posted
The fees paid to brokers and money manager's could run into the BILLIONS!!!! Is Bush and his aides trying to sow ignorance to gain support for their Flawed privatization agenda?????
Posts: 73 | From: Arkansas | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Allowing people to invest some of the money the government steals from them (for involuntary social seciurtity retirement) is wrong - they might lose in their private investments.
In fact all investment is wrong and should be prohibited by the government. This includes starting a businesss, which is a big gamble and often loses money for investors.
Come to think of it, all private ownership is wrong - the government should run all business so nobody would ever lose money starting or running a business.
Certainly we should start the takeover of business by not allowing private investment with money the government forces most citizens to pay into Social Security. Naturally government elected officials and workers should continue to not be forced to pay into Social Security so they can invest this money privately, on their own.
Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Art: Allowing people to invest some of the money the government steals from them (for involuntary social seciurtity retirement) is wrong - they might lose in their private investments.
In fact all investment is wrong and should be prohibited by the government. This includes starting a businesss, which is a big gamble and often loses money for investors.
Come to think of it, all private ownership is wrong - the government should run all business so nobody would ever lose money starting or running a business.
Certainly we should start the takeover of business by not allowing private investment with money the government forces most citizens to pay into Social Security. Naturally government elected officials and workers should continue to not be forced to pay into Social Security so they can invest this money privately, on their own.
best bit of satire i've seen in months Art 5 stars...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
there is one little problem that i am concerned about tho...those of us that are now contributing, and are at the tail-end of the baby-boomers will see a decrease in the "kitty".... because the money that is supposed to be going into it will decrease even more..i assume that they have a plan to cover this that i am unaware of....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: there is one little problem that i am concerned about tho...those of us that are now contributing, and are at the tail-end of the baby-boomers will see a decrease in the "kitty".... because the money that is supposed to be going into it will decrease even more..i assume that they have a plan to cover this that i am unaware of....
So who has the responsibility in this?
Liberals say government must take care of individuals - which is why we can't let people invest any part of their payin to Social Security (it's their money) in stocks since we want to ptrotect them from losing money even though they will make money than they lose, on the average).
Conservatives say the individual is responsible for theirself - not the rest of us.Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
and they aren't gonna be able to honor the committment to the last of the baby boomers...
the new plan is exactly what Nanny said it is Art...
i am not whining, i'll take care of myself...but i'll be surrounded by people that have nothing...
cuz the plan is to take it all and you know it and you like it...you say that in so many words...
the elder baby boomers have been doing this since the corporate raidership of the 80's....take what you want and leave the bill for the babies...spiritual hypothermia
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: the govt. takes it....
and they aren't gonna be able to honor the committment to the last of the baby boomers...
the new plan is exactly what Nanny said it is Art...
i am not whining, i'll take care of myself...but i'll be surrounded by people that have nothing...
cuz the plan is to take it all and you know it and you like it...you say that in so many words...
the elder baby boomers have been doing this since the corporate raidership of the 80's....take what you want and leave the bill for the babies...spiritual hypothermia
Yes, both parties have been borrowing from Social Security for many years. The problem now is that money coming in is not enough, given that the money doesn't appreciate that much in the Social Security fund (1% or so per year) and the payout will be higher than the payin unless we either reduce the payout or increase the payin. But why is Bush's plan flawed as you and Nanny assert? Bush is stuck with a Social Security problem starting over 40 years ago and increasing to the present. Bush just wants to enable people to appreciate their retirement more with some private stock investment - if they choose. No one will be forced to do this.
Why is this flawed? What specifically is Bush doing to screw the baby boomers - this was done by Democrats as well as Republicans for over 40 years and Bush is the first to want to clean up the mess.Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: what do repubs and dems have to do with it Art? i tole ya, i are a GOP....
Just pointing out that both parties are to blame for the current mess, and that Bush is the solution and not the problem.
Liberals will try to say otherwise (and lie in doing so) since they want big, inefficient government (a losing Social Security managed by a huge governmental bureacracy, instead of by efficient private effort by individuals. Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Art: Yes, and a gift to business and to the economy - we all will benefit from more investment into stocks - even those who don't invest will benefit from an expanding economy. Without such investment no nation can raise their standard of living. China is doing everything it can to get more money invested in their companies - they now are at the stage where we were many years ago.
News flash to liberals: Business is our friend and not our enemy. We all benefit from the expansion of business. Those who disagree should move to Cuba.
glassman: the concept was social SECURITY...you can KISS both portions of that concept goodbye....
Art: No one will force anyone out of the present system - private investment is an option. It will be as secure as ever, just more rewarding for those who choose to invest. Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
once again you are making predictions as if they are fact... we have no plan in effect yet, and you know as well as i do, that they will be reducing the money going to the actual SS system... if people want to and have the inclination they can invest ALREADY...
furthermore we are just beginning to see the effects of private funding and investing in retirement funds..ENRON mean anything to you? oh yeah, that guy Kenneth Lay, who had back door access to the White House, no matter WHO was in office?
something does need to be done, BUT, if a DEM was in office? the same argument would be going on with different parties taking different sides...the two parties aren't THAT different.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
glassman: once again you are making predictions as if they are fact...we have no plan in effect yet, and you know as well as i do, that they will be reducing the money going to the actual SS system...
