Quote:
Originally posted by DC_Zeta1920
Personally I disagree with the plan. It turns out Social Security really is not in danger. I believe that this is another ploy in the Republican platform. We are allegedly supposed to be able to invest our social security but the problem with it is that we really do not have a choice in where we will be able to invest our funds they tell us where to invest. And it would be oh soooooo ironic if we have to invest it in Halliburton 
|
Where did you find that Social Security really is not in danger? Everything I have read from independent sources, even some democratic services, says that social security actually is in danger, although perhaps the coeffers will not dry up as quickly as the Republicans say.
I too had an issue with the gov't picking what packages we invest in, but after more investigation (perhaps some covered with spin) I have found that the gov't is picking the investment packages to ensure that investors don't pick too risky of options. This is a reason you won't be able to invest solely in pure stock. To me, the gov't has this right since they are the ones who who to insure the investments (even if your investment goes broke or bust the gov't will stil give you more $$ than your non-invested portion).
On the issue of what happens to the money young workers (read as more than 15 years from retirement age) have already invested- that is what I exactly asked my Senator's aid. He said that that is one of the debatable points of the plan and apparently people from both parties all see it differently. He expects that to be hammered out in Conference Committee because very likely the House and Senate will not pass bills that are identical on that issue. The lack of solid support on any one proposal (from people in both parties) regarding the already invested money of young workers is probably why you've not heard much about that issue in the plan.