|
I can see no logical reason for the Bush proposal to privatize S.S. How can the lowering of contributions help make the system more sound? Why does no one ask that question? Many people don't seem to realize that S.S. is not an investment, but insurance to prevent old folks from a starvation existence. I don't see it as anything different from car insurance. If you have an accident, it bails you out. If investing $40.00 a month would make everyone rich at retirement, why don't more people retire rich now? Most people could have afforded a $40.00 per mo. investment during their working years. Why not keep S.S. as it was intended and tell people to invest in the stock market, if they so desire, making the stock market investment over and above their S.S. contribution? Can you imagine the brokerage commissions generated by the Bush plan? I heard that S.S. would need a $300 billion infusion in the year 2042 to remain solvent. Hell the Iraq war has cost that much. Maybe we should stop invading other countries and put the money saved into the S.S. fund. Bush is determined not to raise the limits on contributions based on incomes over $90,000 or to rescind the tax cuts for the rich. Why do you suppose that is? Either or both would remedy the situation re: solvency. A friend took a cash payout of $350,000 at retirement. His subsequent investments lost $150,000 in a short time due to heavy investment in Enron. A relative's take on The Bush Plan is that he (Bush) wants it so that workers will have something in retirement even though there is no S.S. Somehow I never viewed Bush as being so compassionate. I must have missed that side of him. This plan is so goofy I can't imagine anyone but a lunatic believing it's good. I believe the conversion to the new system is estimated to cost $2 billion. Is this country going nuts or what? I see that senile old geezer, Greenspan, is endorsing the "Plan". Or could it be, as many think, that he's not senile, but has been bought?
|