"John H" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 09:30:41 -0500, DSK wrote:


And don't forget fact #6- Social Security does not change the basic
reality that saving & investing your own money wisely is the best means
to providing a secure future for your family. President Bush's plan
doesn't change that either, nor does it encourage it much.

DSK

Ahh, finally. A comment that makes some sense.

The problem with those in the lower end of the income spectrum is that
they
don't have the extra money to save and invest wisely. They do, however,
have the
money to put into Social Security, because they have no choice.

Giving them a choice of where their SS money goes allows them the option
of
saving and investing wisely.

As well as accumulating wealth that can be passed to heirs.

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

And don't forget fact #6- Social Security does not change the basic
reality that saving & investing your own money wisely is the best means
to providing a secure future for your family. President Bush's plan
doesn't change that either, nor does it encourage it much.



John H wrote:
Ahh, finally. A comment that makes some sense.

The problem with those in the lower end of the income spectrum is that they
don't have the extra money to save and invest wisely.

Speak for yourself.

Except for the very lowest rungs of the economic ladder, it is fully
possible to save & invest.

It does require the self discipline to live within (or even below) one's
means. Solid investment advice is available for free at the nearest
public library... again, though, that requires self-discipline.

I see that you mix your "conservatism" with socialism, not having the
guts to drink it straight. Or to put it another way, you are only
willing to apply your moral principles when it's convenient.



Giving them a choice of where their SS money goes allows them the option of
saving and investing wisely.

So, you don't believe that people currently have a choice with their
money? Is this a capitalist country, or what?

DSK

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 11:44:55 -0500, DSK wrote:

And don't forget fact #6- Social Security does not change the basic
reality that saving & investing your own money wisely is the best means
to providing a secure future for your family. President Bush's plan
doesn't change that either, nor does it encourage it much.



John H wrote:
Ahh, finally. A comment that makes some sense.

The problem with those in the lower end of the income spectrum is that they
don't have the extra money to save and invest wisely.

Speak for yourself.

Except for the very lowest rungs of the economic ladder, it is fully
possible to save & invest.

And for those who can't?


It does require the self discipline to live within (or even below) one's
means. Solid investment advice is available for free at the nearest
public library... again, though, that requires self-discipline.

Self discipline and sufficient income. Yes, for those with extra money to
invest, advice is everywhere. That's not the issue.

I see that you mix your "conservatism" with socialism, not having the
guts to drink it straight. Or to put it another way, you are only
willing to apply your moral principles when it's convenient.

That paragraph makes little sense, other than as some sort of put down.

Giving them a choice of where their SS money goes allows them the option of
saving and investing wisely.

So, you don't believe that people currently have a choice with their
money? Is this a capitalist country, or what?

People currently have no choice as to the investment of their SS money.

DSK

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

Except for the very lowest rungs of the economic ladder, it is fully
possible to save & invest.


John H wrote:
And for those who can't?


You want the gummint to step in and coddle people who don't have the
self-discipline to provide for themselves?



It does require the self discipline to live within (or even below) one's
means. Solid investment advice is available for free at the nearest
public library... again, though, that requires self-discipline.


Self discipline and sufficient income. Yes, for those with extra money

That's ridiculous. Nobody has "extra money." Not you, me, not poor
people, nor millionaires. There is only the self-discipline to live
within your means, and save, and the lack of that self-discipline.

... to
invest, advice is everywhere.

Including bad advice. That's why the public library is a great place to
start... costs nothing, nobody trying to sell you anything, no vested
interests pushing their "plan."




People currently have no choice as to the investment of their SS money.


And there is no reason why the people should have yet another intrusive
gov't program that takes money away from them. If you want the people to
have choice, why not let them keep that money in the first place?

A reduction in SS taxes would be better all the way around.... except
that President Bush could not then funnel that money into the "right"
pockets...

DSK

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 16:54:10 -0500, DSK wrote:

Except for the very lowest rungs of the economic ladder, it is fully
possible to save & invest.


John H wrote:
And for those who can't?


You want the gummint to step in and coddle people who don't have the
self-discipline to provide for themselves?



It does require the self discipline to live within (or even below) one's
means. Solid investment advice is available for free at the nearest
public library... again, though, that requires self-discipline.


Self discipline and sufficient income. Yes, for those with extra money

That's ridiculous. Nobody has "extra money." Not you, me, not poor
people, nor millionaires. There is only the self-discipline to live
within your means, and save, and the lack of that self-discipline.

I guess we can do away with *any* form of welfare then.

... to
invest, advice is everywhere.

Including bad advice. That's why the public library is a great place to
start... costs nothing, nobody trying to sell you anything, no vested
interests pushing their "plan."

And just as much bad advice, except it's 'free' bad advice.


People currently have no choice as to the investment of their SS money.


And there is no reason why the people should have yet another intrusive
gov't program that takes money away from them. If you want the people to
have choice, why not let them keep that money in the first place?

Who said anything about 'another' program taking money? Same program, same
money. Just goes to a different place.


A reduction in SS taxes would be better all the way around.... except
that President Bush could not then funnel that money into the "right"
pockets...

I'd go for that, but those without the discipline to put the money into
investments would be in the same shape they're in now.

I realize you can't discuss without making your Bush attacks. So, I'll stop now.
Go ahead, say your piece. You'll get the last word, as O'Reilly says/

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:
I guess we can do away with *any* form of welfare then.


???

I don't see the connection between the gov't propping up credit-card
addicted middle class idiots & welfare... which BTW has been "ended as
we know it" for aboud a decade. Isn't it time you updated your prejudices?



