Swingman wrote:

"todd" wrote in message

Then I guess you're missing the point.

Welp, you guess wrong ... you missed the first point, and haven't been
anywhere near it yet.

Most of the congress types will end
up not having to count on their retirement plan or SS to be a major source
of retirement income because it will represent a small portion of their
net
worth.

You can't back that contention up with figures. "Most" of the 535 in
congress aren't "wealthy" and will gladly receive their pensions ... a much
better deal than you will get with SS..

There's only one thing they respond to, and that's getting re-elected.
Make
them think they won't get re-elected if they don't modify SS, and then it
will change.

We been doing it your way for forty years ... hasn't worked yet. Make them
eat their own dog food and the menu will change.

Absent that, I have a deal to make with the gubmint. I'm 36 years old and
have been paying (along with my employers), SS taxes for roughly 20 years
now. OK, gubmint, you keep all of that money and just let me off this
merry-go-round. Let me keep my 7.65% or whatever the percentage is that
comes (directly) out of my paycheck each month. I'll add that to my other
investments and you'll never hear from me again.

Until you show up at the emergency room without the means to pay because
your "investments" didn't pan out, then my property tax dollars will have to
pay the bill.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/28/04

What makes you say it is a better deal than SS? Did you compare
figures for the amount they contribute and receive as compared to SS.
SS and Federal retirement are not direct alternatives, they are
completely different. Federal retirement is similar to what a
corporation pays as a retirement, it is not intended as a back up
system like SS is.