Yes that may be Zelda, but wouldn’t you prefer having a benefit that’s 4 -5 times that? The current social security plan is a pyramid scheme with those of us on the bottom getting nothing. Besides isn’t the “Poor and Dumb” the ones the social security system was supposed to provide a safety net for? I don’t expect to collect on it, but being able to leave a portion of my contributions to someone instead of the state would be rather nice.

If I get 74% I’ll be just fine with that. It’s the poor and dumb who will be hurt.

That’s the way it is with about 99% of the originators of the reports the MSM blathers about in “news” stories. Whether its global warming, racism, what have you, they put out these “news” stories citing “a report” that are pure propaganda by special interest groups looking to help their fundraising, or release a paid for conclusion.

Thats why most MSM = garbage.

This is one of the worst big lies and big schemes that has been pulled on the public.

The first proponent of private accounts was FDR. But seeing as the SEC hadn’t really come into its own yet, the Republicans, fearing another Great Depression, voted against them for fear that people would lose their pensions investing in an uncontrolled market that could crash again like it had in October of 1929.

A little known, or at least little advertised fact, is that while the Democratic Representatives and Senators who so adamantly and vocally oppose giving people the OPTION (Pro choice my ass) to invest a PORTION of their Social Security taxes into a private account, they themselves and their staffs are in fact NOT ENROLLED in the Social Security benefit system. They are universally enrolled in a government employee plan that is identical to the plan that George W. Bush wanted to make available to the general public. With that in mind, I would have to ask them that if the private accounts are so bad, why are they and their staffs invested in them? The obvious conclusion is that they are either total idiots to be in the private accounts, or that the accounts are actually good in which case their negative comments about them are lies. So those congressmen who come out against offering people the option of private accounts are either liars or fools.

The Private accounts plan for government employees has been around since the mid 80s. Those government employees who opted to go into the plans now have retirement payments of around 3 times that of those who didn’t. Brazil’s social pension plan was going bankrupt until they offered the private accounts plan. Initially only around 25% signed up, but, as it became apparent that those who were in the plans were going to retire substantially better off than those who didn’t, enrollment has increased to around 90%.

My question is this. If the private accounts are so bad, why not allow people the choice of selecting to be in them or not? The Bush Social Security plan didn’t require anyone to go into the private accounts, it only gave the option to those who wanted to do so. It didn’t eliminate regular social security benefits to those who opted for private accounts, only lowered them to offset their private account contributions. Why not let people choose how they want to fund their retirement? The current Social Security system is a broken disaster. It was never meant to be anything but a safety net, not a full blown pension plan. It will soon become a drag on the economy that can’t be fixed without totally overhauling it. If we don’t fix it permanently now, the more it’s going to cost and the harder it’s going to be to fix later.

Einstein when asked what did he feel was the strongest force in the Universe replied “Compound interest” Even the least agressive (and hence lowest risk) of the private accounts is paying over 4% versus the 1 1/2% of the current system. For those with little money experience, that means that a dollar put into the private account will double every 18 years while ever dollar put into the current plan doubles every 48 years. In other words, for a worker going into the private account at 18, at age 67 that first dollar he put in will yield around $3.75 (plus the original dollar) while in the current plan it would yield around $1.02 (plus the original dollar). Which would you rather have to retire on? And that’s the LEAST aggressive of the plans. Others have even higher yields. If a plan has a return of just 6%, that original dollar would be worth over $8.00. Some plans have been running over 8%. At 8% the return would exceed $24.00. Why wouldn’t anyone under 50 want to improve their retirement benefits substantially? The proposal even allowed people to change plans depending on their current needs.

Like it or not, MSM is called mainstream for a reason.

Even this discussion started because of a New York Times article…

A tactic straight out of your sides play book.

No, but really, the Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank – people put a quarter in them, and out pops an opinion piece.

I’ll guess which sources you use and approve of:

CNN
NY Times
CBS
ABS
NBC
Air America Radio
Al Jizzeera
Dan Rather
Tawana Brawley
SF Bay Guardian
Berkeley Barb (if they’re still around)

You can pay those guys and they’ll tell you anything you want to hear.

That Conservative Think-Tank is biased.

“You can make payments to the SS office at anytime.”

I think on the tax forms is the best place, that way EVERYONE sees it, not just those with the moxie to march to the local SS office with pocket change.