i

I'm a big fan of having a savings...although I don't think it needs to be your only option either.

Private retirement accounts have been around since the 60s, but they are not right for everybody. Bush simply wants to help some of his rich, corporate campaign supporters by forcing millions of people to do business with them, business the government does a better (non-profit) job doing. Basically, if my financial house were larger and in better order, I might consider an IRA account. But it's not and I don't. This is a bullshit plan that Bush is trying to promote by using the same kind of lying and propaganda he used to get his Iraq war.

"No" said, I have a socially responsible 401k to which I minimally contribute because my company matches it and lost money to market fluctuations is as much theirs as mine, and personal risk-free savings. I have these things because I don't trust the system already in place. I trust a system put together by Neo-cons to boost American investment crap even less. I'd rather have reduced benefits in forty-some years from something I already consider lost tax money.

I don't know why I answered "yes." Realistically I don't want any privitization of social security but I do think it's a good idea for people to put away some of their checks personally on top of social security. Maybe making social security into a program where you can put in additional funds and have those invested. I dunno.

I think one of the main problems with SS is the decision that was made years ago, when it had a huge surplus of money and started paying all sorts of benefits for situations other than retirement.

I'm not sure SS was intended to fully cover ones expenses after retirement, but only to supplement it. Private accounts in the stock market haven't dropped to zero, maybe 50% of formal value, still a loss. But as they say, you only lose if you sell.

Being a former public employee in California, in addition to SS, I was required to pay 7% (matched by the employer) of my salary into the CALPERS fund. The CALPERS board uses the deposits to invest for future retirees. I'm fortunate that now being retired, it pays two-thirds of my former salary with annual cost-of-living adjustments. I receive all sorts of job fliers from California utilities having starting positions that pay several hundred dollars more than I now receive from CALPERS. Me go back to work for a couple of hundred dollars a month? I don't think so.

I'd need more assumptions to be able to answer this one. It's not private accounts per se that are the concern, to me, but what do we trade off if we adopt that approach. Protect historical fixed benefits and still permit some private accounts, for example, and I'm not concerned. Borrow from the future to have our cake and eat it, too, and I'm a bit more concerned.

But I like the approach you're taking, and the implied point you're making.

I don't understand why there would be any question.

Even with Social Security, it's good to have money in a private account.

Unless you meant that all money should be withdrawn from Social Security and put into a private account. If that's what you meant, it wasn't clear from the question.

I mean, what else am I goign to do with my money? Hide it under my mattress?

Why, for the past five years, has everybody seem to have forgotten that the full name of the thing in question is social security insurance?

Investing, while inherently risky, is good. Investing/risking insurance money maybe not-so-good (in my humble opinion).

I could potentially see me doing it as long as it's up to me how and where I put it. I'd want to see what kind of interest rate I could get for it and don't want it tied into anything that would really fluctuate, like stocks of some sort.

But, I think all this talk about SSN being empty is BS.

I voted Yes. But I think we're thinking of two different things here. If you meant "take some of our money out of your current retirement fund and putting it into a private investment of stocks" I vote No. But if you meant put some savings separate from your current retirement fund into CDs or bonds or other types of investments, I vote Yes.

It's important to diversify your savings if possible. Don't tie everything up in one place, mix it up a little.

Personally, I don't like the stock market, although my father and older brother play the game. CDs might be more conservative, but in a huge crash CD-owners don't lose like stock-owners do.

I don't think the private investment accounts will change the solvency of the system for better or for worse.

As for my answer, it depends on how much money I expect to have for my retirement. If I think I'm going to be barely scraping by, then I would not put money into the private/investment/risk/gambling part. Come to think of it, if I expect to have more than enough money to retire on, I would probably leave my money out of the investment option, just in case.

Note that that's in addition to what I pay into Social Security. Not taking money out of Social Security to put elsewhere. I can't speak for anyone else, but I know I feel much happier and secure when I look at my 401(k) balance than I ever have or will about Social Security. I know the folks who are on it now need us to keep paying, but I'm not counting on Social Security for my own retirement support.

If private accounts are such a great idea, how come countries with huge budget surpluses (Japan, Saudi, China) invest their funds ingovernment bonds (dollar or euro) rather than in the "market"? This is just another huge ripoff by those seeking to consolidate power, wealth, and privilege in the hands of fewer and fewer people. Haven't any of you youngsters read Brave New World? Wait until your kids end up as deltas.