...

 JH> Second, based on what they posted here over the years,
 JH> they've not had an original thought worth discussing.  They
 JH> have never done anything but spew what the Democrat party
 JH> puts out as talking points.

 ...

 This was original material, and you couldn't answer this:

 **************************************************************************

...

BK>>You have the opportunity to live better in your old age.


BK>>While you are at it, find any investment plan available to the
BK>>public that has paid better historically than social security.

 TR> Why then do we not all switch to the *plan* that government
 TR> workers and professoinal politicians pay into? *That* seems
 TR> to do `very' well. If its good enough for government
 TR> workers and professional politicians, it should be good
 TR> enough for "the public". That way, we'll `all' be doing
 TR> good for our old age.

 I was not familiar with the Federal Employee's retirement
 system, so I looked it up on the web, and downloaded their
 material.

 I don't know what the elected officials get, if it's the same
 plan or not.

 Yes, it does look like a good choice. You get an employer
 provided pension and social security. Nothing wrong with that.

 Actually, it's much like the plan I have. We just had a meeting
 after work tonight to go over the changes and the plan itself,
 since so many of us are reaching retirement age, and even more
 are elegible for early retirement on 30 and out.

 The big differences are, what they get depends on what they
 earn, whereas mine is based on pay classificiation. So, my
 retirement does not increase for overtime or other pay addons. A
 federal employee, at my pay level, and with 30 years service,
 would get a few thousand a year more than I would. OTOH, I do
 get a bit more on just base pay, if they didn't get any
 overtime. I just recalculated. I get quite a bit more on base
 pay.

 The other difference is, they pay into their retirement, I
 don't. Then we both get social security, but that's figured the
 same for both of us.

 Actually, come to think of it, the material I read was not clear
 on whether their retirement was figured on pay grade, or actual
 pay. I believe it was actual pay.

 Oh, they also have a savings plan similar to a 401K, but anyone
 can have that.

BK>>Bush is not trying to give you any opportunity except to put
BK>>lots of money in the pockets of wall street brokers.

 TR> Well, what do the payments `government workers' make, do?
 TR> Who's "pockets" does `that' money go into?

 Social security and their pension plan.

 TR> The biggest question I think is; what is it about this
 TR> Social Security issue that the democrats are so afraid of?
 TR> Why is it they seem to be terrified that Social Security
 TR> will be ended and a real, substantial financial security
 TR> await non-government workers upon retirement?

 Since govt workers under PERS have social security and an
 employer provided pension, all private sector workers need is an
 employer provided pension. All covered.

 TR> Why are democrats so frightened that Social Security
 TR> payments no longer be deducted from employees, and sent
 TR> (along with the `employers' contributions) *to* the federal
 TR> government?

 Why? That's what happens to govt employees.

 TR> The one single thing I see in all this is the `cash flow'
 TR> of Social Security deductions and employer contributions
 TR> will one day come to an end.

 Yeah, maybe 40 years or more from now.

 TR> Why does that frighten democrats so?

 Because historical experience shows the private sector will not
 give anything they can weasle out of. In England it's already
 shown up. Hell, in Michigan it's shown up, in the govt
 employee's who opted to the private retirement plans when it was
 still legal.


BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... Wisdom is knowing which bridge to cross and which to burn...
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
 * Origin: Since 1991 And Were Still Here! DOCSPLACE.TZO.COM (1:123/140)