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

To: skinowski who wrote (529340)2/1/2013 12:54:30 PM
From: LindyBill1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793996
 
I'm not averse to the idea of forced savings, no matter how "un-libertarian" it may be.

Human nature being as it is, I have to agree. If it had been "forced savings," we would not be in as much trouble today.



To: skinowski who wrote (529340)2/1/2013 1:34:13 PM
From: DMaA  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793996
 
I'm not averse to the idea of forced savings,

I am because if a government is doing the forcing then they are in charge of investing it. And I don't want the Federal Government in control of a large fraction of the capital base of the country.



To: skinowski who wrote (529340)2/1/2013 5:17:53 PM
From: ManyMoose  Respond to of 793996
 
Believe me, I understand 'trust funds'. It means you can't trust the politicos to stay out of them if they want to spend more than they have. I used to administer a trust fund for reforestation on my projects. Every year I had to balance the amount I had in the fund with my needs. Politicos would 'borrow' it. They always paid the fund back, because they can create money out of thin air.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News