posted
I have an assignment for my playwriting class where we're supposed to write a two-person scene with an argument about an issue we care about. I'm pretty familiar with both sides of the argument, but the problem is that we're supposed to write as if we believe the opposite of what we actually believe. I'm personally a fan of partial, limited privatization. I'm having a hard time coming up with arguments against my position. I realize that they exist, of course, but I'm having a tough time not thinking they're silly and easily refutable. I think I've done a good job so far, but because of my bias I'm sure that I've missed some of the best arguments. Being that Jatraqueros have some of the finest rhetorical abilities around, I was wondering if you guys could help me improve my rhetoric against partial privatization, since I personally am for it.
I know this comes precariously close to the "no doing homework for other people" clause in the Unspoken Rules, but since I've already done the actual writing and am just looking to improve it so it sounds more credible, I think it's more of a "proofreading" question.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, these aren't my actual opinions, but here goes:
1.) Soc. Sec. is supposed to create a floor for retirement, a minimum standard of living for retired persons based on the persons standard of living while working.
2.) The risk should be spread across the population, where it is small enough per capita to be managed, rather than falling on people based on their investments.
3.) Average people lack the expertise to manage a retirement account on their own.
I know the responses to each of these, and I know the counterresponses as well, I'm just helping a guy out.
posted
Thanks Dag. I think I pretty much covered most of the good pro and con arguments, but I'm not sure I was convincing enough in making the point I was supposed to make. If the purpose of the assignment is to realize how hard it is to write without an obvious bias, then it was successful.
Here's the text of my dialogue I wrote, open to merciless criticism (I will point out that I didn't worry much about creating convincing characters and dialogue, but focused on the argument:)
- - - Protagonist: That's just a bunch of fear-mongering right-wing propaganda. The Social Security system is not flawed. You're just using it to try to score political points. Ain't no one gonna mess with my Social Security and get away with it.
Antagonist: What do you mean, there isn't a problem? Alan Greenspan testified before Congress that the system, as it is, won't last forever. Even the best predictions say it'll go broke in the next 50 years if we don't do anything.
Pro: But the solution isn't to change the system. It's to work within it to make it work. Right now, the biggest problem is that most of the money that goes into the system is borrowed by the government to pay for other things-
Ant: And whose fault is that? It's your party that's always wanting to spend.
Pro: Under Clinton, we had a budget surplus. Now, there's a huge deficit because of the Bush tax cuts that didn't help anyone but the rich. Plus, the Iraq war is a huge expensive mess, and Bush's rich friends like Halliburton are getting all the money to reconstruct the mess.
Ant: Whoa, Whoa, Whoa, let's keep it to one topic, please? This is about Social Security, remember?
Pro: I was keeping on topic. You're the one who accused my party of spending too much, when it's your guy who caused the deficit in the first place.
Ant: OK, OK. It's my fault. Now let's get back on topic.
Pro: As I was saying, the solution to Social Security isn't to change the system. It's to reform the system. Not doing anything drastic like privatization. It'll just hurt the people who need the money the most.
Ant: I'm not suggesting taking anyone's check away. Privatization isn't going to change anything for anyone in the next 25 years. All I'm suggesting is that younger workers who are now paying almost 15% of their paycheck into social security be able to choose to take 2% of it and put it into a private investment account, with the rest of it still going into the current Social Security program.
Pro: Sounds simple, but there's so many problems with privatization. The transitional costs of changing the program will be in the trillions, for one--
Ant: Those costs haven't been analyzed right. Plus, what's the cost of the system going broke 50 years from now and no one getting a check? Then, all the money that workers are getting taxed for now isn't going to do them any good.
Pro: But the system isn't broken. It just needs a few changes and it will go on forever.
Ant: Like what?
Pro: For one, I don't have a problem with raising the retirement age a few years to 69--
Ant: You can't keep going on raising the age forever--
Pro: I'm not suggesting we raise the age forever, just once--
Ant: (sarcastically) Sure, just like we're only going to raise the cost of postage stamps to 29 cents, and that's the only time--
Pro: WILL YOU LET ME FINISH? The second thing we need to do is stop taking social security funds and giving it as tax cuts to the rich and stop buying thousand-dollar hammers for our Aircraft Carriers. We need to protect the money that workers pay in, not spend it. If we just did that, then we wouldn't have a problem.
