Since I'm eligible for it, I took a long look at the program. I can get
better prices from AARP, and a lot better prices from Canada. The only
way I can justify signing up for it next year is if I bet I'm going to
get a lot sicker in the future.
IIRC, they were some of the top corporate contributors to Bush.
Has anyone ever heard how many times a year you can trade? How many
stock, bonds will be avail. Hope you don't assume every member of the
dow, nasd s&p will be avail to you. And what rate will you be paying to
trade. ? Can you trade every day week month , or are you
stuck into a drip type program, where they buy once a month .
I don't have a problem with private accounts but have to wonder who will
make the money.
The old adage use to be and is still true today.... The ones who touch
the money make money, not necessary the ones who own it. So until all
and I mean ALL the rules are spelled out be careful what you wish for.
And please the other old saying of buy and hold for a life time does
not work any more. You have to be able to get in and out . These sharks
on wall street are waiting for you.
As for some other suggestion here on this subject, let congress get into
SS and off the hog. And make congress have to balance a budget.
Errr, I'm no Wall St. slick, but my boss of about 25 years ago convinced
me to invest 10% of gross pay into my own retirement - mutual
funds, corporate bonds, some individual stocks - all with the help of a
financial advisor. Yes, I had to watch the market and results and get out
of a substantial market investment when I saw things going south (the
Clinton downturn of 2000), and get back in when I saw things picking up -
but all that was my responsibility for looking after myself rather than
having the feds look out for me.
The net result - even after all the bubbles and bursts - is that I am now
and have been officially retired. I invested 2.4% less than I paid into
SS for at least 15 years less than I would have if I had worked until I
was 65 am drawing about 4 times what I would if I were 65, and the
principal is still growing! And this is all after I get to pay a 10%
penalty for early withdrawal from my IRA's.
So, why do folks think they need government to make lousy investment
decisions for their futures? It ain't rocket science - all it requires is
staying with a plan and paying attention to details.
BTW, I've been the same message my old boss gave to me to my kids and
they're well on thier way to financial independence by 50 or younger.
To escape criticism--do nothing, say nothing, be nothing." (Elbert Hubbard)
Anyone who tells you they have heard about these issues is blowing smoke.
No bill has been introduced, no hearings have been held. There is a lot of
speculating and posturing going on, but nothing matters until these things
What makes you say that? Only if one is speculating, not investing, do
you want to get "in and out"...that's not to say one never rebalances a
portfolio, but it's the penchant for day trading, etc., that typically
leads to poorer returns for most than an informed buy-and-hold strategy
over the long term.
Foregoing the thought of hitting the big winner for long term gains will
end up w/ comfortable returns if not spectacular during bull markets and
far reduced losses during bear periods. Again, we're talking long-term
(30-40 years) retirement <investing> here, not short term speculation.
I'd wager if one simply used any of the broader market index funds
balanced w/ some bond funds starting at age 25 w/ regular contributions
there will be little likelihood of not being comfortable at age 65 (or
well before). In essence, that's what I'd like to see done...an
enforced conservative savings plan for all since it appears the bulk of
the young these days are more into self-gratification for the moment
than thinking of how they're going to get by later on...ideally, it
wouldn't have to be forced, but that's better than the alternative of
continuing the "pay-as-you (hope) go" plan of the present.
Something similar for med insurance will also need to be done
Or a balanced fund. The oldest of them all, Vanguards Wellington fund,
started before 1929. Despite that, it has returned over 8%
annual average for its entire life. Over 10% for the last ten years.
I should have started putting money in it at least ten years before I
Yes, I just gave an example of one possible conservative alternative
that has a high probablility of reasonable success...
Combined, of course, w/ a gradual shifting towards more
principal-conserving choices as time frame for requiring the assets
OK, now question--if this choice were followed, there would inevitably
be a significant amount of balances at contributor's passing...is it
possibly a choice to take at least a fraction of those accumulated
assets as the basis for longer-term health care financing?
Giving SS benefits to folks who never paid into it or giving them more than
they paid into it _is_ the problem and always has been. Social security
doesn't carry anything over from year to year or invest anything, all that
it takes in in a given year it pays out in that year.
Nice of you to admit it. Certainly you can invest in an IRA. But you can't
invest any of your social security into an IRA.
There's something called "insurance" that you might have heard of.
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
Democrat politicians like to spend money and raise taxes on people
who make more money. Republican politicians like to spend a huge
amount of money and charge it to future generations that they do not
have to look in the eye and who can't vote against them.
You are either very young or have a short memory. For about 60 years
the Democrats kept telling us that we could spend our way into
prosperity, that a certain amount of inflation was a good thing and
that deficits don't matter because 'we owe it to ourselves.' That
only changed when Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress of 1984
dragged Clinton, kicking and screaming to a balanced budget.
Remember that congress raises and spends all the money. There have
been deficits for most of the past 70 years and the congress has had
Democrat majorities for most of those years. The problem is that the
current crop of Republicans are too timid to drastically cut programs
that affect traditionally Democrat constituencies and feel that they
have to add spending that affects what is perceived as their
constituencies, thinking that will help keep them in office.
Meanwhile, both parties are empowering the government to engage in
activities that are not permitted to it under the constitution, with
the complicity and sometimes the encouragement and prodding of the
email bkm at oldtech dot net firstname.lastname@example.org
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 08:25:42 -0500, Brian McAllister
Your post is one of those Goebbelian Big Lies: it pretends that
Republicans had power when they did not control the presidency
and they are little hopeless boys (and a very few girls) now that
they do. Bullpucky. The largest deficits by far since WWII were
during the Reagan, GB I, and GB II administrations. These are
in terms of percentage of GDP. The Republicans have no
intent of spending less money, only more: they realize that that
keeps them in office, and since they have no intention of living
up to the Compact With America, the second biggest political
lie in the US in the last 60 years - the cumulative oeuvre of the
GB II administration is the biggest - they will continue to increase
spending and refuse to make anyone they might have to face
up to to pay for it.
You have it backwards.
Republicans love big deficits -- especially those created by tax cuts for the
wealthy -- because they provide a wonderful excuse to cut discretionary
Remember -- the only thing in life that matters is acquiring wealth.
Funny, when Clinton said that Social Security was in crisis the
Democrats were the amen chorus.
Bush says it's in crisis and the Dems say "Oh, no, it's fine. Bush
just wants to destroy it."
Liberalism is a mental disorder.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.