If our government is going to mandate we give them money for OUR retirement, then why not give US the ability to invest OUR retirement as WE see fit? If someone wants to invest THEIR retirment money into a private bank account or into a stock, mutual fund, etc, why not let them do it?

Why does the government HAVE TO HAVE that money collected for them to spend on what THEY see fit, while we earn less then the market interest over a life time?

__________________
If I had the option of voting 2000 and 2004 over again, I would still vote Bush.

Maybe for the simple reason that many people simply don't understand market economics.

I read some thought provoking concepts on a site, maybe CNN, I'll have to look and see if I can find it now, but the general gist was this:

Many people, after working 2 jobs (like I am) taking care of a family (also like I am) who has a spouse who also has to work at least 1 job, (like we do) simply do not have enough time in their lives to balance all of these time consuming, and important factors and also learn many of the intricate steps needed to manage an investment portfolio.

I would state however, that if someone were brave enough to sign a waver to give up any rights etc... to a Social Security account, that they should be able to avoid that tax, and go it on their own. But with that clause that should they mess up, and end up penniless, that they have no access to any SS benefits.

Somehow I doubt many people would be willing to take up that burden.

Because the whole point of a mandatory savings or insurance program is to act as a back-up plan that does not fail. If people are allowed to screw up their financial situation with a mandated program... what was the point in mandating it in the first place?

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

Because it would lead to the mother of all bailouts if the market failed.

__________________
He who angers you, controls you!

If the government gave control over to the individual it couldn't raid the program. I would sign the waiver, give me what is due to me now and let me lump it with my 401k and I will be fine.

__________________

Liberals believe it is okay to kill babies, but not terrorists.

democrats believe it is okay to taser a 10 year old if this stance will get their guy elected.

Waiver or not, if enough people fail to hold up their end of the bargain, we will end up bailing them out.
Regulation is a preventative measure. Whatever mandatory program we have to ensure savings must truly be mandatory and universal or it is pointless.
The people who think they are being "individualistic" by opting out will quickly turn "collectivist" on aggregate when things go south.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

Wrong. Many many would. And they would invest in drinks at the club, lottery tickets, or perhaps some medicine for their child.

None of which are exactly highly rated financial vehicles.

Now you could say that these people should then simply starve quietly on a park bench somewhere. And some might. But when their backs are to the wall humans are an unruly lot and there will be trouble.

Now letting people manage funds except that they cannot withdraw them in any way could be an option. So long as not too many get their savings wiped out it could operate well enough.

Except you are assigning moral superiority/responsibility to the government when it comes to managing funds. Look at what happened with Social Security and Medicare. I see so many people say it has to be handled by the government because of the risk of mismanaging, and then I look at our government and think are these people crazy. The truth is that the strongest voting block ends up telling a person who gets benefits and who doesn't. It's been know for quite some time that SS and Medicare is broken, and yet not one politician has done anything about it, for fear of losing the Baby Boomer vote, who at this point in time probably make a rather large portion of the voting base. What's funny is that the people least likely to have a stake in working and paying these funds are also highly like to vote because they have nothing else to do.

Because you'd actually be in control of your future instead of politicians and then that would be one less issue they can use at election time to keep their power hungry asses in Washington. What's really funny is that a lot of people actually believe Social Security is a great program.

__________________
Carolina Politics Online

That's exactly how it should be. But Big Daddy Government thinks he knows best how to spend OUR money. But it ain't true. All they know how to do is mismanage it and waste it.

__________________
"What exactly is this foreign policy experience?" Obama said mockingly of the New York senator. "Was she negotiating treaties? Was she handling crises? The answer is no."