Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: flatsville who wrote (33646)	11/3/2000 2:41:58 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

I would love to keep arguing with you but this is really not the thread, IMO. Why don't you start a moderated political discussion thread so we can keep off the loonies?

To: flatsville who wrote (33646)	11/3/2000 2:42:26 PM
From: IceShark	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

Your evil side is showing. I say let them all fry in hell. -vbg-

To: flatsville who wrote (33646)	11/3/2000 2:46:57 PM
From: Terry Whitman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

Vote Socialist. Cause you know we're gonna win in the end anyway. hohoho You aint all bad. At least you never voted for a Kennedy. <g> 207.61.23.98 10 yr. rates are threatening to break the downtrend. That may be bad for socialist robot man. He better get on the horn to Summers and have him buy some more bonds back.

To: flatsville who wrote (33646)	11/3/2000 2:55:17 PM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 436258

<with two dependent daughters who is now 83 and impoverished despite a lifetime of full employment with no pension other than Social Security and no health care coverage other than Medicare "make it happen for herself?"> Two daughters. look, seriously... IMO where the republicans have it over the dems is by calling a spade a spade instead of mishmashing everything together with zillions of programs. Neither of the cases you sighted would starve under either administration. DAK

To: flatsville who wrote (33646)	11/3/2000 3:31:01 PM
From: Sunny Jim	Respond to of 436258

You bring up some very good examples, and I firmly believe that there should be government programs to help those people. However, I would argue that helping government programs have gone waaaaaaay too far. It used to be (and this was before the government relieved us all of this responsibility) that, to the best of their abilities, people took care of their family members, particularly the elderly. People worked hard, saved for a rainy day, and those that did a good job all their life, retired on savings. I had two sets of grandparents (my dad's parents were dry land farmers) that suffered through the depression, yet were able to retire with something. Whoops, that's not fair - they had social security but it was truly just a supplement then. Anyway, a whole lot of people don't worry about retirement now and certainly don't save for it, because the government has relieved them of the responsibility. And the government has also taken over the well being of the elderly so we now rely on (and demand more) government programs from housing to medical care to income. Some of this is good, but the difficult problem is, where do we draw the line. It is easy to promise and give more and more benefits, because that results in votes. Reducing benefits results in votes, but for the other guy. So a candidate's job is to see if they can promise more than the other guy. The best promiser wins the prize, but what this actually does is attract liars to politics. A person that can't lie well doesn't get elected. Slick is a great example of a master. Gore tries hard, but gets caught often.

To: flatsville who wrote (33646)	11/3/2000 3:40:06 PM
From: Ken98	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

Flats, no disrespect intended, but civilization progressed just fine for thousands of years until FDR created the Nanny-State. This progress was based upon families and religous organizations fulfilling these social welfare roles. While I agree that there should be some form of governmental social safety net, I do not agree with the massive generational transfer of wealth that has taken place over the last 30 years. The problems with the Federal entitlement programs are not the woebegone examples to which you cite, but rather the able bodied persons to whom Federal tax dollars are redistributed solely on the basis of their age. My generation will not see a dime of return for the confiscatory taxes we will pay during our working lives. The younger generations get the 'ol triple whammy - confiscatory taxes, no benefits, and having to save for themselves. Have a good weekend, Ken.