[Xavier]

Originally Posted by Number 6

Whining? If you go back and actually read my post, you will see that my point was that AARP was being hypocritical with regard to the proposal to allow some measure of choice with reguard to Social Security. They were against it but still sold 401Ks. Did I ever say if I was for it or against it?

Okay I'll back off a little bit and take my 40 lashes with a wet noodle. That is, except for the statement regarding the Political Talk Forum.

I'm NOT rich. I consider Social Security to be a safety net for future retirees. I consider the 401Ks or 403Bs to be an investment in one's self with money that you can afford to risk. In other words, you don't absolutely need this money to live day to day while you are still working. Because the vast majority of people are not trained or able to be actively involved in the administration or monitoring of these non-Social Security funds, they are assuming what could (and did) turn out to be an extraordinary amount of risk. We have friends that did not have a separate pension and depended on their investment funds to supplement their Social Security. They retired only to find that what they had accrued had just disappeared. Some folks who thought themselves to be well-off found that they had to go back to work in order to live in a manner that was acceptable to them. Thank goodness their Social Security portion of their retirement was still there to fall back on. What if they had invested part of their Social Security deductions? It's no fun trying to get a job when you're in your 60s. Sometimes we need to look out for one another. Have a Peaceful and Bountiful New Year.