Stock market investing is far from risky

Mr. Thickstun, in his guest column "Gore's plan builds on benefits" (Sept. 4), has a strong grasp of such Democratic buzz phrases as "risky Republican schemes," but shows a lack of knowledge about investing in the stock market. Investing in public companies is not risky. If an investor's goal is to make a 50 percent return and, at retirement, he receives a 10 percent return, then, yes, a "risk" was taken and the investor "lost."\nWith today's roller coaster stock prices, investing can seem risky. However, over a long period of time, say 10 to 30 years or even longer, investments in the market will have a positive return if they are invested in a low- to moderate-risk stocks and mutual funds. Before the current stock market boom, these returns have ranged from 5 to 10 percent, with returns even as low as 5 percent being viewed as great returns.\nThe fact of the matter, which he and other Democrats often brush over or out-rightly ignore, is that the current Social Security system is not enough to cover a person's or couple's retirement. In fact, the benefits are so low that if one were to live strictly off Social Security benefits, that person would be living below poverty level. Private retirement accounts outside Social Security is a necessity for nearly all Americans to live comfortably during their Golden Years. But, for many poor and working class Americans, Social Security is their only retirement plan because they could not afford to set up private accounts, their employers did not offer an employee retirement plan or they did not realize how poor the state of our Social Security system truly is. Thickstun's statement, "Government, through Social Security, helps ensure we will be secure in our retirement," is an out-loudly laughable joke.\nSocial Security, by itself and in the current system, is not security and is more risky than the Republican plan for reform. Social Security needs massive reform for it to serve the American people and for it to be a viable retirement plan for future generations. Social Security has failed in its initial goal, "to encourage a greater security for each individual."\nThe condescending mentality of many Democrats, that the individual cannot decide what is best for himself, is truly at the heart of the debate over Social Security reform. "Government does for us collectively what we cannot do individually." Is deciding how our money is spent something that the American taxpayers cannot decide? Social Security funds are pulled directly from our paychecks. It is our collective money, not the government's money. The American citizen should decide the fate of that money and the ever so important program it funds. \nI ask the readers of Thickstun's column and those who might be in support of Gore's Social Security reform plan, to whom would you trust your money: an organization, such as our federal government, that owes trillions of dollars in debt and often cannot account for its losses, or a company, like many public companies, that consistently makes a profit and exceeds its annual projections? The decision is ours in November.\nBernadette Margare Mcintosh\nGraduate student