spent $1.66 million the same year, ending $241,000 in debt. Rock The Vote is currently $700,000 in debt and has been sued for the second time in less than a year. The financial tale at Rock The Vote for the past few years has been nothing but poor management, poor revenue, and expensive parties. Now, don’t get me wrong. I want my fellow youth to vote. It’s good for the country. However, I am in no way upset about the passing of Rock The Vote and its liberal ideologies.
Perhaps someone should attempt to try something similar to Rock The Vote again. This new organization would also aim for the hoodie and flip-flop clad American youth vote. However, this organization should stay away from endorsing particular candidates and philosophies. Instead of teaming up with (sorry, but I have to say it) the old folks and going against Social Security reform that will benefit the youth, this new organization should be neutral and spend its time registering voters and not promoting liberal ideals.
What ever happens, there is no doubt that Rock The Vote is very near death currently and very likely won’t survive for the 2008 elections unless someone jump-starts Rock The Vote with cash. With lawsuits pending against the organization, mounting accounts payable credits (accounting lingo for debts), and only two employees, that jump-start will need to be soon. If not, someone else will have to take up the liberal flag and register the hoodie and flip-flop clad American youth vote.
14 comments:
This is sure to be taken the wrong way, but I would like to see it harder to vote, not easier.
Too many people think "voting" is their civic duty. It is only the end product of their repsonsibility.
Too many people make decisions based on broad platitutes like "I think peace is neat" or "I like the planet."
Neither mean anything or do the country a bit of good.
We need people to be engaged in the process, not just the end game.
Do yourself a favor a look up the word "reform" in the dictionary. Abolition and reform are not synonyms. Destroying social security is not reform.
Why do they call it reform? It's one of the many methods of media manipulation. It's called positive labeling, and by the sounds of it it works quite well.
Bill
Rock on, Anon.
Almost everything Bush said about Social Security was either a lie or a misrepresentation of the facts (aka a lie...). Social Security is at the very least tied for being the #1 accomplishment of our country in the 20th century, right up there will the Civil Rights Act and World War II.
As for Rock the Vote, well, they were obviously liberal. Most young people who do not vote are lower middle class or poor, and certainly a higher percentage are minorities. So it's going to be liberal if it wants to be effective.
You should organize a conservative Stone the Vote organiziation.
Props on the layout.
MetalGearSolid girl: I wish people were more involved too. You cannot people the right to vote (except I guess felons).
deny. You cannot deny people the right to vote.
Hmmmmm This layout looks familiar. : )
Do yourself a favor a look up the word "reform" in the dictionary. Abolition and reform are not synonyms. Destroying social security is not reform.
Thanks to Bill for today's moment of liberal propogandic hysteria.
I guess he saw that AARP commercial with the bulldozer one too many times.
Teaparty
Teaparty, how is it NOT the destruction of Social Security as we know it? How is it NOT the privitization of Social Security?
I'd be happy to explain that if someone would first explain to me how it is the destruction of social security.
Despite the fact that the burden of initial proof requires the pro-government side to speak first, I'll do what you've requested. It's quick and easy.
The stripped interpretation of Bush's plan called for workers under 55 to be able to put up to 4% of their payroll taxes into what would essentially be private, personal accounts. They would see reduced benefits when they actually retire, and so, according to this, everyone would receieve reduced benefits, with middle-income people seeing reductions of between 20 and 37 percent. But the question is, would this reduction in benefits be offset by the personal accounts?
Projections are wonderful, but long-term economic projections should actually be called "very, very rough, very unreliable guesses," because the nature of the economic environment is inherently unstable. A few decisions by a few people or many decisions by many people can completely change the direction of the economy, or, at the very least, shift it powerfully. This means
1) Private accounts, which would be invested at least partially in unsecure investments, would be, by definition, "uncertain"
2) The projected dates pertaining to the shortfall (2018/2019), and bankruptcy (2042/2052), could occur sooner, later, or never.
So the entire status of the crisis and the Bush proposal, which comes a lot from the guy in the article above, is uncertain.
Social Security has always been difficult; throughout its history the program has adapted and changed to fit future needs, without drastically altering the nature of the program or shifting the burden from government to individual. Another shift, without privitizing, would be creatively possible. AARP offers some suggestions with pros and cons. You can criticize the AARP's motives or leftist leaning, but facts don't lie.
The Bush proposal, however, causes incredible problems. It is projected to shorten the lifespan of payable benefits by around 20 years, based on the projections of shortfalls/bankruptcy (and remember, these are all very very rough unreliable guesses!!) So the Bush plan could shorten the lifespan of current benefits by only 10 years, so it would reduce benefits in 2035 (which, according to some ridiculously colored Census PDFs, about 10 million only-social-securitiers would still be kicking, and losing benefits or increasing our ballooning debt), or maybe even, being nice to the Bush plan, the year would be 2020 (when the number would be somewhere closer to 33 million ruining our countries' credit). At the 2025 projection, it's around 25 million draining money we wouldn't have.
