DragonMasterAlex
Banned
- Feb 3, 2001
- 5,156
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
How about this: If you end up losing it ALL in the stock market (which is EXTREMELY unlikely if you have a well diversified portfolio) you keep working to support yourself. If you CAN'T work, your family and friends can do what they can to keep you afloat. There's no need to go seeking justifications for further excuses to steal from some to give to others.
Jason
"Whoever you are, I have always depended on the kindness of strangers."
How do you define begging "family and friends" to "stay afloat"? I define it as, "to steal from some to give to others".
And just to be clear, under Bush's plan you won't have a choice on diversification of your portfolio. You get to choose which fund. Not how the fund is managed. And "your" money is limited to the amount OVER AND ABOVE your normal Social Security benefit.
I've read that the average U.S. worker would wind up with about $22,000 at retirement IF the market keeps chugging along as it has in the past. Not taking into account small blips on the market screen like say, 2001 through 2004. And you know what they always say, "Past performance is no guarantee of future returns."
They say that for a very good reason.
And one more question keeps bothering me. If Bush was so accutely aware of a the impending "crisis" in Social Security, why did he give away the surplus rather than pay off some of those "IOU"s he keeps talking about?
Bush may make his plan sound like it's an improvement but when you check the details Bush's plan does far more harm than good. Social Security needs some tweaking but it certainly doesn't need to be dismantled in the name of "fixing" it. No one is falling for Bush's scam.
Well, almost no one.
Why doesn't Bush have a true bi-partisan commission sit down and honestly investigate the best ways to adjust Social Security instead of destroying it? They could discuss some real answers. Like eliminating the cap on FICA earnings.
How can we "check the details" when to date THERE ARE NO DETAILS PUBLISHED?! You're being COMPLETELY irrational on that point.
As for the plans with regards to choosing "funds" rather than individual stocks, that's true from what I've read and gathered, which makes it not much different from, say, a 401K, which *completely* outperforms Socialist Security. I'm only 30 and my 401k is *already* far beyond what my SS statements are, and that *includes* the last 3 years of mediocre markets.
As for Bush not getting a "bi-partisan commission", who knows why he doesn't? Better yet, why not get a NON-PARTISAN commission, perhaps comprised of, maybe, economists and financial market experts, and have *them* come up with a plan. I mean honestly, man, when the government wants a new strike fighter designed do they go to Congress or the President and ask for a design? Hell no! They go to the experts: Lockheed, Boeing, Grauman and others. Now *that* would be the smart thing to do.
In any case, I have no intention of relying on SS, and as long as I don't NEED to collect it when I get to that age, I *won't* collect it.
Jason
