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: Mary Cluney who wrote (113135)	5/9/2005 11:42:39 AM
From: haqihana	Respond to of 793958

MC, Before there was SS, the family took care of their own elderly, and it worked out very well. Sharing should be something that a person wants to do, not something that he is forced to do. Decent people share, and would always share without the interference of any government. Funding the military, and Home Security, is like paying the premiums on an insurance policy. The payer gets something for his money, and it is more like a business contract. Not to burst your bubble, but everyone does NOT watch the super bowl, and not enough people in America properly celebrate the fourth of July. For Pete's sake, some Americans burn the American flag, and bigshot Hillary Rodham was one of them in her college days. Now, she and her ilk say the pledge of allegiance, which says "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America". What a hypocrite. If you expect the elderly to given this dignity in death, why should they have been forced to have a part of their paycheck docked? Just take it out of the general coffers if you want a "give away" program. Most of those that helped to make this nation great, are the ones that produced the wealth that has paid for the government projects. SS should not provide for any kind of luxury, and IMO that means that those that have amassed a certain amount of wealth, should not get any aid from SS, but then some would cry "foul", so why have a SS at all? This nation survived for 150 years without any thing like Social Security, so why was is to necessary to begin with? The why is, that FDR wanted to make the populace dependent on the federal government so they could be controlled by said government. It's the same thing with food stamps, and other forms of welfare. This nation is now into the third generation of welfare families that do not, and will not, even try to get a job, because they have settled in to feeding from the government trough. Providing for the minimal welfare of the elderly is not a bad community activity, but it should be voluntary instead of forced by the government. We are closer to a socialistic country than you may believe. When the government controls all of the actions of it's citizens, it is socialistic, and we are pretty damned close to that now. In some ways, there is nothing wrong with being dog eat dog. That is nature.

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (113135)	5/9/2005 12:08:10 PM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 793958

Social Security is no more welfare than group life insurance that most companies routinely offer. In order to cover folks who have medical problems, even those whose causes are often behavioral like lung cancer, heart problems, aids to name a few, rates for all must be moved up to cover all. If smart guys like JC and I wind up in lousy stocks, think of the masses investing in speculative mutuals.. Am i an elitist, not at all? I am a realist who knows that if i can screw up so can Joe Sixpack. I would go further with the indexing reform that Bush is talking about. I would exempt FICA and medicare from the first 20k of income and then tax all income at a reduced rate with no caps at all. Maybe that brings the total rate down from from 7+ to 5+. I would add the death tax to the mix too for a look see on how as we reduce it, we can apply the remainder to finance SS and medicare. I dont think we can reform one without the other and medicare problems are far more acute than SS. mike