Okay, I own my house and lot. Can I cut down all the trees on the lot?
The City says NO. Can I use it for a business? The City says NO. So
according to you I don't really own my house and lot.

Next. I get Social Security now. Can I pass that on to my children
when I die? Hell NO. How about my wife? Absolutely NOT. Can I make
any decision about it? I think I can not collect it.

So as I see it under the Bush Plan, I am a lot closer to actually
owning something. Just because there are limitations on the Bush Plan,
does not mean that it is not a huge improvement over the current Social
Security. With the current Social Security, most people in their
thirties will be lucky to get back the amount they put in plus about 1
percent. Now that is a dismal return over about thirty years.

Currently all the excess Social Security funds are invested in Treasury
Bills.
I would not use any financial advisor that did not recommend some
diversity.

Dan



Too_Many_Tools wrote:

One thing ownership means is being able to do what you want with
something. But under the Bush plan, you'd be given just a small range
of approved options of how to invest "your money."

What kind of ownership is that? When money really is yours -- like
your
take-home pay -- the government has no say over how you invest it.
Gold? Pork bellies? Santa Monica real estate? Go for it.


You won't really "own" the money in your private account. Likewise,
you
can't own stars in the sky. At least the International Star Registry
is
up-front enough to admit it.