Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
John H wrote:
You have a reference for this, right? The TSP has been used repeatedly as an example of the type of account the personal account would be. Yep... "an example" not the exact same plan. You think that Congress i going to let the average citizen join in their investment plan? That has about as much odds as them letting citizens join in their health care plan. You're reiterating the distortions and outright lies of the Bush-Cheney spin machine. Show me a lie with respect to the personal savings account. That it's a "choice." That people opposed to Bush's plan are somehow against individuals saving & investing their own money. That the gov't isn't taking your money in the first place. That Social Security is in serious financial trouble That "private investment" is somehow going to help cover the potential Social Security shortfall in 30+ years The taking and putting into a personal savings account is voluntary. The other option isn't. And where does the SS payout come from, that these "voluntary personal savings accounts" would normally have gone to cover? Bigger gov't deficit spending, maybe? ... Again, do we assume people have the responsibility to make baby-killing decisions but not monthly investment decisions? This seems to be a buzz-phrase for you. Where does this come from? Are people not able to make savings & investment decisions now? Preventing the diversion of Social Security taxes into "private investment accounts" in no way diminishes people's ability to invest their money as they choose. Sure it does. If I had the choice, I'd rather see half my Social Security withdrawals going into an investment over which I had some control. So why aren't you saving & investing an equal amount of money already? ... By denying me that opportunity, you are, in fact, diminishing my ability to invest my money as I choose. Nope. You've got exactly the same opportunity you always had... the difference is that the money the gov't takes away from you is going to cover Social Security obligations (or buy Treasuries, thus helping underwrite the U.S. national debt) instead of being handed to Wall St and then kicked back to certain favored political campaign funds. The 'buzz-phrase' is applicable. You pro-choice folks are anti-choice here Nope. Distortion and fantasy on your part, to cover up your own lack of initiative & fiscal responsibility. WTF is "conservative" about that? DSK |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
OT Conservative pigs! What do you think NOW? | General | |||
OT The Conservative Brain | General |