John H wrote:
Here's some good thinking:


Oh yeah.

FACT: Analysis of the plan so far does not prove the [personal] accounts would
be a better deal for anyone not working on Wall Street. Workers who opt for the
private accounts would recover forfeited benefits through their accounts only
“if their investments realized a return equal to or greater than the 3 percent
earned by Treasury bonds currently held by the Social Security system.”

Of course, analysis doesn't prove it would be a worse deal either. History shows
it would likely be a better deal than the 3% earned by bonds. Is there risk?
Sure.


And you don't see any problem with introducing RISK into a program
titled "Social Security"? Maybe you'd like to see the Homeland Security
Dept embrace the policy putting your life & your family at risk?


But, people can always stop putting their money into risky accounts. In fact,
they can stop participation at any time.


AFAIK paying into Social Security is not "voluntary."

I still can't understand how a bunch of 'pro-choice' folks can be so
'anti-choice'!


Personally, I'm not anti-choice at all. However I am very definitely
against the diversion of Social Security funds to politically favored
Wall St brokerages, so that a portion can be returned as campaign
contributions (an accurate term would be "kickbacks").



Do we assume people have the responsibility to make baby-killing decisions but
not monthly investment decisions?


There is no reason whatever you can't invest your own money as you like.
You are obviously trying to dodge the issue that this is a case of the
gov't taking your money and giving it to private enterprise, on the
gamble that you might get some of it back later.

DSK