From: "Glenn Meadows" 

I don't think there is ANY change to the total amount from salary or
matching from employer.  The only change proposed, is the OPTION to divert
X% (mentioned at 4% so far) to an account where you control what things it
can be invested it.  I'm sure, it will be like many 401k's, that are
administered by a fund company, and you can move among the funds, but have
the same limits on when you can withdraw the funds.

From what _I'VE_ read, this is an optional, NOT mandatory, and the existing
system will continue to run in parallel.

I prefer the idea, even at 55, to send a portion of my own money (it's my
money they're taking), to an account that I can direct to an investment
that I'm aware of the risks, and an account that congress can't
"borrow" from.

--

Glenn M.
"Geo"  wrote in message
news:4220dbd2$3{at}w3.nls.net...
> "Robert Comer"  wrote in message
> news:4220cc78{at}w3.nls.net...
>
>> And also remember that I never said that I am against personal accounts
> like
>> you suggest, but there's a few conditions that would have to be met for
>> me
>> to truly support them, one is there will have to be some kind of
> contingency
>> plan for market failure of the funds, i.e., they will have to be insured
> in
>> some way, I will not support anything that could make anyone go hungry,
> even
>> if they paid into it their whole lifetime. And secondly, I will not
>> accept
>> any cut in current SocSec benefits for anyone over 40, because they will
> not
>> have the time to make up the difference.
>
> There is one condition you forgot, there has to be forced corporate match
> funds invested in the same account or you lose half of what you get with
> SS.
> Ignoring this one as I suspect bush is planning to do is going to be the
> biggest ripoff of all.
>
> Geo.
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5