“It would take the one rock-solid, guaranteed part of your retirement income and gamble it on the stock market,” Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama said last month at an AARP forum.
Let's review, my friend Mr. Wang (no offense):
1) There are a few crazy folks actually suggesting it is not "rock solid",
2) There are a few folks that actually understand SS is not guaranteed but a promise dependent on the grace and goodness of future congresses,
3) Providing the option (this means you don't have to do it) for a few folks to voluntarily decide to redirect part of their contributions to a private account which may or may not be directed to an array of finacial options, like money market funds, bonds, or even those crazy, risky mutual funds, does not seem to be accurately descibe by labling it a "gamble on the stock market",
4) Isn't the AARP the same group that supported taxing senior's ss and now generates more than half their revenues by schilling medicare (another government program that if it was actually adequate would not require supplements) supplement plans for that evil insurance company UHC?
Apparently pro-choice is only for deciding to terminate future ss contributors not the choice to keep or manage your ss contributions. I am trying to determine which is riskier; continuing to send $12,648, and more, every year to the ss administration to be spent by congress or giving a few folks the voluntary, don't have to do it, option of directing 20 or 25% of that money into a government guaranteed (really) bond or a guaranteed (really) money market fund, or even, God forbid, one of those crazy, Vegas type, well-balanced, diversified mutual funds that has always perfomed at least 5 times better than the current ss arrangement over every 10 year period in the last 73 years. I know it's crazy talk, but maybe it is part of the change I can believe in. Another thought: How do you bankrupt a ponzi scheme anyway? Thanks for listening. LD
Washington: Privatizing Social Security
“It would take the one rock-solid, guaranteed part of your retirement income and gamble it on the stock market,” Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama said last month at an AARP forum.
Let's review, my friend Mr. Wang (no offense): 1) There are a few crazy folks actually suggesting it is not "rock solid", 2) There are a few folks that actually understand SS is not guaranteed but a promise dependent on the grace and goodness of future congresses, 3) Providing the option (this means you don't have to do it) for a few folks to voluntarily decide to redirect part of their contributions to a private account which may or may not be directed to an array of finacial options, like money market funds, bonds, or even those crazy, risky mutual funds, does not seem to be accurately descibe by labling it a "gamble on the stock market", 4) Isn't the AARP the same group that supported taxing senior's ss and now generates more than half their revenues by schilling medicare (another government program that if it was actually adequate would not require supplements) supplement plans for that evil insurance company UHC?
Apparently pro-choice is only for deciding to terminate future ss contributors not the choice to keep or manage your ss contributions. I am trying to determine which is riskier; continuing to send $12,648, and more, every year to the ss administration to be spent by congress or giving a few folks the voluntary, don't have to do it, option of directing 20 or 25% of that money into a government guaranteed (really) bond or a guaranteed (really) money market fund, or even, God forbid, one of those crazy, Vegas type, well-balanced, diversified mutual funds that has always perfomed at least 5 times better than the current ss arrangement over every 10 year period in the last 73 years. I know it's crazy talk, but maybe it is part of the change I can believe in. Another thought: How do you bankrupt a ponzi scheme anyway? Thanks for listening. LD