"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
. net...

"kontiki" wrote in message
...
Mike Rapoport wrote:
It isn't supposed to require either a leap of faith or the company
remaining in business. The Company is suppose to deposit money to fund
the pension plan which is a trust with an independent board. The funds
are professionally managed and, barring catastrophe, there should be
enough to pay the promised benefits.

One could make the same argument that Social Security is supposed to be
just that:
"professionally managed and, barring catastrophe, there should be enough
to
pay the promised benefits." But even that is no longer sacrosanct.

The only real solution to all of this is for people to take charge of
their
own retirement via their own personal accounts that they themselves
manage.
When you delegate this responsibility to some other party you do so at
your own risk.


I agree with most of what you say.

Social Security was a well thought out, adequately funded program when it
was inplemented in 1935.

Well thought out? You're kidding!!!

The problem came when people started looking at it
as a retirement program. In 1935, life expectancy was 63.

And just 5 years earlier it was 49. Now, if it was so "well thought
out"...ah, forget it. Several economists predicted it was going to be a
boondoggle before the ink was dry of FDR's signiture.

The only thinking involved was those grabbing for power.

Social Security
was envisioned as insurance against being injured or killed on the job and
also it would provide income if you lived past 65 an age where you would
be
uncompetitive in the workforce.

It ws, and it's name defined, that it was SUPPLEMENTAL.

It was also VOLUNTARY.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_ho...n/1005355.html



It was a reasonable approach that got

Gee, the same system failed every where else...how reasonable is that?


derailed when the underlying assumptions started to change (life
expectancy)
and the program didn't change with it.

Lord Acton and James Madison come to mind.