what would happen if you had put your money in enron? that is one out of how many world wide stocks. and you cant seem to think about bonds, 401ks and the likes. they dont just fall out like the couple of freak businesses. you would rather throw money at a loosing proposition because there is a 1 in 1000000000 chance you might loose it? Im sure glad your not my accountant.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AlAOy_o0Yq06R6O7tpJVL0Psy6IX?qid=20061201183447AAwKJaU
2006-12-01 13:50:36 · 6 answers · asked by CaptainObvious 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I guess people don't like the risk. But why does my accountant recommend an IRA in mutual funds? Because he wants to see me lose the money by gambling on the stock market? Or perhaps he knows that mutual funds have a track record of 8-12% over an extended period of time, making it a great combination of security and return. It isn't the same as throwing your nest egg at a single stock like Enron, and that scumbag Lay. The simple fact it is safer than pensions where other people make investment decision for you. And higher returns than CD's, money market accounts, and definitely social security (because there is no return on social security) So why are the Dem's so against it? Surely they know the facts, and at least some have IRA's. Perhaps two reasons. The uneducated American folks can't use some common sense about investments. And the unions make a lot of money off pensions. And why do the Repub's not push the issue? Two words, Chicken S**t. Scared of American backlash, because people don't understand how our money is being wasted, and think the risk is in the stock market, not in social security and pensions. So maybe the Dem's are right, the folks are uneducated. Then show them, but stop wasting my money on this "monstrosity."
2006-12-02 05:03:12 · answer #1 · answered by robling_dwrdesign 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Enron, World Com, any number of dot-coms, any airline and a host of other shrewd investments not long ago would have left you in retirement with a can of Alpo and no can opener.
That being said, still, I would never have paid into Social Security if it was voluntary - I would be better off stuffing my mattress and eating the inflation difference - unfortunately, they've been taking money out of my checks for 40 years - and I, for one, want a little of it back!
2006-12-01 14:02:12 · answer #2 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
is that one in 10 billion? playing the market is that probable?
I've heard of several people losing quite a bit of money? weird, guess they all just had the world's worse luck?
but the U.S. doesn't HAVE to do anything... it's about what the people want...
2006-12-01 13:56:59 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Social security must be strengthened to protect the welfare of the seniors that had contributed immensely for their future.
2006-12-01 13:52:41 · answer #4 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
We have to keep it because senior citizens have paid into it and, for many of them, it is their only means of living. We should have enough respect for them to support them.
2006-12-01 13:55:00 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I want my Social Security to be secure....
2006-12-01 13:59:46 · answer #6 · answered by TRUE GRIT 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