On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:50:52 -0500, DSK wrote:

You are in favor of socialism when you find it convenient for yourself,
and condemn socialism harshly at all other times.


Dave Hall wrote:
I am not in favor of socialism at any time. I am in favor of making
people independent of the need for government handouts at the expense
of other people (Which IS socialism). Social security in its present
form is basically socialism. Putting that same money into individual
accounts is not.


Really?

Having the gov't take money away from you on the assumption that you are
too dumb or too frivolous to save for your own future sound like
socialism to me.


It sounds like it to you, because you don't fully understand the
concepts of socialism.

Socialism is based on the concept "From those according to means to
those according to need", IOW a government mandated redistribution of
wealth. On the other hand, when you mandate that an individual save
HIS OWN MONEY to use for retirement, you are not redistributing
someone else's wealth. You are only "encouraging" an individual to
provide for their own retirement by using their OWN money.



The one saving grace of this "plan" is that so far, people saving &
investing on their own is not outlawed... yet.

Why should it be?



If you find this fact about your beliefs and principles uncomfortable,
maybe you should do some thinking.


Maybe you should follow your own advice.


Dave, I can explain & justify my beliefs and principles. You seem to
consistently fall short, and you frequently get angry about it.

Your explanations are little more than the regurgitation of someone
else's biased opinions (The quip about Bush feeding wall street for
example). I have no need to get angry in order to point out what's so
glaringly obvious.


The government already takes that money from us in the form of SS
(Which is more akin to socialism). By placing that money instead, in
an individual private account, that money belongs to the individual,
not to the government

Hardly. It doesn't "belong" to the individual until that individual
reaches retirement age. Until then, it belongs to the gov't or in this
particular case to the investment professionals the gov'thas handed it to.

No, it belongs (in trust) to the individual. Because it is a
retirement account, you can't legally touch it before retirement age.
But the government cannot "raid" it to fund other programs either.


.... and will be available for them to tap when they
retire, or to leave to their dependents when they die.

Now there's a big plus. Of course, dependents get SS benefits already...
oops better not mention that...

Yea, someone else's benefits. That's part of the reason why SS is
slowly failing.


... The biggest
benefit is that this money is outside of the governmental till

No, it isn't. It is being handed over monthly by the gov't to gov't
chosen investment managers.

But it's not money that the government can "appropriate" for other
projects. That money is to be held in trust for the investor.


the need for people to tap the government for aid, will lessen,

Really? Will people learn to manage their own money wisely?

Possibly. Possibly not. But it's time that we lessen the burden of
those who don't on the rest of society. If they **** away their own
retirement money, then that's on them.


meaning less socialism, as people are depending on their own income.


Meaning that the gov't will quit taking so much money away from them in
the first place?

Meaning that what the government takes in the name of investment, the
investor gets to keep.



Now tell me again, which political party is in favor of not intruding on
people's lives and maintaining Constitutional freedoms?

The republicans of course. We'd rather make people independent from
the need for government handouts.

But you want the gov't to intrude into people's savings & investments,
of course.

It's better for the government to force people to save their own money
than to force the rest of us to pay for those who don't.


You seem to think that people should be dependent on the
gov't to help them save money for their own future.

As long as there are people who simply cannot be responsible, then I
guess that's the way it is. But by making them save their own money,
they are not a drain on the rest of us.


You seem to think
that nobody can make intelligent investments without gov't help.

My, my, talk about binary extremism. When did I ever state that
"nobody" can make intelligent investments? Or are you just getting
"angry"?


And of
course, selected private businesses will profit from this intrusion...
that's the Republican way...

Those same select private businesses already profit from everyone who
has stocks, bonds, a 401K, or any other investment portfolio. They
provide a service. They are entitled to receive compensation for that.
Why is that such a bitter pill for you to swallow?

Dave