.. the public library is a great place to
start... costs nothing, nobody trying to sell you anything, no vested
interests pushing their "plan."


And just as much bad advice, except it's 'free' bad advice.


And therefor doesn't start you off in the hole.

The fact that nobody at at the library is deliberately trying to sell
you an investment program or plan... which of course is profitable to
them, but not necessarily to you.... is the biggest reason to start there.


People currently have no choice as to the investment of their SS money.



That's largely because it's not invested.

And there is no reason why the people should have yet another intrusive
gov't program that takes money away from them. If you want the people to
have choice, why not let them keep that money in the first place?


Who said anything about 'another' program taking money? Same program, same
money. Just goes to a different place.

Does SS manage private investment accounts now?

Shake your head no

Will they under Bush's plan?

Nod your head yes.

Does that mean that the gov't is doing something new that it didn't do
before?

Nod your head yes.

Do you genuinely think that this is going to make the gov't department
involved smaller (which is supposedly one of Bush's few conservative
principles)?



A reduction in SS taxes would be better all the way around.... except
that President Bush could not then funnel that money into the "right"
pockets...


I'd go for that, but those without the discipline to put the money into
investments would be in the same shape they're in now.

And your point is?


I realize you can't discuss without making your Bush attacks.

You seem to think that pointing out facts is attacking President Bush.

DSK

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 11:44:55 -0500, DSK wrote:


The problem with those in the lower end of the income spectrum is that they
don't have the extra money to save and invest wisely.

Speak for yourself.

Except for the very lowest rungs of the economic ladder, it is fully
possible to save & invest.

It does require the self discipline to live within (or even below) one's
means. Solid investment advice is available for free at the nearest
public library... again, though, that requires self-discipline.

Which many people lack.


I see that you mix your "conservatism" with socialism, not having the
guts to drink it straight. Or to put it another way, you are only
willing to apply your moral principles when it's convenient.


It's not socialism in the truest sense. Socialism relies on the
government to provide to the "needy". In this scenario, the government
would only be mandating individual savings. That way, when you retire,
YOU are providing your income and NOT the government.



Giving them a choice of where their SS money goes allows them the option of
saving and investing wisely.

So, you don't believe that people currently have a choice with their
money? Is this a capitalist country, or what?

Some people make poor choices. Then they cry to the government when
they fall on their faces. THose of us, who make good choices, are then
asked to dig deeper in our pockets to "help" those who can't or refuse
to plan wisely. This is an unfair burden to those who are responsible
in their affairs.

Mandating that people save their own money for retirement provides
money for them at no extra cost to the other taxpayers.

Dave

I see that you mix your "conservatism" with socialism, not having the
guts to drink it straight. Or to put it another way, you are only
willing to apply your moral principles when it's convenient.



Dave Hall wrote:
It's not socialism in the truest sense.

And that makes it OK?

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

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



Mandating that people save their own money for retirement provides
money for them at no extra cost to the other taxpayers.


In other words, the gov't should force people to save up for a rainy
day, regardless of their income level (in fact, this program mandates
that those with large incomes save less)... just like legislating
morality, you now believe that we should legislate financial judgement &
self-discipline.

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

DSK

He's all yours, Dave. I can't put up with his deluge of ridiculous assertions.

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 08:49:01 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 11:44:55 -0500, DSK wrote:


The problem with those in the lower end of the income spectrum is that they
don't have the extra money to save and invest wisely.

Speak for yourself.

Except for the very lowest rungs of the economic ladder, it is fully
possible to save & invest.

It does require the self discipline to live within (or even below) one's
means. Solid investment advice is available for free at the nearest
public library... again, though, that requires self-discipline.

Which many people lack.


I see that you mix your "conservatism" with socialism, not having the
guts to drink it straight. Or to put it another way, you are only
willing to apply your moral principles when it's convenient.


It's not socialism in the truest sense. Socialism relies on the
government to provide to the "needy". In this scenario, the government
would only be mandating individual savings. That way, when you retire,
YOU are providing your income and NOT the government.



Giving them a choice of where their SS money goes allows them the option of
saving and investing wisely.

So, you don't believe that people currently have a choice with their
money? Is this a capitalist country, or what?

Some people make poor choices. Then they cry to the government when
they fall on their faces. THose of us, who make good choices, are then
asked to dig deeper in our pockets to "help" those who can't or refuse
to plan wisely. This is an unfair burden to those who are responsible
in their affairs.

Mandating that people save their own money for retirement provides
money for them at no extra cost to the other taxpayers.

Dave

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 12:27:39 -0500, DSK wrote:

I see that you mix your "conservatism" with socialism, not having the
guts to drink it straight. Or to put it another way, you are only
willing to apply your moral principles when it's convenient.



Dave Hall wrote:
It's not socialism in the truest sense.

And that makes it OK?

It does when you don't understand socialism as you apparently don't.


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

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.

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

Maybe you should follow your own advice.

Mandating that people save their own money for retirement provides
money for them at no extra cost to the other taxpayers.


In other words, the gov't should force people to save up for a rainy
day, regardless of their income level (in fact, this program mandates
that those with large incomes save less)... just like legislating
morality, you now believe that we should legislate financial judgement &
self-discipline.

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, and will be available for them to tap when they
retire, or to leave to their dependents when they die. The biggest
benefit is that this money is outside of the governmental till, and
the need for people to tap the government for aid, will lessen,
meaning less socialism, as people are depending on their own income.



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.

Dave