"Jeff Rigby" wrote in message
news

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...

"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"HarryKrause" wrote in message
...


Fifty-three percent of Americans say they oppose a proposal that would
"allow workers to invest part of their Social Security taxes in the
stock market or in bonds, while the rest of those taxes would remain in
the Social Security system." Just 44% favor this. These results are
nearly identical to those measured in late April.



I wonder how these numbers compare to the percentages of people with at
least some money in the stock market or mutual funds?


I'm in favor of private accounts, and they'd be here already if Bush had
presented them properly. All that was needed was an expansion and
relaxation of IRA and 401k plans and contributions, funded by enabling a
dollar for dollar deduction off of income taxes due.

I agree. But we should get to keep some of the FICA that we currently
pay out if we're never going to get Social Security anyhow. That's all
Bush is proposing.

That will never happen. That plan would 1) take money out of the general
revenue 2) Only benifit the rich

You're correct. And here's why: the rich pay the most money into the
"general revenue". If you let them take their money out of the "general
revenue", there wouldn't be much in there at the end of the day.

But social security wasn't designed to be a program to redistribute wealth.
And that is what it has become. No wonder the Dems like it so much...and
the Republicans despise it.




The plan Bush proposed for the general public is what Congressional
employees are getting now. A poll should ask if they would like the same
plan government workers get. Most would vote for that plan. As soon as
the Bush plan is mentioned they say no because the Democrats are very good
at misleading their own.

"The Democrats are very good at misleading their own."
;-) ;-) ;-)

... But we should get to keep some of the FICA that we currently
pay out if we're never going to get Social Security anyhow. That's all
Bush is proposing.


Huh? Bush is proposing shutting off Social Security altogether? That's a
new one.


That will never happen. That plan would 1) take money out of the general
revenue 2) Only benifit the rich


That's right, heaven forbid that President Bush do anything that
benefits only the rich!


NOYB wrote:
You're correct. And here's why: the rich pay the most money into the
"general revenue".

And here's why 'the rich' *should* pay the most money into the general
revenue: they get most of the nation's income and control more than most
of the nation's wealth.

Doesn't it sound fair that they should pay a fair portion of the total
tax bill? Somehow, that part of it never gets mentioned by pro-Bush
'conservatives.'


But social security wasn't designed to be a program to redistribute wealth.

Yes, it was. It was a redistribution program from day one, a Ponzi
scheme... illegal for private citizens, but gov'ts get to make their own
rules!

And that is what it has become. No wonder the Dems like it so much...and
the Republicans despise it.

No, I think that many Republicans despise Social Security for the same
reason they despise the French, because a lot of money has been spent to
monopolize the airwaves, drumming those thoughts into everybody's head.
Fortunately some of us can still think on our own.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
... But we should get to keep some of the FICA that we currently pay
out if we're never going to get Social Security anyhow. That's all
Bush is proposing.


Huh? Bush is proposing shutting off Social Security altogether? That's a
new one.


That will never happen. That plan would 1) take money out of the general
revenue 2) Only benifit the rich


That's right, heaven forbid that President Bush do anything that benefits
only the rich!


NOYB wrote:
You're correct. And here's why: the rich pay the most money into the
"general revenue".

And here's why 'the rich' *should* pay the most money into the general
revenue: they get most of the nation's income and control more than most
of the nation's wealth.

Doesn't it sound fair that they should pay a fair portion of the total tax
bill? Somehow, that part of it never gets mentioned by pro-Bush
'conservatives.'


But social security wasn't designed to be a program to redistribute
wealth.

Yes, it was. It was a redistribution program from day one, a Ponzi
scheme... illegal for private citizens, but gov'ts get to make their own
rules!

And that is what it has become. No wonder the Dems like it so much...and
the Republicans despise it.

No, I think that many Republicans despise Social Security for the same
reason they despise the French, because a lot of money has been spent to
monopolize the airwaves, drumming those thoughts into everybody's head.
Fortunately some of us can still think on our own.

Or perhaps we despise it because of the reason you listed above: it's a
system designed to redistribute wealth.

... I think that many Republicans despise Social Security for the same
reason they despise the French, because a lot of money has been spent to
monopolize the airwaves, drumming those thoughts into everybody's head.
Fortunately some of us can still think on our own.


NOYB wrote:
Or perhaps we despise it because of the reason you listed above: it's a
system designed to redistribute wealth.


Are Republicans that stupid? On one level or another, *everything* is a
system to redistribute the wealth. So, logically one would expect
Republicans to hate everything... actually some Republicans talk as if
they do hate everything including themselves & their country, but let's
skip over that quickly...

Any exchange of goods or services redistributes the wealth. Do you work
for free? No? I don't either. So maybe you should rethink your position
on this one.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
... I think that many Republicans despise Social Security for the same
reason they despise the French, because a lot of money has been spent to
monopolize the airwaves, drumming those thoughts into everybody's head.
Fortunately some of us can still think on our own.


NOYB wrote:
Or perhaps we despise it because of the reason you listed above: it's a
system designed to redistribute wealth.

Are Republicans that stupid? On one level or another, *everything* is a
system to redistribute the wealth. So, logically one would expect
Republicans to hate everything... actually some Republicans talk as if
they do hate everything including themselves & their country, but let's
skip over that quickly...

Any exchange of goods or services redistributes the wealth. Do you work
for free? No? I don't either. So maybe you should rethink your position on
this one.

It's an *involuntary* redistribution of wealth.

Any exchange of goods or services redistributes the wealth. Do you work
for free? No? I don't either. So maybe you should rethink your position on
this one.


NOYB wrote:
It's an *involuntary* redistribution of wealth.


That makes *slightly* more sense, except that it begs the question of
what kind of wealth redistribution is truly voluntary.

However, let's just toss out the fact that there are a LOT of things,
like foreign aid and military budgets, that are also involuntary
redistributions of the wealth.

Before you start ranting about how much you hate foreign aid, let me
point out that Pesident Bush just promised a large increase in foreign
aid...

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Any exchange of goods or services redistributes the wealth. Do you work
for free? No? I don't either. So maybe you should rethink your position
on this one.


NOYB wrote:
It's an *involuntary* redistribution of wealth.


That makes *slightly* more sense, except that it begs the question of what
kind of wealth redistribution is truly voluntary.



However, let's just toss out the fact that there are a LOT of things, like
foreign aid and military budgets, that are also involuntary
redistributions of the wealth.

Before you start ranting about how much you hate foreign aid, let me point
out that Pesident Bush just promised a large increase in foreign aid...

I hate foreign aid. Maybe he meant he was going to increase foreign AIDS?