...   
      
    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)