"John H" wrote in message
...
On 12 Apr 2005 20:12:14 -0700, wrote:
All of those "plans" are laughable.
We need to get the money away from the government
***********
Prior to Social Security, most older people lived in abject poverty.
Many were forced to live with their adult kids- like it or not. From
this perspective, old-age benefits are part of the social safety net
legitimately provided by Social Security.
Nothing stops anybody from investing considerable sums of money, often
in tax advantaged or tax deferred programs, for retirement. Folks who
hope or expect to live as well in retirement as they do when working
will certainly need to make such investments throughout their working
career. Why is it necessary to gut social security in the process?
Chuck, that isn't the money under discussion. The money being discussed is
that
which the government takes from our checks for Social Security. If I could
invest it and get a better return, why shouldn't I be able to? If I could
pass
the savings on to my children, why shouldn't I be able to?
All the IRA, 401k, and 403b plans are great - for those who can take
advantage
of them. But whether an individual can or cannot take advantage of them is
beside the point. The point is the return on the money the government
takes for
Social Security.
--
John H
"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."
By John Carlisle
In the ongoing debate over Social Security, AARP may claim that its mission
is to defend the elderly, but its use of manipulative polls and inaccurate
ads to needlessly frighten the public about the merits of reform raises
serious questions about its tactics.
Moreover, while AARP says private stocks are too risky for individuals
to invest their retirement savings, the multibillion organization has no
problem making millions off those same "risky" investments.
As evidence for the alleged unpopularity of private accounts backed by
President Bush, AARP cites a poll it conducted in March that showed that 59
percent of the organization's 35 million members oppose the proposal.
However, the poll is suspect because it was framed in such a way as to
maximize a negative response. For example, 29 percent of AARP members
initially said they liked the idea of diverting up to $1,300 into private
accounts. These respondents were then asked a series of loaded questions,
such as "What if you heard that creating private accounts out of Social
Security funds will put more of your retirement savings at risk?" This was
followed up with language such as private accounts "will create winners and
losers" and "could mean cuts in everyone's Social Security benefits." Not
surprisingly, most of the respondents who supported private accounts changed
their minds.
AARP plays other games with polls to get the answers it wants. One poll
reported that the general public is opposed to private accounts by a margin
of 48 percent to 43 percent. However, the poll was skewed to maximize the
representation of demographic groups that tend to oppose the plan. To begin
with, the survey did not even sample people under 30 who comprise the most
pro-reform group. On the other hand, people over 60, the most skeptical of
private accounts, constituted 34 percent of the survey, even though they
made up just 24 percent of voters in the 2004 election. Likewise, the poll
sampled 37 percent Democrats and 31 percent Republicans. In 2004,
Republicans and Democrats each constituted 37 percent of the electorate.
......................................
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20050...3809-2917r.htm