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.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (129839)	3/1/2001 11:42:29 AM
From: aknahow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Too bad Social Security is a political issue rather than a common sense issue. The current return on the taxes taken from workers is 2%. This type of return would get a financial advisor in trouble when the yield on U.S. Government Securities is over double that and even compounding is disregarded. Worse yet is that groups with a shorter life-span do not live long enough to receive full benefits. Both parties worked? When both retire and one dies the benefits will not exceed the higher of the two payments. Since tax payers do not own their contributions they can't pass on what could have been their own savings to their families. As structured the system discriminates against the poor and minorities. It is a sad joke that those who claim to speak the loudest for the "oppressed" are also those that oppose reforming the system. Privatization is long overdue.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (129839)	3/2/2001 6:59:20 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769667

The Democrats (led by Gore) proposed nothing except trillion of dollars in more spending initiatives. Bush has set aside a trillion dollars in contingency planning which should assuage your fear regarding partial privatization. Remember he only proposed 2%. I trust in people more than I do the government to invest their retirement savings. The money not taken by the government doesn't disappear. The money simply stays with the people who earned it to begin with. As far as I'm concerned, Social Security, as it is designed today, is immoral. Someone could save for 40 years, then die, and nothing is left to their family. We should reduce taxes for the same reason. Not because we have a surplus, or because we need to boost the economy. But because it's immoral to take so much money from hard working American families and transfer it to the government. I agree with President Bush that 1/3 of someones income is the most we should ask for at the federal level. And we should continue to reduce the rate on lower income earners. "Tax day" has continued to grow and grow. Shall we wait until it's October or November before we scale back the cost of government? In a nation founded on the principle of liberty and freedom, we are not free if we owe the state 50% - 80% of our life energy. Michael p.s. I agree Daschle is a fool. But for completely different reasons.