OT SS going to the source

There have been some psychological studies on the issue. Some people do
have an natural sense when determining truth from fiction and
trustworthiness. Others appear to be totally lacking the ability. The
studies are trying to figure out if this ability is innate or learned
and what triggers it. It is also possible, due to health problems such
as Alzheimer's, for a person who does have the sense to lose it. That
can go in either direction--the subject trusts everyone and everything
or the subject trusts noone and nothing. Until this mechanism is fully
understood and can be developed, there is no way to fully protect all
the people from scam artists. Privatizing Social Security, however, is
going to bring the rats into a lot of places that haven't been targeted
before.

Of course my main objection to the private accounts is I think the
government is just trying to flee the sinking ship--or at least shift
the blame for it. If the system collapses and the funds are all the
government's responsibility, the elected officials and bureaucrats can
only point fingers at each other. If the funds are in private accounts
which are supposed to be managed by the individuals, the government will
simply say the "people" messed it up and it isn't the government's
fault. Never mind the fact that the system is already in a crisis and
there is no way private accounts alone will save it.

Cheryl Isaak wrote:
As a general issue, how do "we" shut down scam artists? No matter how much
you (the general you) tell "people" that if is sounds too good to be true,
it isn't, people still fall for it. It is a critical thinking issue and
ought to be "instinctive" or at least teachable, but, well you get my drift.

--
Brenda

Cheryl Isaak wrote in
:

It is a critical thinking
issue and ought to be "instinctive" or at least teachable, but, well
you get my drift.

Heh. As chair of our general education committee, next Thursday I have to
do a presentation at our faculty in-service on critical thinking. I plan
on starting out with a comment about how all my years on the Internet
communicating with thousands of people have taught me one: critical
thinking isn't as basic a skill as one might hope.

K

Dr. Brat wrote:
Cheryl Isaak wrote:



I suspect you're wrong there. More people are conservative about money
than
you think they are. I think we'll see a new type of growth in the banking
industry, interest deferred accounts and other new savings vehicles.


I'm gonna sound lazy here, but my issue with privatising Social Security
is that it makes too much work for the employee. I don't have Social
Security, I have State Retirement. When I was hired, I opted for an
account that I could manage myself. And I simply don't have time. I'm
sure my funds could be better handled, but frankly, there are other
things I would rather do than research my fund options. When I lived in
Ohio, all my retirement money went into a state managed account and,
although that took away my options, it also took away my burden. I'd
rather have a lower guaranteed return with less risk and less
baby-sitting. But that is absolutely an opinion, nothing more.

Elizabeth

I would also add that a very large portion of the public simply couldn't
do it because they lack the sophistication. I know many people who
can't balance a check book, have no interest (nor probably aptitude) to
handle finances. Conversations usually end up generalizing how things
should be based on the criteria of the one doing the talking. :-) In
reality, society is a lot more complicated.

Dianne
--
"The Journal of Needlework" - The E-zine for All Needleworkers
http://journal.heritageshoppe.com

Dianne Lewandowski wrote in
:

Dr. Brat wrote:
Cheryl Isaak wrote:



I suspect you're wrong there. More people are conservative about
money than
you think they are. I think we'll see a new type of growth in the
banking industry, interest deferred accounts and other new savings
vehicles.


I'm gonna sound lazy here, but my issue with privatising Social
Security is that it makes too much work for the employee. I don't
have Social Security, I have State Retirement. When I was hired, I
opted for an account that I could manage myself. And I simply don't
have time. I'm sure my funds could be better handled, but frankly,
there are other things I would rather do than research my fund
options. When I lived in Ohio, all my retirement money went into a
state managed account and, although that took away my options, it
also took away my burden. I'd rather have a lower guaranteed return
with less risk and less baby-sitting. But that is absolutely an
opinion, nothing more.

Elizabeth

I would also add that a very large portion of the public simply
couldn't do it because they lack the sophistication. I know many
people who can't balance a check book, have no interest (nor probably
aptitude) to handle finances. Conversations usually end up
generalizing how things should be based on the criteria of the one
doing the talking. :-) In reality, society is a lot more
complicated.

That's my primary reason for not believing in privatization of Social
Security, that people won't make good decisions about the investment. In
addition to the time and sophistication required, how is someone who is
worried about putting food on the table tomorrow going to make reasoned
judgments of how to invest money to ensure there is food on the table 30
years from now?

The scam artists, the governmental lack of responsibility, and the false
growth of the economy are all others. Just a bad idea all around as far
as I'm concerned.

K

On 1/7/05 2:02 PM, in article ,
"Brenda" wrote:

There have been some psychological studies on the issue. Some people do
have an natural sense when determining truth from fiction and
trustworthiness. Others appear to be totally lacking the ability. The
studies are trying to figure out if this ability is innate or learned
and what triggers it. It is also possible, due to health problems such
as Alzheimer's, for a person who does have the sense to lose it. That
can go in either direction--the subject trusts everyone and everything
or the subject trusts noone and nothing. Until this mechanism is fully
understood and can be developed, there is no way to fully protect all
the people from scam artists.
Hmmm, we understand that, we might understand how to "turn off" the con
artist.

Privatizing Social Security, however, is
going to bring the rats into a lot of places that haven't been targeted
before.

The rats will find a place to nest no matter what we do with SS. Heck, I was
approached by a windows person asking if I knew how much heat I was losing
with all that glass. The poor little dear didn't know what hit her -
figuratively that is.

