wrote in message
...
On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 11:09:43 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Bush was the one who wanted to privatize social security.
Thank GOD that didn't go through. He's the one who went on a spending and
tax give-away for 7 years.

Privatizing SS would actually take money away from the government.
Taxing the hell out of your 401k gives the government money.

Privatizing SS would mostly take money away from people. Umm... not sure
what you mean about taxing the 401ks... you mean when you withdraw them?

The real issue is, would your money have done better in a decent
portfolio of investments over 40 years, than it would in a PAID FOR
social security plan. I understand SS is a great deal but it is
unsustainable and far more generous for the amount invested because
politicians sold out our kids to the voters.(see Tyler). Unfortunately
I still say the whole idea of 62 year old retirees is unsustainable.
The Clinton era thinking that said people should be downsized into
company pension programs at 50 pretty much killed the private pension
system.

It is sustainable with some proper management. There's time to fix the
problems. The portfolio of which you speak might or might not work, but it
requires a great deal of effort from people who in many cases don't have the
time, inclination, or education to do it right.

Most people can work past 62, and perhaps the min. age should be raised, but
some would raise it to 90. As I said, there's plenty of time to fix SS, so
there's no need to jump off a cliff.