Art: Once again you misconstrue what I said in order to argue against it. No predictions were made by me. I simply said that we need to either increase the amount we take (rob, since it is mandatory) from workers for Social Security or decrease the amount awe pay on retirement. This is not Bush's fault - all adminsrations have ignored the problem for years and Bush is the first to try to solve it.
glassman: if people want to and have the inclination they can invest ALREADY...
Art: For many people all they would have to invest is what they are forced to pay into Social Security, whre they can not invest it. The liberals want to keep it this way. Conservatives and Bush want to change this to allow workers to invest their money for retirement. This is a nobrainer - those with nobrains are against the conservatives.
glassman: furthermore we are just beginning to see the effects of private funding and investing in retirement funds..ENRON mean anything to you? oh yeah, that guy Kenneth Lay, who had back door access to the White House, no matter WHO was in office?
Art: Are you saying that no money can be made by investing it in the stock market, or more money is lost than made by investing in the stock market? If not what are you saying?
glassman: something does need to be done, BUT, if a DEM was in office? the same argument would be going on with different parties taking different sides...the two parties aren't THAT different.
Art: Yes, we need to either increase payin or reduce payout, or both. The two parties are different. The conservatives want to allow private investment and the liberals want to keep the money from being invested (reamaining at low appreciation).
Liberals would want to force the rich to put in more to pay for the poor, in income redistribution (communism), as is being done in taxation. This sounds great to most people, since there are very few rich to object and many more poor to endorse the idea. Problem is, as you redisribute income to "give each according to his need", you destroy incentive - communism doesn't work as it pulls everyone down to a low standard of living. Cuba is an example and Canada, France and Germany are deteriorating as their standard of living is slowly reducing relative to the U.S.
Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK i agree, it is robbery, but, the idea is to make sure we aren't living in a 3rd world country...i've been in a few, and the real problems (where i went) wasn't that the "mindless masses" didn't want to live a good life or were overly lazy. it was that the overlords were too greedy to allow for true growth...
the 30's aren't that far awy from us...
yet we are forgetting the harsh lessons...
you think crime is bad now? just make it harder for people to get by....
i find the idea of privatizing SS to be a sort of paradox...or maybe it's just a chimera..socialized capitalism?hmmmmmm
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: OK i agree, it is robbery, but, the idea is to make sure we aren't living in a 3rd world country...i've been in a few, and the real problems (where i went) wasn't that the "mindless masses" didn't want to live a good life or were overly lazy. it was that the overlords were too greedy to allow for true growth...
the 30's aren't that far awy from us...
yet we are forgetting the harsh lessons...
you think crime is bad now? just make it harder for people to get by....
Yes, when the rich have the power to exploit the poor, they will do it to the fullest. Rich plantation owners will pay slave wages if they can get away with it - revolution is frequent here. However, with industralization, the rich will try to expand their business, but need investment capital to do it. As their businesses expand, more jobs improves an expanding economy, and raises the standard of living for the poor ("What is good for General motors is good for the country.", is true.)
A future depression will be bloody, with roving gangs robbing and killing. Stockpile weapons and ammo now! Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
(plantation owners)... we now call 'em Producers will be even more mechanised in ten years than they are now...i saw they now have a GPS monitored/controlled steering system for farm equipment that allows the Producers to sit at their PC while the crops get their attentions...
RFID will do away with a SIGNIFICANT amount of labor at the retail level...
socialism will (unfortunately) be unavoidable...
exploiting is a harsh word, i prefer utilizing....
i don't hold the "liberal" view that capitalism is wrong..heck i'm here aren't i?
i'm just not sure how we will hold it together..i think you agreed with me that China will look more like US and we will look more like china in the future....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
glassman: (plantation owners)... we now call 'em Producers will be even more mechanised in ten years than they are now...i saw they now have a GPS monitored/controlled steering system for farm equipment that allows the Producers to sit at their PC while the crops get their attentions...
RFID will do away with a SIGNIFICANT amount of labor at the retail level...
Art: Good points. But business will adapt by keeping workers in some tasks - they will always depend having workers as a source of a consumer market. Eliminate too many jobs and you eliminate customers for your products, and there goes your market. Business capitalists are parasites to workers just as workers are parasites to business - adjustments will be made to not kill off either host.
glassman: socialism will (unfortunately) be unavoidable...
Art: Not true. We can't afford to support people who are parasites on society - taking more from the nation than they give and reproducing more of their kind. This is what socialism does - supports and reproduces parasites. These people must be reduced in number in a nation able to comptete with other nations and enjoy a good standard of living.
glassman: exploiting is a harsh word, i prefer utilizing....
Art: Utilization as in using? Exploitation occurs from very mild to very cruel degrees - always involves taking more than benefiting.
glassman: i'm just not sure how we will hold it together..i think you agreed with me that China will look more like US and we will look more like china in the future....
Art: Well, yes, now that you reminded me. We will become more socialistic but may then swing back once we see the disasterous results - post Hillary era.
In some ways China is less socialistic than us - harsher on criminals for instance
Population is far too high - need wars, and acts of God (natural disasters, famine, disease, etc.) to greatly reduce the world's population. Where the hell is God when you need to kill off 10 million or more people? Would a great worldwide rain and flood still work?
Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
