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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: haqihana who wrote (113127)	5/9/2005 10:37:52 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793957

I'm not being high and mighty, because I was one of those drunks, but still worked hard enough to pay in the maximum of SS portion for 35 years. If that could have been put into a personal account, it would have tripled by avoiding the red tape of being handled by government employees. For you, it would have worked better. Instead of putting money into social security, you would have done a lot better investing your own money. You could make that argument. Somehow, I don't think so. Like most people, I think you would have spent that money in some other way and you would not be getting the benefits of a social security check in your later years.

To: haqihana who wrote (113127)	5/9/2005 10:59:17 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793957

Regardless of how altruistic this sounds, is smacks of socialism. The rewards you speak of to be shared, are the result of a portion of the population that works, builds, and invests, to accumulate the funds. There is no reason that they should be bound to share this with those that sat around on their butts and now want the producers to take care of those that fell behind by their own inaction. There are some thing we do as a nation. We all contribute to national defense and Homeland Security. We all watch the Superbowl and we all celebrate the fourth of July. The Constitution provides the means to live unburdened by an oppressive government. This is a great country and people in the prior generation helped to make it great. Social Security is a shared program to ensure that the elderly can minimally die with some degree of economic dignity. This is a shared program. Social Security does not provide for a life in luxury. It is a minimum requirement for an advanced society. It is not a program to share the GDP. It calls for the younger generation to pay in taxes to make up for any shortfall in social security payments. We are far from being a socialist country. At the same time we are not a dog eat dog society. There are somethings we do as a community. Providing for the minimal welfare of the elderly is not a bad community activity.