From: "Robert Comer" 

> They don't need my help - they've done quite a bit of it themselves. For
> instance, about the time I was born, a guy by the name of Lyndon Johnson
> pulled the Social Security trust fund into the general budget... and left
> nothing but IOU's behind.

That didn't just screw younger or older people, it screwed everyone.

> And the soon/now "older folk" didn't seem to do much about
it at the time.
>
> And now it's institutionalized...

Forgive me if I don't vote for something that helps you either.

- Bob Comer


"Jeff Shultz"  wrote in message
news:pan.2005.02.10.06.00.14.343681{at}shultzinfosystems.com...
> On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 07:40:29 -0500, Robert Comer wrote:
>
>>> Yep. And I'd rather be putting 18.3% of my income into it instead of the
>>> 14.3% that I am now.
>>
>> Not me, because I'm quite a  bit older than you for one, and for the
>> other
>> the risk is to high. (don't put all your eggs in one basket as it
>> were...)
>>
>
> That 401k is split between one high risk and 3 medium risk mutal funds.
> The high risk is the Baron Growth (BGRFX, I think...) which has an
> excellent history.
>
>>> I think 4% was a figure bandied about, wasn't it? Either way... I'd like
>>> to stick that extra money in my 401k - or something likely to perform
>>> like my 401k - than in the gov't sponsored Ponzi scheme.
>>
>> Even if it screws older folk?
>>
> They don't need my help - they've done quite a bit of it themselves. For
> instance, about the time I was born, a guy by the name of Lyndon Johnson
> pulled the Social Security trust fund into the general budget... and left
> nothing but IOU's behind.
>
> And the soon/now "older folk" didn't seem to do much about
it at the time.
>
> And now it's institutionalized...
>

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