Of course my main objection to the private accounts is I think the
government is just trying to flee the sinking ship--or at least shift
the blame for it. If the system collapses and the funds are all the
government's responsibility, the elected officials and bureaucrats can
only point fingers at each other. If the funds are in private accounts
which are supposed to be managed by the individuals, the government will
simply say the "people" messed it up and it isn't the government's
fault. Never mind the fact that the system is already in a crisis and
there is no way private accounts alone will save it.

I don't that is not savable - but it will take some work and it may mean
that not everyone gets SS some time in the future, despite having paid in,
based on assets and income combined.



Cheryl Isaak wrote:
As a general issue, how do "we" shut down scam artists? No matter how much
you (the general you) tell "people" that if is sounds too good to be true,
it isn't, people still fall for it. It is a critical thinking issue and
ought to be "instinctive" or at least teachable, but, well you get my drift.

--
Brenda

On 1/7/05 2:19 PM, in article
, "K"
wrote:

Dianne Lewandowski wrote in
:

Dr. Brat wrote:
Cheryl Isaak wrote:



I suspect you're wrong there. More people are conservative about
money than
you think they are. I think we'll see a new type of growth in the
banking industry, interest deferred accounts and other new savings
vehicles.


I'm gonna sound lazy here, but my issue with privatising Social
Security is that it makes too much work for the employee. I don't
have Social Security, I have State Retirement. When I was hired, I
opted for an account that I could manage myself. And I simply don't
have time. I'm sure my funds could be better handled, but frankly,
there are other things I would rather do than research my fund
options. When I lived in Ohio, all my retirement money went into a
state managed account and, although that took away my options, it
also took away my burden. I'd rather have a lower guaranteed return
with less risk and less baby-sitting. But that is absolutely an
opinion, nothing more.

Elizabeth

I would also add that a very large portion of the public simply
couldn't do it because they lack the sophistication. I know many
people who can't balance a check book, have no interest (nor probably
aptitude) to handle finances. Conversations usually end up
generalizing how things should be based on the criteria of the one
doing the talking. :-) In reality, society is a lot more
complicated.

That's my primary reason for not believing in privatization of Social
Security, that people won't make good decisions about the investment. In
addition to the time and sophistication required, how is someone who is
worried about putting food on the table tomorrow going to make reasoned
judgments of how to invest money to ensure there is food on the table 30
years from now?

The scam artists, the governmental lack of responsibility, and the false
growth of the economy are all others. Just a bad idea all around as far
as I'm concerned.

K
But is the government making decisions that are any better?

Cheryl

Cheryl Isaak wrote in
:


But is the government making decisions that are any better?

No, but it's much more fun blaming the government than taking
responsibility ourselves.

;-)

K

On 1/7/05 2:10 PM, in article ,
"K" wrote:

Cheryl Isaak wrote in
:

It is a critical thinking
issue and ought to be "instinctive" or at least teachable, but, well
you get my drift.

Heh. As chair of our general education committee, next Thursday I have to
do a presentation at our faculty in-service on critical thinking. I plan
on starting out with a comment about how all my years on the Internet
communicating with thousands of people have taught me one: critical
thinking isn't as basic a skill as one might hope.

K

Afraid so!
Cheryl

On 1/7/05 2:41 PM, in article
, "K"
wrote:

Cheryl Isaak wrote in
:


But is the government making decisions that are any better?

No, but it's much more fun blaming the government than taking
responsibility ourselves.

;-)

K


And people wonder why I want LESS government, not more!

Cheryl

Great discussion of human behavior and some of the ongoing studies -- but...
the policy discussion ISN'T about PRIVATIZING SOCIAL SECURITY, it's about
allowing people under some age limit (current talk is 50 yrs old) invest
some portion (current talk is less than 10%) of their SS contribution into
federally approved investment vehicles (a limited number of these too). It
wouldn't be mandatory -- so you wouldn't be forced to change from the
current scheme if you didn't want to.

(not arguing with Brenda -- just trying to add some clarity)
S

"Brenda" wrote in message
...
There have been some psychological studies on the issue. Some people do
have an natural sense when determining truth from fiction and
trustworthiness. Others appear to be totally lacking the ability. The
studies are trying to figure out if this ability is innate or learned
and what triggers it. It is also possible, due to health problems such
as Alzheimer's, for a person who does have the sense to lose it. That
can go in either direction--the subject trusts everyone and everything
or the subject trusts noone and nothing. Until this mechanism is fully
understood and can be developed, there is no way to fully protect all
the people from scam artists. Privatizing Social Security, however, is
going to bring the rats into a lot of places that haven't been targeted
before.

Of course my main objection to the private accounts is I think the
government is just trying to flee the sinking ship--or at least shift
the blame for it. If the system collapses and the funds are all the
government's responsibility, the elected officials and bureaucrats can
only point fingers at each other. If the funds are in private accounts
which are supposed to be managed by the individuals, the government will
simply say the "people" messed it up and it isn't the government's
fault. Never mind the fact that the system is already in a crisis and
there is no way private accounts alone will save it.

Cheryl Isaak wrote:
As a general issue, how do "we" shut down scam artists? No matter how
much
you (the general you) tell "people" that if is sounds too good to be
true,
it isn't, people still fall for it. It is a critical thinking issue and
ought to be "instinctive" or at least teachable, but, well you get my
drift.

--
Brenda