From: "Glenn Meadows" 

Talk to the people in Chile, where they 100% privatized the system, and
it's now solvent for centuries, it's reported.

I think it all depends on HOW the private accounts are structured.  Even if
you just put 4% of your own money into an account that draws 3% basic CD
rate, at least you'll HAVE it at retirement time, no matter WHAT the
government does with the Social Security side of things, or how many are
$$$'s congress "borrows" from the trust fund.

Plus, when/if you die, how much of what you've put in goes to your estate?
(zero is the correct answer).  With the personal accounts, you can pass
that on.

Let's see what the whole detail of the plan is, before we throw out the
whole concept.  I think there will still be restrictions on what you can do
with the money, where it has to go, when you can get access to it, etc, so
it really becomes a personal nest egg, but allows you, the individual to
direct it.

Heck, remember this one important point:

IT'S ALL YOUR MONEY ANYWAY!!!  It comes out of YOUR paycheck, and from your
employer's pocket if you're employed, or ALL from your pocket if you're
self employed.  Everybody seems to think that this is some great government
gift program, it's really just a forced savings account that the big boys
in DC have grown accustomed to being able to dip into and put I.O.U.'s in.

IT'S MY MONEY, DAMN IT, let ME control where it goes.  If you're going to
FORCE me to set aside 13 some odd percent, then at least let me watch
what's done with it until I'm allowed to get it.

Congress is exempt, and can direct their own, let the people do the same
thing. I'll bet we're a bunch smarter then they are about it.

.

--
Glenn M.


"Robert Comer"  wrote in
message news:42028697{at}w3.nls.net...
> >   I'm trying to figure out why people are so upset at any mention of
> > changing SocSec. Do you think SocSec shouldn't be touched at all, or is
it
> > just Bush's ideas that you don't like.
>
> I'm not upset at changing it per se, but I'm upset about the potential
> benefits cut when I'm already too old to recoup a cut that big, even if I
> put the max in for a private socsec account. And that new private account
> has *MUCH* more risk of not ever paying off.  Ask any recent British
retiree
> just what they think about their private socsec accounts.....
>
> He mentions 2 groups that may need help, low income -- I don't fit that,
> older than 55, no, single male that already pays more taxes than most and
> now they want me to accept a 40% benefits cut even though I've paid into
> SocSec for 30 years...  No way, no how.
>
> - Bob Comer
>
>
> "Mike N."  wrote in message
> news:u5v401hqibi6aj8n3g0ukugqen7tsg4fdi{at}4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 14:03:23 -0500, "Robert Comer"
> >  wrote:
> >
> >>I didn't watch it live.  I SEVERELY don't like Bush's SocSec proposals,
> >>and
> >
> >   I'm trying to figure out why people are so upset at any mention of
> > changing SocSec.  Do you think SocSec shouldn't be touched at all, or is
> > it
> > just Bush's ideas that you don't like.
> >
>
>

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