Skip to main content

View Diary: Afterglow: Bush's PR Nightmare (w/ pics!) (391 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Do some reading (none)
    There have been several studies published recently that demonstrate the cyclical nature of retirement investment plans - i.e., how well you do depends on how the market was doing at the point you needed to cash in and purchase an annuity (what the Bush plan, so far as we can tell, would require) - the difference in pre-retirement earnings replacement rates varies from 100% down to 20%, simply depending on when in the investment cycle you had to cash in.  It's not a question of how much you saved or how smart your investments are - it's completely random, based on the ups and downs of the stock market.

    So, which is more secure - a plan in which the movements of the market, which are totally outside your individual control, will determine how much you have to live  on in retirement, or a plan governed by the political will of the American public which has never allowed a reduction in current benefits, and which has maintained, and expanded, the program for 70 years?  

    There is no such thing as no risk in life - I prefer the plan that I at least have a say in, that is, Social Security.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (182)
  • Community (72)
  • Civil Rights (51)
  • Baltimore (44)
  • Elections (41)
  • Bernie Sanders (38)
  • Culture (38)
  • 2016 (34)
  • Economy (34)
  • Texas (32)
  • Law (31)
  • Labor (29)
  • Hillary Clinton (28)
  • Environment (27)
  • Rescued (23)
  • Education (23)
  • Republicans (22)
  • Politics (21)
  • Barack Obama (21)
  • Freddie Gray (21)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site