On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:13:03 -0500, DSK wrote:

John H wrote:
You have a reference for this, right? The TSP has been used repeatedly as an
example of the type of account the personal account would be.


Yep... "an example" not the exact same plan.

You think that Congress i going to let the average citizen join in their
investment plan? That has about as much odds as them letting citizens
join in their health care plan.


You're reiterating the distortions and outright lies of the Bush-Cheney
spin machine.


Show me a lie with respect to the personal savings account.


That it's a "choice."

The word 'voluntary' doesn't indicate choice?

That people opposed to Bush's plan are somehow against individuals
saving & investing their own money.

That the gov't isn't taking your money in the first place.

That Social Security is in serious financial trouble

An airplane with landing gear that won't deploy isn't in trouble either, until
it has to land.

That "private investment" is somehow going to help cover the potential
Social Security shortfall in 30+ years

The personalization is not touted as a cure. It is touted as a way to give
people more control over their money.

The taking and putting into a personal savings account is voluntary. The other
option isn't.


And where does the SS payout come from, that these "voluntary personal
savings accounts" would normally have gone to cover? Bigger gov't
deficit spending, maybe?

Yup. It looks like it will take some up front money. But, so what? You folks
admit to using funds from elsewhere to pay for the program anyway.

... Again, do we assume people have the
responsibility to make baby-killing decisions but not monthly investment
decisions?


This seems to be a buzz-phrase for you. Where does this come from? Are
people not able to make savings & investment decisions now? Preventing
the diversion of Social Security taxes into "private investment
accounts" in no way diminishes people's ability to invest their money as
they choose.


Sure it does. If I had the choice, I'd rather see half my Social Security
withdrawals going into an investment over which I had some control.

So why aren't you saving & investing an equal amount of money already?

Did someone say I wasn't? Does that have some bearing on the issue, or are you
just trying to be negative?


... By denying
me that opportunity, you are, in fact, diminishing my ability to invest my money
as I choose.

No. I have no control over the money taken from my checks to cover Social
Security. I cannot invest it, nor can I bequeath it. When I die, it's gone.

Nope. You've got exactly the same opportunity you always had... the
difference is that the money the gov't takes away from you is going to
cover Social Security obligations (or buy Treasuries, thus helping
underwrite the U.S. national debt) instead of being handed to Wall St
and then kicked back to certain favored political campaign funds.

You, as you well know, are wrong. But I can see that you don't want to show it.

The 'buzz-phrase' is applicable. You pro-choice folks are anti-choice here


Nope. Distortion and fantasy on your part, to cover up your own lack of
initiative & fiscal responsibility. WTF is "conservative" about that?

My lack of fiscal responsibility? We aren't talking about me. I won't have any
options. My daughters would. That would be nice. Are you trying to imply you
*aren't* anti-choice?

DSK

John H

On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it."
Rene Descartes