translation: I understand that he explained that social security is viewed as a guaranteed retirement safety net and therefore should NOT have any risk associated with it.... and that the option of "making MORE" money carries with it the risk of making LESS..... but I really want to keep spinning this out because I don't have a fucking clue how I am going to get out from under the stupid shit I said in that "surge" thread and the damning data from DoD about US casualties NOT dropping by any percentage, let alone 60%!
Here is the REAL reason libs are oppsoed to allowing people to make more money to finance their retirement. To keep people dependent on government and to keep their politcal backers happy
Democrats are united in opposition to private accounts, which they claim would be too costly to implement and too risky a gamble for low-income participants. They are backed by a number of labor-funded groups that also claim private accounts would be a boon for the securities and investment industry, which contributed more than twice as much money to Bush ($8.7 million) than to Democrat John Kerry ($4.3 million) during last yearÂ’s presidential campaign.
Leading the opposition is Americans United to Protect Social Security, a coalition of about 200 left-leaning groups and labor unions that hopes to raise $40 million for the Social Security fight. The group has staged 249 events in 45 states since BushÂ’s State of the Union address, National Journal reported April 4.
Americans United also plans to run advertising in congressional districts throughout the country. Spokesman Brad Woodhouse told National Journal that the group would focus on lawmakers who favor BushÂ’s approach or who are undecided.
"We are going to be on these folks like a bird dog to a quail," Woodhouse said.
Two of the largest labor unions in the country, the AFL-CIO and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, helped to found Americans United. The AFL-CIOÂ’s political action committee and employees contributed $1.5 million to federal candidates and parties in the 2004 election cycle, 93 percent to Democrats. AFSCME contributed $2.1 million in PAC and individual donations, 98 percent to Democrats.
The two unions also were among the biggest donors to so-called 527 groups during the last election cycle. AFSCME contributed $30.3 million and the AFL-CIO sent $11.4 million to Democratic-leaning 527s, which played a big role in trying to defeat Bush last November.
Another major backer of Americans United is the Campaign for AmericaÂ’s Future, a coalition of liberal groups and unions. CAF has partnered with the AFL-CIO and MoveOn.org to stage protests along BushÂ’s campaign route in opposition to private accounts, which the groups call a "scam."
(Full disclosure: Ellen Miller, CAFÂ’s deputy director, currently serves on the board of directors of the Center for Responsive Politics.)
CAF is paying for its Social Security efforts from a 501(c)(4) account, according to its Web site. Groups with such accounts are commonly referred to as "social welfare" organizations and may engage in some level of political activity. They are not required to disclose their contributors. CAF maintained a 527 account during the 2004 election cycle, from which it spent $645,000 to support progressive causes.
Another group opposing private accounts, the Alliance for Retired Americans, spent $160,000 on federal lobbying from January 2003 through December 2004. But the groupÂ’s power is in its membership; the non-profit is associated with 22 unions, including the AFL-CIO, AFSCME and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
http://www.capitaleye.org/inside.asp?ID=162
