From: "Robert Comer" 

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

Yep, heard that too, but who's economy is more like ours ...

> 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.

That's still higher risk than from Socsec itself.

> 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.

Seeing as how that's not the goal of socsec, I have no problem with that.
(though there are survivors benefits that nobody seems to mention...)

> 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.

You lost me already, I don't think it should be an option. It's more like
insurance, not savings, and I sure as heck don't want to lose money in the
deal and that's just what I'll do if it goes as Bush has said.  I have my
401K for my personal nestegg savings...

- Bob Comer


"Glenn Meadows"  wrote in message
news:42029028{at}w3.nls.net...
> 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