Ant: And how do you expect to do that? There doesn't seem to be anyone in Congress who wants to actually limit spending, in both parties. Pro: Oh I know. We just need to spend the money on the right things, instead of giving it back to the rich. And we have to make laws that protect Social Security money from being borrowed and spent. (Best Al Gore impersonation) What we need to have is a lockbox.
Ant: But again, that won't work. You can't get politicians to not spend. Right now, they aren't really “spending” it anyway. They're just “borrowing” it. Over 60% of the national debt is just money we've borrowed from ourselves. Until you can get politicians to be fiscally responsible, your solution won't work. The only thing that'll work is privatization.
Pro: Don't get me started on why that's such a stupid idea.
Ant: Try me.
Pro: For one, Social Security isn't a retirement account. The money we pay in isn't the money we get back. It goes to the people who are already retired. We have IRA's and 401 (k)s for people who want to have a retirement account.
Ant: Yes, but what if we could supplement that with a percent of the money that we're paying in the form of taxes?
Pro: It'll cost way too much to transition to a program like that. Like I said, in the trillions. My way won't cost a thing.
Ant: But your way won't work either.
Pro: And how is privatization better? All it does is make the rich companies on Wall Street even richer, and does nothing for the poor. Plus, what if the stock market crashes? Then all the money people have invested in it will be gone.
Ant: That's why I want to make it a choice. If people are willing to take the risk of privatization, they won't receive the same size checks as people who want to benefit from the system as it is. But they'll be able to supplement whatever smaller check they get with the money they make in their private account.
Pro: But does it really benefit the poor, or does it just make the rich become richer?
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don’t think you succeeded in writing as if you believe the opposite of what you actually do. Not because you got the arguments wrong, but because of the tone (and skill in arguing) you give each of the characters. Your protagonist comes across very poorly. If you really want to write as if you believe it, try writing the character sympathetically.
Problem is, I tried to and failed. And the thing is, I really am sympathetic to the protagonist, (in this case, my roommate) I just don't agree with the argument. The worst thing is that I know that I phrased some things in a negative tone, but can't figure out how to change it to reflect the opinion more positively. Any suggestions? I have till 2 to work on it.
edit: I did change the 1st line to thus:
Protagonist: The Social Security system is not flawed all the way through. You're just saying it is to try to score political points. We really don't need to change the system as drastically as you want to.
[ January 18, 2005, 01:02 PM: Message edited by: Brian J. Hill ]
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm afraid your protagonist sounds like a straw man. (Note: what you're trying to do is actually very hard. OSC couldn't do it, either, in an article he wrote that addressed a slightly different issue.)
The biggest issue is that you clearly depict your protagonist as a conspiracy theorist, liberal whiner, etc. -- when, in fact, it's perfectly possible to oppose the privatization of Social Security without being any of the above. If you avoided digressions about Halliburton and/or the budget deficit, for example, your protagonist would seem more focused on the issue at hand.
From the very beginning -- "fear-mongering right-wing propaganda" -- you establish your protagonist as a name-calling, angry partisan. How is this supposed to make him sympathetic?
Try this.
---------
Protagonist: The argument that the Social Security system is doomed to bankruptcy and failure is largely propaganda. While the system is flawed and has been badly abused, I think many of the suggested reforms are just attempts to score political points at the expense of the actual program.
Antagonist: What do you mean, there isn't a problem? Alan Greenspan testified before Congress that the system, as it is, won't last forever. Even the best predictions say it'll go broke in the next 50 years if we don't do anything.
Pro: But the solution isn't to scrap the system; it's to work within it to make it work. Right now, the biggest problem is that most of the money that goes into the system is borrowed by the government to pay for other things, which undermines the original concept behind the trust fund and has led to the current so-called crisis. Privatization is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist; it's like punishing car thieves by making everyone buy bicycles.
Ant: I'm not suggesting taking anyone's check away. Privatization isn't going to change anything for anyone in the next 25 years. All I'm suggesting is that younger workers who are now paying almost 15% of their paycheck into social security be able to choose to take 2% of it and put it into a private investment account, with the rest of it still going into the current Social Security program.
Pro: Sounds simple, but there's so many problems with privatization. The transitional costs of changing the program will be in the trillions, for just the reason you pointed out; since Congress has raped the trust fund, we'd have to take out additional loans to cover the payments to current retirees while those younger employees build their nest eggs.
Ant: Those costs haven't been analyzed right. Plus, what's the cost of the system going broke 50 years from now and no one getting a check? Then, all the money that workers are getting taxed for now isn't going to do them any good.
