Here's one to jump on in this argument:

HOW ARE those 401Ks doing for you?

This is the EXAMPLE she's using to push the new private funds....

Come on - don't be shy!

Our 401k has lost 3.5% since January the first of this year and is going down today. (Today is January 11th.) We did make 10.5% last year. It was odd because most of the gain was made after Bush was elected in November.

We have been putting into a 401k for 13 years. We have had ups and downs. We would have been better off drawing 2% interest.

The problem isn't how are those 401k's doing, the problem will be in year XXXX when everyone has private accounts and the market tanks. Anyone who has retired relatives knows what happened in the last few years when the market was down. Retirees were scraping to get by.

Now imagine that with no Social Security and only private accounts. Who's going to make up the difference in year XXXX when every retiree in the US is in financial crisis??? Well, the government will probably have to do it. So what's the point of getting rid of Social Security in the first place?

Better invest in bonds and international funds. That's the way this country is going - Invest in China and China ONLY! Under Bush we're DOOMED!

Do not invest in China. They produce goods for us and we give them paper in exchange. When that game is over, China will fall like a house of cards. Invest in Euro demonidated bonds. At least you have a chance to be paid back with interest in a currency still worth something.

On Lou Dobbs last night they had two gentlmen on discussing the "China Syndrome" Jobs and technologies moving there from the US. One gentleman made a currious note ... he said in the past few weeks China has bought IBM's PC Division.

To quote him "China is Buying the Crown Jewels of American Corporations, and it's unacceptable"

China with their new found American Dollars are creating a virtual empire by purchasing major companies.

If we keep losing manufacturing ground, what will we produce enetertainment, Disney offshored 1,000 graphic artists.

I now understand what "Free Trade Means" We're giving our means of trading away for FREE! When we have nothing left to trade what then?

I think we're begining to hear the words UNCLE, U-N-C-L-E!

I was a IBM partner since 1989. When they sold the PC division I had the
right to sell my stock which was a requiement to be partner level. Meaning
I had a credit line and bought truckloads of pc's at dirt cheap prices bypassing
distributors.

Anyway HP nows seems ready to seel there PC division. So what I am going to
sell? IBM initially will still be IBM but in a year or less it will be cheap Chinese crap

There also was a report on tv about Chinese knock off of furniture. Neiman-Marcus
catalog carries the sames Chinese made furniture that Costco carries. Price difference
HUGE! A entertainment hutch at Costco $289 NM$1490
Costco is still making money.

So back to SS, if you put $10,000 in a savings account at 2% for 20 years you
have $11,041.20 Now put $6,000 at 2% $6625.20 plus $4000 in the market
what is the real rate of return

Exhibit 3. Coupons, Dollar Prices and Returns:
Merrill Lynch High Yield Cash Pay Index
http://content.ll-0.com/ingim01/word_image...?i=110104125431

As a result, we observe that the high yield market was primed for an enormous rally at the end of October 1990 and October 2002 because the average dollar price of the bonds in the index had declined to such low levels; in both cases, the price had fallen below $80. While the weighted average coupon dropped (not a surprise as the yield on ten-year U.S. Treasuries fell from nearly 8.70% at the end of October 1990 to about 4.30% at the end of October 2002, or 119 basis point more than the decline in the average coupon in the index) it was the dollar price gains that generated the market�s outsized returns. At September 30, 2004, the average dollar price of the bonds in the index ($102.76) is below its peak on September 30, 1997, but it is clearly much closer to the top than the bottom.

Speaking as a NASD Licensed Agent - Diversification is key to any plan for retirement. The Rule of 100 is simple. Take your age and subtract form 100.

I'm 38, so 100 - 38 = 62

Basically 62% of my portfolio should be aggressive stock funds, REIT'S, Balanced, Etc. And 38% should be safety, high AAA bonds and bond funds. This ratio shifts as you age. You ultimately protect more

Getting the government to teach Americans and to getting them to manage this themselves for themselves is another story.

You have those who care and those who don't give a rip.

The rule of 72 says that ...

at 2% your money doubles every 36 Years (Avg. Return of SS)

If you were to get say an average of 7% your money doubles every 10.28 Years

I think up to a point it's a good idea to privatize SS but It's all the safety nets I want in place to reassure the public that Wall Street Sharks can't get you burned and I don't see that happening. WorldCom and Enron Bonds were highly rated. See what happened to those companies!! It's playing craps in a casio.

