[goldstategop]

The idea is to increase wealth and provide for a retirement. You don't have a nest egg if you spend it all. And you want to leave something to your children and grandchildren. We have a lamentably low rate of savings in this country. The President listed some safeguards to make sure YOUR money is there for you when you need it. There's still a big difference over what the Democrats want: namely you'll have a personal account you own and which the government can NEVER take away. Part of the move to an "ownership society."

Denny Crane: "There are two places to find the truth. God and then Fox News."

[sheltonmac]

The idea is to increase wealth and provide for a retirement. You don't have a nest egg if you spend it all. And you want to leave something to your children and grandchildren. We have a lamentably low rate of savings in this country. The President listed some safeguards to make sure YOUR money is there for you when you need it.

I know what the general idea is, but government has no business telling me how I should save, where I should save or even if I should save. In a free society, people would have complete control over their own money. Quite a novel concept these days.

Contrary to the general consensus around here, there is nothing private or even remotely capitalist about Bush's "privatization" plan. His is a prescription for yet more government control. If he gets his way, bureaucrats--many of whom retire with pensions ranging in the hundreds of thousands of dollars--will tell you which stocks you can invest in, how much you can invest, how much you can withdraw and the rate at which it can be withdrawn. On top of that, in order to make your investments "safe," they will have to impose more regulations to prop up those companies.

Put simply, market forces won't apply. It's a proposal that pays lip service to capitalist ideals while at the same time undermining the free market. (Besides, anyone who honestly believes that the feds will have no way of getting their hands on these so-called "private" accounts is living in a dreamworld.)

Unfortunately, conservatives will go along with this ridiculous plan simply because it's "better" than what the Democrats are proposing. Here's an idea: why not start to phase out Social Security? Fulfill the obligations to those currently collecting checks and then offer a refund to people for evey dime they've paid into it. Finally, allow the rest to opt out completely.

The problem is that Republicans can't even bring themselves to admit that the entire concept of a government-controlled retirement plan is not only unconstitutional, but immoral. Until we get to that point, things will keep getting worse.