RadioBanter - View Single Post

December 20th 04, 12:21 PM

In article , (Steve
Robeson K4YZ) writes:

Par for the course, like his stupid notion of turning SS over to
Wall Street.

And the Federal Government has done shuch a good job with it...HOW...???

By investing it very conservatively, because high risk cannot be accepted in a
safety net.

I am only 15 1/2 years away from being able to draw it if I so choose,
yet
depending on who prognostications you believe, it won't be there for me to
draw upon.

Think about *why*:

When SS was invented, the life expectancy of those who qualified was very
limited. A lot of people did not live long enough to collect anything. There
were also far more people paying into the system than taking out of it.

Most of all, it was meant as a safety net for those who had nothing. Like
retirees who had put their money into Wall Street.

Over the years SS has expanded, benefits have been raised, etc. Most of all,
the combined effects of increased longevity and inflation have resulted in
greatly increased outflows.

One solution has been to raise the age of eligibility. This makes sense because
of increased longevity. Another, which has not been enacted even though it
makes sense, is means testing.

But the real solution is education and responsibility.

Would it be any worse to let select Wall Streeters invest it with
Government oversight?

Much worse. Here's why:

It's a fundamental fact of investing that you don't get high return without
risk. Particularly in the long term. For every investor who made big bucks
quick by a good choice, there are plenty of others who lost big bucks by a poor
one. But nobody has lost money by investing in safe things like US savings
bonds - at the price of a lower return.

Do you *really* think Shrub is concerned about your retirement, or mine? I
don't.

Here's a hint: Do you think *his* retirement depends on SS?

73 de Jim, N2EY

15 years, 4 months, 11 days and the rest of today...but who's counting?