Quote=anomoly]
Since you like stats, why not look up the Dow-Jones Average and plot a thirty year investment. If you do, you'll quickly see that your understandings are incorrect.
The growth in private accounts will appreciate over an extended period, up to forty years or more for many people. The condition of the market at the point of retirement is immaterial. What counts is what has happened during the total investment period.Uh, I think you're a bit mistaken here. If you invest money, your return is completely dependent on whether the market is up or down when you retire. Got that? That's what I'm talking about when I say 'some will lose'. And of course SS isn't supposed to be one's total retirement, but many poor do not have any spare money to invest or put into savings. Do you understand that? This system then will either shortchange them through a cut in benefits or it will make them put their money in the stock market, and pray for the best.Originally Posted by Fantasea
I can't find the "BS" Smiley icon so this one will have to do.
Where in the world did you ever get the mistaken idea that social security was intended to be the sole source a retirees income? From day one, right on up to the present, it had been intended as a supplement to the pension or the savings that a person has been accumulating. The fact that some make no provision for the future is not the fault of the system.
Of course the socialist in you demands cradle to grave government support for the masses. How come the Democrats didn't think of that during the forty year period in which they controlled the Congress?Of course he did. What else would one expect to hear from a socialist-lib-dem apologist from Princeton?
Since you like stats, why not look up the Dow-Jones Average and plot a thirty year investment. If you do, you'll quickly see that your understandings are incorrect.