All Hillary did was steal an idea that was printed in Time magazine.

I haven't decided how I feel about it, as it is clearly vague, but the premise is essentially what Bush was advocating for SS.

I would probably have the same concerns as I did with the Bush plan.

1) Where do you get the money.
2) Who manages the money, and what kind of fees do they get.
3) Is there some sort of insurance to insure all the money is not lost.

I would suggest that people read the actual proposal before they bash it.

From an economic stand point - the question would be does the forced savings and extra taxes it entails outweigh the savings gain.

It seems to me like 20billion/year thrust into various savings accounts would be a good wealth creating device. As before, I would have the same 3 concerns.

But turning $5000 into $17,000 in 18 years for 4 million Americans per year, to be used only for college or down payment on a home, or else the government keeps the$17,000, could have many economic benefits.

I suspect the fact that Hillary said it and not Bush is playing into various perspectives. I would like to see the figures and concerns addressed before I make judgement. The name attached to the idea does not factor into my logic.


Ixtellor

P.S. Bush/Clinton like babies So I am against babies.

__________________
_______________________________________
George W. Bush "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building"

Blasphemy is a victimless crime.