Transition costs over the next ten years alone would be an extra $2 trillion dollars we do not have, money we'll have even less of to throw around if the Iranian situation doesn't calm down, or if the Iraq situation gets worse, or if parts of Israel go up in mushroom clouds, or if we have another terrorist attack and recession slam our economy, or if we have more wind gusts like Katrina, or another major earthquake out west, or a tsunami, or...
You get the idea.
The point of this is, our government, not just social security, would be in absurdly dire straits. Limited deficit spending doesn't crowd out investment and, realistically, is acceptable. Deficit spending does matter when it becomes as absurdly large as it might. Then it starts crowding out private investment and risking the financial security of our government.
But these are all projections and maybe the next ten years will have unprecendented growth, the abolition of poverty and an end to terrorism and war and a new Golden Age of humanity.
But let's be honest.
The point of all this bullshiting around is that we just do not know what is going to happen in the next ten years, or twenty years, or fifty. If you asked anyone in 2000 what the big thing of the next ten years would have been, do you think Al Quaeda or Bin Ladin or Terrorism or stabilizing Iraq would have won 10% of the vote? Unfortuantely, I cannot find the poll that showed Saddam at somewhere around 3% of a similar-questioned poll, terrorism around 3%, but its out there (I do not get credit for this stat because I can't find the hard evidence, so ignore it)
The fact is, social security has worked for 70 years because it is the best example of the young helping the old, the "legacy debt". It is the largest government program in the world. It keeps my grandparents alive and buying me gifts.
Privitization would be a grave threat to not just social security but the stability of our country as a whole. It needs to be adjusted so we can avoid any unnecessary risks - maybe reduce benefits, maybe increase taxes, maybe both, maybe something else. But passing huge costs on to future administrations and budgets to take care of, changing the nature of how we care for those who have come before us, and diving into territory we have a thousand different predictions about seems foolish.
I don't think I did a terrific job in this little shpeel, but I got the point across. Tear it up.
1) Private accounts, which would be invested at least partially in unsecure investments, would be, by definition, "uncertain"
2) The projected dates pertaining to the shortfall (2018/2019), and bankruptcy (2042/2052), could occur sooner, later, or never.
1. Would these be the same "uncertain" accounts that the entire US population relies on for retirement benefits. The same ones the left says all companies must provide?
The truth is that the Bush plan called for a measly 4% of social security benefits to be voluntarily privatized. Get that? You can opt out.
2. If you believe that, with the stagnant population growth, that social security can remain solvent in its current form, I have some cheap land in New Orleans for sale. You might be interested.
The truth is Social Security has never adapted. It is essentially the exact program it was at its inception. It needs to adapt.
The liberal answer is to simply pour more general fund money into it. Conservatives would like to see the program support itself and offer a better benefit. For those of us with a little more life experience and a bit closer to retirement, we would like to see the program we paid for benefit us.
The Social Security debt is there regardless of how the future is approached. It must be paid off. The question is: will it continue to be a major drain on the federal budget? Or can it be adapted to serve the people at the front and back end?
The young can no longer help the old Dave. There aren't enough of us.
Besides, it is my money. Why can't I invest 4% into a better return and a nest egg for my children?
You are right about one thing though. You did not do a terrific job making your point. I have yet to see any evidence that allowing people to make better use of their own money would be a "disaster."
It is only a "disaster" if protecting Social Security in its current form is more important than providing a long-term vehicle for retirement insurance. That is what the left means by "disaster."
What is more important? Protecting a failing program? Or adapting it to take advantage of better returns and therefore costing less?
Perhaps you don't care about where your tax money goes. Hell, your only 20, so you probably have very little experience with taxes anyway. Those of us who have been paying taxes for decades would like to see it used wisely. Making Social Security a bottomless pit does not sit well with us.
It's called progress. Since Democrats have no solution and seem to care not one wit about the drain on the tax base, they should just get out of the way.
Oh...and Dave? Please, for your own good, don't source the SF Chronicle.
It isn't the worst performing newspaper financially without a reason. In fact, you may be one of the last people on earth who believes it has any credibility.
Just trying to be helpful.
Teaparty; ad hominem attacks are weak. Try to avoid them.
Using false generalizations about a group I am a part of to discredit my attacks I think falls under that category, too, but if not, it is still a weak argument. Avoid it. Why is it false? We do have a solution. It's called the social security program, and adjusting taxes and tax codes to account for shortfalls.
Stick to substance. You do a good job when you bring up facts and numbers. You have some interesting arguments. I disagree, because we can disagree. This isn't a cut and dry situation; the problem can be solved multiple ways. I guess we should just agree to disagree.
The old can take care of the young. Each of us would have to do a bigger part, but we can do it.
Perhaps you could show an example of my "ad hominem" attack? Thanks a bunch.
The Democratic plan for Social Security is to simply pour a staggering amount of money into it to keep it solvent. There is no reform or forward thinking component at all.
That is not a solution Dave. That is a lack of a solution.
Again, I am still waiting for some evidence that the conservative plan for SS would be a "disaster" for the country. Surely it shouldn't be hard, seeing as how you are so sure of it. Yet, it seems to be the one thing you can't articulate, despite writing some of the longest comments I have ever seen.
We're all just so passionate about it. Sorry. :(
Post a Comment