RE: Second shot

[Michael Jones <powderfinger99@yahoo.com>]

<<<<
1. Would personal accounts place an unacceptable amount 
of risk on some individuals who are ill prepared to bear
this risk?
>>>>

There are risks to all plans, including the status quo. The
risk of losing out to inflation. The risk that the current 
system won't pay full benefits, etc. Actually, there is
very HIGH risk that the system won't pay full benefits.

Reading between the lines here, Mr. Reischauer is implying 
that average citizens are not capable of understanding 
investing. So, the government must step in to protect them 
from the "risk".

<<<<
After all Social Security is the most effective and least 
controversial anti poverty program that the nation has.
>>>>

Therefore, it is not a retirement program, correct? It's
a welfare program?
I find it amazing that government can take 12.4% of 
lifetime income, then proclaim victory with the program 
because they were successful at giving some of it back 
in benefits. Probably because many people were not able 
to save because the government took the 12.4% in the 
first place.

It's pure arrogance. They take your money and act like they
are doing you a favor when you get some of it back.

The party is over! The pyramid scheme is about to go bust.
The bill will be coming due in about 10 years. The people
trapped in this system as their only means of retirement 
income will be the ones who lose. Perhaps Mr. Reischauer
will be around to "save" these people by proposing to
raise my taxes because I took steps to prepare for my
own retirement.

Then we will see how much support there really is for this
program!

<<<<
cost between 10 and 100 basis points
>>>>

You lost me here. Vanguard offers index funds at a cost
of 19 basis points. How can this not be cheaper than
100 basis points for the government program?

Why would you chose the more costly funds if cheaper ones
were available? You admit here that they do exist, and yet
you still state that the government program costs less?

Michael