potential for high returns but, as we have seen, can be risky.
Dana
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Wheatley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 14:40:24 -0400
Subject: Re: haplessly marching like lemmings into the sea.
To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Did they specify what they would let people invest in? Bonds i don't
feel to bad about but stocks can tank pretty fast then instead of
having 150k you've invested over your life you could have 1 million or
10k depending on the stockmarket. I don't think its such a great idea
to invest SS in the stock market. If you want to invest in the Stock
market do it with the money you don't have to rely on when you die.
I always liked the idea of putting all our SS tax money into our own
personal account so we can spend it when we die. The more you make
while you work the more you get when you're old. *shrugs* Either way
you shoot it the result is a sticky mess *wink*
----- Original Message -----
From: dana tierney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 12:22:42 -0600
Subject: Re: haplessly marching like lemmings into the sea.
To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I take your point but it's still reduced revenue.
----- Original Message -----
From: Sam Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 21:28:37 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: haplessly marching like lemmings into the sea.
To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- dana tierney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <rant>
> Here is an example of what I mean (story and link
> below). I am looking
> at the online version, but I would be willing to bet
> money that this
> story was buried on an inside page and that less
> than ten percent of
> the Post's readership will even notice it.
It's an analysis so it should be in with the
editorials.
I'm not going to take the time and argue against it
but I will point out one issue I noticed.
"His proposed changes in Social Security to allow
younger workers to invest part of their payroll taxes
in stocks and bonds could cost the government $2
trillion over the coming decade"
Why will this cost the government anything? Isn't it
my money? I put money in and the government borrows
it. When I retire the government borrows from someone
else to pay me back. Bush's plan is to put my money
aside, reminds me of the lockbox. So by saying it'll
cost the government $2 trillion means they need to
borrow that money from someplace else? Again fixing
the SS problem may cause a different problem but
should we do nothing?
-sm
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
