Perhaps some of the reason for the bad feeling that has cropped up here is the fact that the Wall St Journal example cited somebody who made $62,000 per year.

The point is that the vast majority of wage-earners, who of course earn less than this, would still have to contend with Bush's gutting of the Social Security system---and it would be far more serious for them than for the WSJ's hyothetical man.

There are in fact a host of other problems with Bush's wonderful idea, many of which were dealt with in the previous Social Security thread--which was only about a month ago.
Don't understand why the 2 threads weren't combined.

At any rate

1) Both Bush and Mr. Greenspan admit that private accounts will not themselves shore up Social Security's long-term solvency.

2) Mr. Greenspan admits he has no idea how financial markets will take the up to $2 trillion in new borrowing necessary for this great new idea. Could be a sizable spike in interest rates. (Did you enjoy the late 70's?) Especially since that's the direction they're headed in already.

3) Very interesting that no Bushite has suggested the step which would be guaranteed to work. All sides agree that totally removing the wage cap on Social Security deductions would in fact cover the Social Security shortfall.

4) "Risks are what made this country great" (or words to that effect)--actually, risks may not pan out--and guess what happens then. Taxes go up for everybody for a fund to bail out people who made bad decisions. Don't ever imagine Bush's proposal will get through without such a provision. This has also been cited by the Journal as a reason for cold feet.
(The editorial page bangs the drum for Bush's idea so hard it seems the drum will break--but the actual reporting soberly points out the other side.)

5) Anybody who really likes this idea should actually read a financial newspaper, rather than Ayn Rand, Horatio Alger, or the latest bestseller from the Tinkerbell school of financial management. They would find out, for one thing, that Bush's timing is not the best (not that it will bother him personally)--in about 2011 the huge baby boom generation will start to retire in a big way. They will be cashing in stocks, not buying them. This will happen for about 20 years. Logic suggests there may be close to a 20-year bear market.

Certainly is good that all the Bushites are so nimble and have such fine instincts as to switch around between funds to avoid losing big on one (which could wipe out any profit you have), while avoiding all commissions. It's a neat trick.

Or perhaps you are of the buy-and-hold persuasion------in which case your clairvoyance will be particularly useful.

What's actually likely if this scheme ever sees the light of day is that you won't in fact have the freedom to place your funds "in many investment vehicles" , as PDQ put it. Instead, your account will be restricted to a very few index funds (overseeing of which, by the way will be done by another government bureaucracy---how about that, Bushites?) If the index goes south, sorry. But, as I said, taxes will just be raised to bolster the bailout fund.



PDQ---

If liberals think diversity is having a Mexican gardener, where does the pressure for affirmative action, bilingual education and cultural exchanges come from? (not all of which are necessarily wonderful ideas).---- (In fact I happen to think that bi-lingual education does the non-English speakers no favor--better they should learn English right off the bat. Also, affirmative action gives Bushites and other Neanderthals the excuse to allege that a black person only got a position due to those programs, not on merit.) But this is egregious thread creep

The point is that in a glib put-down, a kernel of fact helps. Sadly lacking in yours.