this president is an idiot and is so out of touch with everyday life for the majority of american's,that any idea that he puts forth is unscrupulous at best.

Hello, troll,

For an "idiot", President Bush sure does get his way a lot, don't you think?

"Out of touch"? Ha! How about stinking-rich Teddy "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy who hasn't walked down a Main Street in *any* town since his election to the Senate in 1962? [malicious cackle]

And "unscrupulous"? Tell me again how it was Bush who left a young woman to drown in the back of his car, while he ran off to figure out how to hide the crime--- oh, wait, I'm thinking of someone else. :) :) :)

Get a life, dweeb. :P :D

Funny how often trolls are punctuationally challenged. And the logic, that out-of-touch somehow equals unscrupulous, is pretty funny too...

Yes, I'm in a really touchy mood right now.

Phil, if you didn't mean your comments in the nasty way I took them, you have my apologies for *my* nastiness.

Just bear in mind, guy, that "Bush is an idiot" doesn't fly around here. I don't love the guy either-- I'm a libertarian-- but at least the guy is relatively (compared to the Democrats) honest, and has (unlike the Democrats) a *spine*.

---Hale,
---who's going to sign off before he "loses it" again.....

I think there are some basic flaws to this social security plan that are fairly easy to pick out.

If I'm invested in high risk/high return funds in this new private account plan, what happens if the market tanks just when I'm retiring?

Some would say that's the risk you take. But the entire premise of social security is a minimum guaranteed income upon retirement. If it's not that, let's just toss the whole idea, and get rid of the social security payroll tax. And then they could just allow a tax deduction on our income tax forms for any money we put away in a retirement account. And I mean a real, permanent, deduction - not like a 401k where you pay taxes upon wihdrawal, or an IRA, upon deposit.
Further, there is no bankruptcy of social security that's going to occur in 2042. Rather, there is just going to have to be a reduction in benefits. This type of shortfall is easily compensated for if we act now.
Also, the interest you earn in these private accounts will be taxed. So if you invest in a moderate risk profile, your final return will certainly be only one thing - negligible.
Lastly, the AARP is dead set against this plan. I would say that the AARP has studied it carefully, and taken a non-partisan, truly objective approach.
I am open to listening to the positive benefits of this plan, but they better involve honest, objective, hard numbers.
Thanks for hearing me out.

I don't know many details of the plan itself, and probably most of them remain to be decided.

No financial advisor would have people in high-risk investments near retirement. I myself would certainly require that accounts be moved into lower-risk as retirement neared. (and BTW, one could always just postpone retirement for a few years.) I would also require a lot of the investment to be in broad-based index funds, which would be safe unless the entire economy went south. And also set things up so most people were steered into fairly fool-proof options, not just left on their own.

Your interest will not be taxed. You will presumably pay taxes on the withdrawals you make after retiring, but that has no effect on growth before retirement. And the main factor in growth is TIME. Starting early pays off like nothing else, and workers will often be starting to invest before they are 20. I've read that even if you invested in the same bonds held by the so-called Social Security Trust Fund, you would end up with 3 or 4 times as much as SS would pay.

If AARP is against it,...you should be for it. They are just parasites playing victim-politics for the benefit of leftish politics and their own cushy sinecures. They no more represent the retired than NAACP represents blacks or NOW represents women. And they get a lot of money from touting dubious investments, and don't want any competition.

I'm not much interested in whether SS is going bankrupt. One of the biggest lessons of the 20th Century is that "defined-benefit" plans are disasters waiting to happen. Countless countries, institutions and businesses are in deep-trouble or facing future disaster because they promised benefits on the assumption that the world doesn't change. We should be reforming SS towards the "defined-contribution" model even if there is no imminent problem.

And the top-down don't-let-the-little-people-make-decisions structure is a relic of the Industrial Age, and just doesn't work now. That Democrats are clinging to it shows how stuck in the past they are. Stuck in 1933.

Veritas, Re: Some would say that's the risk you take. But the entire premise of social security is a minimum guaranteed income upon retirement...

Further, there is no bankruptcy of social security that's going to occur in 2042. Rather, there is just going to have to be a reduction in benefits....

Two questions: What happens to that minimum guaranteed income when it's time to reduce benefits? Is it your premise that people are too stupid to have their own retirement accounts?

John, Re: If AARP is against it,...you should be for it.

Bingo!

Thanks.