Re: some new stuff

"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 15:09:10 +0000, David Jensen wrote:
>
> > In talk.origins, "Sarah Berel-Harrop" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >> and, OT but totally ridiculous:
> >> http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Ferrara20031201.shtml
> >>
> >> 'These investments [private social security accounts] would be made
> >> through a social structure where workers would choose from a broad
> >> range of investment funds managed by major firms, approved and
> >> regulated by the government. The system would be backed by a safety net
> >> providing a federal guarantee that workers would receive from the
> >> account at least what they would have been paid by Social Security
> >> under current law. '
> >
> > Who wouldn't want to be able to gamble, keep the winnings and get your
> > losses back? You'd be a fool not to invest in a high risk pool if such a
> > plan existed.
>
> It's nothing new to want to socialize risks and privatize profits.  What
> would be surprising is if such an offer were ever offered to ordinary
> folk.

this particular proposal permits a higher percentage of
diversion into the private accounts for the first 10K.
so in principle, it will be available for lower income
folks, in fact as a greater aggregate % of income.
(how that works for people who work multiple
part time jobs!? what a nightmare)  socializing risks
is one thing, doing it in a manner that flies in the face
of common-sense risk management techniques (leave
_some_ disincentive for $^^$#ing up) is plain stupid.

there was a great book about the S & L bailout.  part
of the problem was unethical people who had been
'banned' from banking and made it back in during the
80's.  but a significant part of the problem was the
raising of the government guarantee, institutional
investors in particular turned off their brains.  why
bother?  it's insured!


> I suspect we're dealing with another Medicare overhaul arrangement, where
> there is a flexible fitting between the PR and the actual deal.

yeah, i think this is so.  there is something significantly
wrong with the prescription plan.  my sister, who
is an attorney at DHS (she works with alot of nursing
home stuff) was trying to tell me about it, but my phone
flipped out.




--
All kinds of strange things go on there.
Everybody knows that if you head into
the Republic of Texas, anything can
happen.  That's why we all stay here in
Colorado.  (Kathleen Ann Goonan)

>
> --
> Bobby Bryant
> Austin, Texas
>