Pro: But the system isn't broken. It just needs a few changes and it will go on forever.
Ant: Like what?
Pro: For one, I don't have a problem with raising the retirement age a few years to 69--
Ant: You can't keep going on raising the age forever--
Pro: I'm not suggesting we raise the age forever, just once--
Ant: (sarcastically) Sure, just like we're only going to raise the cost of postage stamps to 29 cents, and that's the only time--
Pro: WILL YOU LET ME FINISH? The second thing we need to do is stop taking social security funds and giving it as tax cuts to the rich and stop buying thousand-dollar hammers for our Aircraft Carriers. We need to protect the money that workers pay in, not spend it. If we just did that, then we wouldn't have a problem.
Ant: And how do you expect to do that? There doesn't seem to be anyone in Congress who wants to actually limit spending, in both parties.
Pro: Oh I know. But short of major institutional change, we have to make laws that protect Social Security money from being borrowed and spent. (Best Al Gore impersonation) What we need to have is a lockbox -- Constitutionally-defended if necessary.
Ant: But again, that won't work. You can't get politicians to not spend. Right now, they aren't really “spending” it anyway. They're just “borrowing” it. Over 60% of the national debt is just money we've borrowed from ourselves. Until you can get politicians to be fiscally responsible, your solution won't work. The only thing that'll work is privatization.
Pro: Don't get me started on why that's such a stupid idea.
Ant: Try me.
Pro: For one, Social Security isn't a retirement account. The money we pay in isn't the money we get back. It goes to the people who are already retired. We have IRA's and 401 (k)s for people who want to have a retirement account.
Ant: Yes, but what if we could supplement that with a percent of the money that we're paying in the form of taxes?
Pro: I'm not sure what you mean.
Ant: I mean, what if we just turned Social Security into a mandatory retirement program?
Pro: Then it becomes inherently regressive; those people who're barely scraping by aren't likely to be able to save enough to maintain themselves in retirement, so we'd have to supplement that contribution in some way (unless, of course, you'd prefer to leave them starving in the streets). And then it's just Social Security all over again, except that this time we're putting the money into Wall Street. Leaving aside any speculation about who'd benefit the most from this approach, what if the stock market crashes? Then all the money people have invested in it will be gone. Even if investments tend to go up over the long term, that's no real consolation to the people who need to start withdrawing at the bottom of a cycle.
Ant: That's why I want to make it a choice. If people are willing to take the risk of privatization, they won't receive the same size checks as people who want to benefit from the system as it is. But they'll be able to supplement whatever smaller check they get with the money they make in their private account.
Pro: At this point, your plan starts to resemble a federally-funded version of TIAA-CREF. But, again, how do we defend people from the consequences of their own choices? The original point behind Social Security was that people deserved a minimum standard of living even if they screwed up; would you still guarantee that to them, and if so, how?
posted
Thanks, Tom. I've made a few more changes to keep the discussion more on topic and make the protagonist less of a straw man. This is really hard to do. I guess part of the reason the protagonist is a charicature is because I based him on my roommate, who is very partisan and says some really kooky stuff (think Michael Moore.) Thus the arguments I used for the protagonist are his.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think maybe you’re trying too hard to make all the possible arguments your protagonist could use. Real people don’t oppose something for every possible reason, they oppose it for specific reasons. By lumping all the possibles together you make the character a conglomeration with no integrity.
And starting with “nobody messes with my social security” establishes from the outset that the character is selfish and opposed to/afraid of change.
Try picking a first principle that would lead to someone opposing privatization, and develop that one argument well.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's the "final" text that I'm turning in. Of course, it's still subject to change, but I like this version a little bit better.
quote: Brian J. Hill THEA 370 January 18, 2005 Two-character argument
Protagonist: The Social Security system is not flawed as much as you say it is. You're just saying that to try to score political points. We really don't need to change the system as drastically as you want to.
Antagonist: What do you mean, there isn't a problem? Alan Greenspan testified before Congress that the system, as it is, won't last forever. Even the best predictions say it'll go broke in the next 50 years if we don't do anything.
Pro: Dude, I know that, but the solution isn't to change the system totally. It's to work within it to fix what is broke. Right now, the biggest problem is that most of the money that goes into the system is borrowed by the government to pay for other things-
Ant: And whose fault is that? It's your party that's always wanting to spend.
