SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Cogito who wrote (672303)2/15/2005 2:28:52 PM
From: Johannes Pilch  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
I agree with much of what you say. Here's a question worth pondering, though. Should the government provide no safety net for its citizens?

Not a forced one. We are not slaves. We are born free agents by right of nature.

What about a person who works hard, prudently puts away money for retirement in "safe" investments, then sees his savings decimated just when its time to retire because the markets crash?

What about a person who works hard, etc., then sees his savings literally stolen in broad daylight by government inflation, or sees his social security "savings" inflated away, or sees his social security threatened by a crisis that we by turns claim exists and does not exist? There are no guarantees here, friend, not even government sponsored guarantees. It is all a gamble. There are opportunities for success and failure everywhere. The best we can do is act in such a way where we are not intentionally the cause of another's failure.

When government forcibly takes money from someone and then forces them to invest it (whether in SS or in Bush's thing), then should that investment go belly up, government is directly to be blamed. Even should government force us to invest and our investment does well, the idea that the government forced us to eat and live a certain way should be nauseating to any freedom-loving American.

We ought to be free to make our own choices, including choices that hopefully allow us to retire comfortably as we conceive comfort.



To: Cogito who wrote (672303)2/15/2005 2:35:21 PM
From: Wayners  Respond to of 769667
 
I agree with much of what you say. Here's a question worth pondering, though. Should the government provide no safety net for its citizens?

The U.S. Constitution answers this question. The Congress is required to promote the general welfare...not provide it. the Congress should promote savings and invesment, not require it.