<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Third Post Within One Hour</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.duckgoesmoo.com/uncategorized/third-post-within-one-hour/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.duckgoesmoo.com/uncategorized/third-post-within-one-hour/</link>
	<description>Personal Blog for Charles Guthrie</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Dec 2011 07:04:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Charles Guthrie</title>
		<link>http://www.duckgoesmoo.com/uncategorized/third-post-within-one-hour/comment-page-1/#comment-844</link>
		<dc:creator>Charles Guthrie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Apr 2005 08:10:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-844</guid>
		<description>Cool, a poster!  Welcome! :)&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
Okay, you&#039;re right, it doesn&#039;t say anything like that in the plan.  But why are there sites implying that you cannot just pass it along completely?  From this site:&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
http://www.postwritersgroup.com/archives/cocc0208.htm&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
 It says:&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
&quot;By the White House&#039;s own account, people who opt for personal accounts would first have to agree to deep benefit cuts in the guaranteed portion of Social Security. Then at retirement, they would be required to purchase an annuity -- a contract for fixed, monthly benefits to be paid out over their remaining years -- and not treat the account as a lump sum to use as they wish. If a retiree dies at say, age 68, the rest of the annuity would be lost. The monthly benefit dies with the person who owns it.&quot;&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
Is this just horse-swaggle?  If anyone can find soem kind of proof to this issue feel free to post it here.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
Also further defenses or attacks on Private Accounts is more than welcome.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Cool, a poster!  Welcome! <img src='http://www.duckgoesmoo.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>Okay, you&#8217;re right, it doesn&#8217;t say anything like that in the plan.  But why are there sites implying that you cannot just pass it along completely?  From this site:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.postwritersgroup.com/archives/cocc0208.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.postwritersgroup.com/archives/cocc0208.htm</a></p>
<p> It says:</p>
<p>&#8220;By the White House&#8217;s own account, people who opt for personal accounts would first have to agree to deep benefit cuts in the guaranteed portion of Social Security. Then at retirement, they would be required to purchase an annuity &#8212; a contract for fixed, monthly benefits to be paid out over their remaining years &#8212; and not treat the account as a lump sum to use as they wish. If a retiree dies at say, age 68, the rest of the annuity would be lost. The monthly benefit dies with the person who owns it.&#8221;</p>
<p>Is this just horse-swaggle?  If anyone can find soem kind of proof to this issue feel free to post it here.</p>
<p>Also further defenses or attacks on Private Accounts is more than welcome.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://www.duckgoesmoo.com/uncategorized/third-post-within-one-hour/comment-page-1/#comment-842</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Apr 2005 07:39:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-842</guid>
		<description>Here, check out this site:&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/social-security&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
and this one:&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/social-security/200501/socialsecurity.pdf&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;
There is nothing there about the government taking away any of your personal account.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here, check out this site:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/social-security" rel="nofollow">http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/social-security</a></p>
<p>and this one:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/social-security/200501/socialsecurity.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/social-security/200501/socialsecurity.pdf</a></p>
<p>There is nothing there about the government taking away any of your personal account.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

