It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
But with increased freedom may come increased risk - and that's perhaps the nub of the debate over Bush's programs. What's the proper role of Washington in ensuring the security of US citizens? How much should Americans simply depend on themselves?
Opponents say Bush wants to unravel a safety net that's worked well for more than half a century. Proponents say he is simply promoting the national credo of individualism.
What if many of these personal accounts fail, and today's young people are left indigent in old age? What about people with little financial literacy who can't even pick from a simple set of mutual funds? Will government curb excessive commission fees imposed by private pension funds?
Resolving those types of questions will be necessary before Congress can seriously consider his plan.
Indeed, surveys show that views are still fluid, and poll results often depend on how questions are asked. In a Newsweek survey taken in the two days after Bush's State of the Union speech, 56 percent of Americans said they are wary of putting retirement money into the stock market. In another poll, by CNN/USA Today/Gallup, 66 percent of people who watched Bush's speech said his Social Security proposals will move the country in the right direction. That was up from 51 percent of Americans surveyed before.
Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Well, I don't know if this is the actual "plan" but it does outline key points:
Originally posted by xpert11
I see nothing wrong with taking controll of your own retirement fund. Americans might be happy to gamable there future on the stock market but I would rather put my money in the bank and let the interest built.
Of course the brainless politicans would tax your retirement fund so by the time your 65 the government has chewed up your financial sercuity!
Are private accounts really a good idea? The short answer is, they could be -- but only if Americans are willing to wait several generations for the higher returns to make up for Social Security's expected shortfall. The gap is so large -- $3.7 trillion in today's dollars -- that even if the stock market matched its historical average, private accounts wouldn't fill the gap for something like 90 to 100 years. And that doesn't even count the extra $1 trillion to $2 trillion in transition costs required to set up such accounts.
Originally posted by dawnstar
Didn't the depression begin because of some sort of loan program, so people would invest in the stock market also?
as posted by RANT
Best thing we can do is express our dire concerns often, loud and unified. Avoiding the "social" diversions would help too. This one can't slip through without some serious review and non-partisan support. We're talking about the future. Not winning some argument.