i could have missread and our favorite brit caught it. if the ariclal saiod 1950 that nay be it, but since you have to be at least 62 to retire on soc sec. the point would still be valid. 

--- On Mon, 9/22/08, Deri James <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> From: Deri James <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: the truct about social security
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Date: Monday, September 22, 2008, 5:25 PM
> On Monday 22 September 2008 21:11:52 ken barber wrote:
> > the main point of focus here was that unless one was
> under 50 there would
> > be no part privatised. not one person drawing social
> security today wou;d
> > have been effected at all.
> >
> 
> Help!! I'm all confused now!! The article Ken
> originally posted said you had 
> to be born before 1950 to be exempt from Bush's
> privatisation scheme, so that 
> means you'd be 59 this year to be exempt but Ken says
> above that its under 50 
> (i.e. 49)!!
> 
> In the UK women get their state pension at 60 (don't
> know about the States), 
> so to me it looks like Obama was 1 year out not the 11 Ken
> would like you to 
> think.
> 
> I am certainly not in favour of private pensions invested
> in the stock market. 
> 8 years ago my pension was estimated at £29k a year at 65,
> last year it was 
> estimated at £10k, and goodness knows what it'll be
> worth now. ;-)
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Deri
> 
> -----------------------
> 
> To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go
> here:
> 
> http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy


      

-----------------------

To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:

http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy