On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 19:48:01 -0500, John H
wrote:

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


Some people can't see the forest for the trees. But I keep hoping that
Doug either sees the light and learns something, or finally
acknowledges that he has more in common with liberals and stops
referring to himself as a conservative. He's giving the rest of us a
bad name.

Dave

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.

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


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.

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.



.... 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...

... 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.


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

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

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?




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. You seem to think that people should be dependent on the
gov't to help them save money for their own future. You seem to think
that nobody can make intelligent investments without gov't help. And of
course, selected private businesses will profit from this intrusion...
that's the Republican way...

DSK

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

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 06:50:21 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:

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


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

Do you reckon Doug puts his investment money under the mattress so the bankers
and Wall Street brokers don't get any of it?
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 07:42:29 -0500, John H
wrote:



On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 06:50:21 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:

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


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

Do you reckon Doug puts his investment money under the mattress so the bankers
and Wall Street brokers don't get any of it?

Maybe. He sure can't seem to grasp the concept of managed portfolios
and how they work. I guess he thinks that interest accumulates by
magic, and that no one has to administrate these accounts.

So there is a fee involved. As long as the fee is much less than
interest earned, where's the problem?

Dave

Dave Hall wrote:
So there is a fee involved. As long as the fee is much less than
interest earned, where's the problem?


The problem is that the gov't not the individual decides who gets the
profit.

But I gues that's "choice" in your book.

DSK

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 17:42:42 -0500, DSK wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
So there is a fee involved. As long as the fee is much less than
interest earned, where's the problem?


The problem is that the gov't not the individual decides who gets the
profit.

But I gues that's "choice" in your book.

As long as they pick the funds and firms who represent the best return
for investment, I have no problem.

Dave

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 17:42:42 -0500, DSK wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
So there is a fee involved. As long as the fee is much less than
interest earned, where's the problem?


The problem is that the gov't not the individual decides who gets the
profit.

But I gues that's "choice" in your book.

As long as they pick the funds and firms who represent the best return
for investment, I have no problem.

Dave


It seems that everyone is overlooking an obvious solution that seems to me
to have many advantages. The whole (supposed) motivation for partially
privatizing SS is the higher returns that the market will provide. The why
not have the SSA start redeeming the billions in treasury notes it holds and
use the cash, as well as part of current income, to invest broadly across
then entire stock market? This would in effect be a huge index fund and
would be vwey cheap and efficient to manage. The higher returns would go
into the general SS pot and be available to pay benefits in the future.
Advantages:

- Innumerable studies have shown that index investing gets a better return
than the majority of individually managed accounts, even those funds that
are managed by so-called pros. Thus most SS participants would be better off
than if they had individual accounts that they managed themselves.

- Untold billions of dollars that would otherwise be paid to financial firms
for managing the individual accounts will stay within the SS system, further
enhancing returns.

- No individual will be faced with an impoverished retirement because of bad
investment decisions or just plain bad luck.

- By redeeming some of the SS treasury bonds and not buying new ones it will
pressure the government (the non-SS part of it) to be more responsible
financially, to pay more attention to the budget deficit, and restrain
unfair tax cuts and unneeded spending.

But of course the Bush administration does not really want to "save" SS
(hence my "supposed") above. They want to do away with it altogether. This
(partial privatization) is the first step, just like the medicare
prescription benefit was the first step in getting rid of that government
program (by incewasing the program cost wile shifting more of the tax burden
to the middle class they hope to eventually built a lot of ppular
opposition). Bush himself is probably not smart enough to see what's
happening, nor are 99.9% of his supporters, but his neocon handlers know
exactly what they are doing.


--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

"Peter Aitken" wrote in message
om...
"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 17:42:42 -0500, DSK wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
So there is a fee involved. As long as the fee is much less than
interest earned, where's the problem?


The problem is that the gov't not the individual decides who gets the
profit.

But I gues that's "choice" in your book.

As long as they pick the funds and firms who represent the best return
for investment, I have no problem.

Dave


It seems that everyone is overlooking an obvious solution that seems to me
to have many advantages. The whole (supposed) motivation for partially
privatizing SS is the higher returns that the market will provide.

No, that is a partial reason. The other is returning the money to those
that earned it, not keeping it and doling it out as a welfare entitlement.

The why not have the SSA start redeeming the billions in treasury notes it
holds and use the cash, as well as part of current income, to invest
broadly across then entire stock market? This would in effect be a huge
index fund and would be vwey cheap and efficient to manage. The higher
returns would go into the general SS pot and be available to pay benefits
in the future.

Until the pols inside the beltway decide that company 'x' is not being PC
enough, and sell all the guvmint holding in said company.


Advantages:

- Innumerable studies have shown that index investing gets a better return
than the majority of individually managed accounts, even those funds that
are managed by so-called pros. Thus most SS participants would be better
off than if they had individual accounts that they managed themselves.

Horse****. Most people would be better off if the were allowed to maintain
pocession of the money they earn, rather than allowing the guvmint to
redistribute it through a SS system.


- Untold billions of dollars that would otherwise be paid to financial
firms for managing the individual accounts will stay within the SS system,
further enhancing returns.

Are you that clueless.


- No individual will be faced with an impoverished retirement because of
bad investment decisions or just plain bad luck.

Big daddy guvmint is the solution to all your problems?



- By redeeming some of the SS treasury bonds and not buying new ones it
will pressure the government (the non-SS part of it) to be more
responsible financially, to pay more attention to the budget deficit, and
restrain unfair tax cuts and unneeded spending.

Free hint for the clueless......the only way to 'redeem' those bonds is by
raising other taxes, running a larger deficit, or priting more money.


But of course the Bush administration does not really want to "save" SS
(hence my "supposed") above. They want to do away with it altogether.

Which is a good thing.

This (partial privatization) is the first step, just like the medicare
prescription benefit was the first step in getting rid of that government
program (by incewasing the program cost wile shifting more of the tax
burden to the middle class they hope to eventually built a lot of ppular
opposition). Bush himself is probably not smart enough to see what's
happening, nor are 99.9% of his supporters, but his neocon handlers know
exactly what they are doing.

You are obviously not smart enough to do anything except swallow the
liebrals talking points, hook line and sinker.



--
Peter Aitken

Remove the crap from my email address before using.

The problem is that the gov't not the individual decides who gets the
profit.



Dave Hall wrote:
As long as they pick the funds and firms who represent the best return
for investment, I have no problem.


So you think that it might be a teensy bit undesirable to have the gov't
steering the profit from your retirement funds to firms they choose?

What if they define "best return for the investment" differently that
you would? For example, 'best return donated from corporation into
certain campaign funds' which is exactly what Vice President Cheney was
talking about when this whole "Social Security reform plan" got started.

DSK