Pro: Who cares whose fault it is? I mean, I could argue that under Clinton, we had a budget surplus and it's Bush's tax cuts for the rich and the misguided, expensive Iraq war that's costing so much money that we don't have, but that's not the point. The point is that the solution to Social Security problem that Greenspan decided isn't to change the system. It's to reform the system. Not doing anything drastic like privatization. It'll just hurt the people who need the money the most.
Ant: I'm not suggesting taking anyone's check away. Privatization isn't going to change anything for anyone in the next 25 years. All I'm suggesting is that younger workers who are now paying almost 15% of their paycheck into social security be able to choose to take 2% of it and put it into a private investment account, with the rest of it still going into the current Social Security program.
Pro: You make it sounds simple, but the fact is, there are so many problems with privatization. I mean, the transitional costs alone of changing the program will be in the trillions, for one--
Ant: Those costs haven't been analyzed right. Plus, what's the cost of the system going broke 50 years from now and no one getting a check? Then, all the money that workers are getting taxed for now isn't going to do them any good.
Pro: But the system isn't broken. It just needs a few changes and it will continue to go on.
Ant: Like what kind of changes?
Pro: For one, I don't have a problem with raising the retirement age a few years to 69--
Ant: You can't keep going on raising the age forever--
Pro: I'm not suggesting we raise the age forever, just once--
Ant: (sarcastically) Sure, just like we're only going to raise the cost of postage stamps to 29 cents, and that's the only time--
Pro: WILL YOU LET ME FINISH? I know that the retirement age isn't the only thing that needs to change. I'm not stupid. The second thing we need to do is stop taking social security funds and wasting it on crap like thousand-dollar hammers for our aircraft carriers. We need to protect the money that workers pay in, not spend it. If we just did that, then we wouldn't have a nearly as much of a problem.
Ant: And how do you expect to do that? There doesn't seem to be anyone in Congress who wants to actually limit spending, in both parties.
Pro: True. But we've got to realize tha absolute importance of keeping the politician's hands off the Social Security fund. Right now, they just spend it like kids do their candy money. We have to make laws that protect Social Security money from being borrowed and spent. (Best Al Gore impersonation, jokingly) What we need to have is a lockbox.
Ant: But again, that won't work. You can't get politicians to not spend. Right now, they aren't really “spending” it anyway. They're just “borrowing” it. Over 60% of the national debt is just money we've borrowed from ourselves. Until you can get politicians to be fiscally responsible, your solution won't work. The only thing that'll work in the long term is privatization.
Pro: Don't get me started on some of the problems with privatizing.
Ant: Try me.
Pro: For one, Social Security isn't a retirement account. The money we pay in isn't the money we get back. It goes to the people who are already retired. We have IRA's and 401 (k)s for people who want to have a retirement account. Social Security isn't designed to be that, and it would cost a lot of money to change it to a different system. There are a lot of people who would suffer.
Ant: Yes, but what if we could supplement our own accounts with some of the money that we're paying in the form of taxes?
Pro: Again, it'll cost WAY too much to transition to a program like that. Like I said, in the trillions. Plus, if people have their own private accounts with their tax money, who decides what kind of account is good? What if the Stock market crashes? Then all the money people have invested in it will be gone.
Ant: That's why I want to make it a choice. If people are willing to take the risk of privatization, they won't receive the same size checks as people who want to benefit from the system as it is. But they'll be able to supplement whatever smaller check they get with the money they make in their private account.
Pro: But does it really benefit the poor, or does it just make the rich become richer?
Ant: It's not a war between classes. If people make money from someone investing in their company, then so what? The investor makes money too, and when companies are healthy, then the people who work for them don't get laid off. Businesses aren't all controlled by evil rich guys.
Pro: OK, OK, but those who are more successful should pay more in taxes. They don't always need tax cuts in order to buy a new Yacht, or whatever. That's another thing; if we want to really “save” social security then we'll end the stupid cap that is put on how much money is taxable by Social Security. Right now, only the 1st $88,000 is taxed, which makes it kind of unfair for those making less than that. Even if someone earns a million dollars, they still only have to pay Social Security tax on $88,000 of it. That's definitely unfair. At least we can agree that that needs to be changed.
Ant: No argument from me there, dude.
I still jump around way too much, but I was a little bit nicer with my protagonist. It could be a lot better.
[ January 18, 2005, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: Brian J. Hill ]
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, all these arguments ignore the real potential problem in programs for the elderly - medicare. I think I read somwhere that Social Security is less than 10% of the problem.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