I have often associated the markets to that of a Casino.

Steady Eddie low risk yields win the day! I want those yeilds to be somewhere around 4-8%.

Don't forget people Bush's Brother Neal was a part of the Savings and Loan Scams. I just think I have seen this Trojan Horse before. I smell a rat! And the Wall Street sharks will eat the rat.

SS is ok till 2052. We need to work on better trade agreements and boosting the dollar and making a dent in the deficits.

And People Quit Buying Chinese Trinkets!

Cuz they buy major corporations, like IBM, with your dollars!

Thank You! My thoughts too.

The point of getting rid of it? Believe it or not - this is a PET PEEVE since Roosevelt put it in place. YES - they are that ideologically motivated AND THAT SHORT SIGHTED and THAT SELFISH.

They are petty little Scrooges.

The republicans have already changed medicare to be means tested at $80,000. So if they are going to revisit means testing, that means they are going to lower the income ceiling a lot more. What happens if you sell your home?

Strange as it may seem, the economy and the markets do better under the democrats. The wealthy republicans are like selfish children, grabbing it all and not wanting anyone else to have anything. They seem to want life to be grim for everyone else.

They also want to keep the status quo. They want everything to stay the same. Just like the oil companies bought up the patents to most alternative energy so it is as expensive as oil. They are top dog and plan to stay that way.

They all have cushy retirements and no real financial worries, but they will balance their deficit out of our Social Security and Medicare that we have financed with our hard earned money. Those are two programs the average worker has paid thousands of dollars into.

They want to pay cheap wages and give no benefits so they will be more competitive overseas. But they want to charge us ungodly prices for what they sell to us. How do they expect us to work for Chinese wages and pay American Insurance and housing?

But then they give millions to the government for political advantages. They donate to the President's swearing in gala.

They want to turn public schools and everything into private businesses.

The American people see what they are up to and cut back on spending and try to save what they can. Other countries won't trade with us unless they can save a lot of money because they hate our government policies and our pre-emptive assault on Iraq.

They think because they create jobs, they can crack the whip. But without the workers and the buyers, they wouldn't last long. They have us by the yang yang now with bringing in people from other countries to work and outsourcing. It is horrible what they are doing to our country. A good, decent government could level the playing field in no time.

If they succeed in ruining medicare and social security, they will destroy something more than the two programs. They will destroy the faith and trust of the people.

There is a "let them eat cake" attitude about the whole thing.

Here's a question let's say this thing get's passed and people are investing their tax dollars into stocks. And let's say that some of those people end up losing everything in the market and they now have no money for retirement.

Who's going to bail them out? Social Security is a safety net- not house money.

Okay I'm off my soap box now.

Screw Elaine Chao. She made a horrible image for Asian Americans everywhere. If only Gary Locke was around to counter her idiotic ramblings.

Well, here's a tale -

There was once a young couple - owned their own business - started a family and could put some earnings away on a steady basis...

"Now, how should I invest this?" They asked their "financial adviser"....

"STOCKS", says the advisor..."High Tech Solids"....so the young family placed half of their savings into stocks and half into an IRA (which had just been developed)

Time went by, things changed....came the 1980s.....the stocks split and split..making the money look good....the advisor keeps to his "solid plan"

Then came the 90s.....In one business cycle, the "savings" portfolio - the RETIREMENT SAVINGS portfolio that had been diligently nurtured "according to the professional (who was paid a SIZEABLE fee for his expertise) TANKED.

Belly up.

So, now...this diligent couple - that is NOT so young anymore - are now looking at ZIP in private retirement funds. Oh, they hold the "paper"....but there's no THERE there anymore....

This couple "played the game according to the rules" that the Republican "professionals" considered the path to wealth and security....

The ONLY ONE who GAINED from this exercise, is the PAID ADVISOR who got his fee one way or the other. Didn't matter to HIM what ultimately occurred.

This is what's ahead with the "privatization" of SSI - THE PAID ADVISORS WILL BE THE ONES MAKING THE BUCKS......

PS - sorta happy ending - the couple decided to REMOVE all their assests from the UNITED STATES - bought a beautiful home in Nova Scotia and are planning to live comfortably OUTSIDE the United States for the rest of their retirement.