Well, remember all the buzz about the "Give" lesislation that the House was looking at? Well, it passed the House, and on March 31 it passed in the Senate...but by another name. I'm concerned about it. I just don't think "mandatory" service of anyone at any age to any of Obama's favored nonprofits is a good idea. (Forgive my leap...but does anyone doubt it?) And, can you say..."Banana Republic"? I would appreciate hearing more informed minds on what the implications of this Senate bill was if anyone cares to comment. Thanks By the way, if you're concerned too about our freedoms being stolen from us, (and in classic cloak and mirror fashion!), do check out "taxdayteaparty.com". On April 15th it's going to be big in cities of every state. Is it just me or does anyone else find it to be very ironic that we've actually got a black man enslaving us all over again,? (Hope and Chains you can believe in, for sure!) Oh, but at least he's not a racist! Or is he? hmmmm. But, what can we expect when our kids (thanks to the NEA) don't learn their own country's history especially about why America became so great in the first place, not to mention the great men and women who played key roles and how they developed the Declaration of Independence to bring it into existence. "John Adams" is a great book about all of it, but today most kids don't even know who John Adams was. I think we need to wake up and quick. We need our freedoms, our schools, our businesses and our paychecks. Too many of us are willing to surrender these over to the government for cheap trinkets. It's such a shame...and the fact that you really don't even have to know a whole lot about history to find this all so repetitive... and yes, if it weren't so sad it would be boring. Oh well, I guess I might have kicked up a bit of a storm here...and I'll probably get a lot of emotional comments back from this. Well, that's OK...but, I'm not trying to go there, I'm really hoping to get some rational response about what others think here. Oh well, we'll see. Oh yes, I started off by asking if anyone knew more about the Senate Bill's version of the "GIVE" lesgislation which was passed earlier by the House, and now is passed in the Senate. I'll check back again, and I'll try to learn more about it myself in the meantime. Thanks for reading!
"GIVE" Act now passes in Senate?
- Thread starter bicycler
- Start date
wow, this post is a whole load of stream of consciousness right wing crazy. Hint for future postings: paragraphs are your friend.
I don't think the right has quite figured out the internets yet. At least they've mastered 'ctrl-c, ctrl-v' though.
Note to Possible Dudette:
Try one topic at a time and you won't sound like such a loon.
I suspect you are a Libertarian? They are the looniest....
-Robert
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,514
- 44
- 91
Yeah, you'd have to be a complete loon to think that people should have some personal accountability. :roll:
I agree that the OP is clearly screwed up, but please, let's not claim that such things are inherent in libertarianism.
ZV
Sorry, mate, but Libertarians get put in the same category as Chicago School of Economics economists, witchcraft, Zoroastrianism, and other squalid disorders of the brain. Since the Wall Street meltdown, I think the argument is now a mortal lock.
-Robert
Jaskalas
Lifer
- Jun 23, 2004
- 35,644
- 9,948
- 136
Originally posted by: chess9
Sorry, mate, but Libertarians get put in the same category as Chicago School of Economics economists, witchcraft, Zoroastrianism, and other squalid disorders of the brain. Since the Wall Street meltdown, I think the argument is now a mortal lock.
-Robert
Cause government making matters worse is proof that it should do so?
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: chess9
Sorry, mate, but Libertarians get put in the same category as Chicago School of Economics economists, witchcraft, Zoroastrianism, and other squalid disorders of the brain. Since the Wall Street meltdown, I think the argument is now a mortal lock.
-Robert
Cause government making matters worse is proof that it should do so?
Almost all government is poorly done, granted, but the option isn't to let the Libertarians have free rein. I want my roads fixed, schools improved, military to get the best weapons, and foreign service to work for peace. As for social security, the Libertarians would have had us all invested in the stock market, gold, hedge funds, cds, etc. and we'd be facing even worse catastrophe than we are now facing. (Erm, ok, granted that gold is UP.
)Free markets sound great, but are horrible in practice.
-Robert
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,514
- 44
- 91
Originally posted by: chess9
Sorry, mate, but Libertarians get put in the same category as Chicago School of Economics economists, witchcraft, Zoroastrianism, and other squalid disorders of the brain. Since the Wall Street meltdown, I think the argument is now a mortal lock.
-Robert
Why does everyone always seem to think that libertarianism is functionally equivalent to anarchy? Most libertarians would not have a problem with reasonable governmental restrictions such as fractional reserve requirements or criteria that would prevent giving loans to people who can't pay them back. Libertarianism did not cause the Wall Street meltdown, treating home ownership as a right, mandating loans to low-income people, and Bush's idiocy in failing to deal with Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac when they should have been allowed to fail are what caused the current Wall Street correction.
And yes, it's a correction, not a "meltdown". Look at the historic trend and plot out the regression line. We were in a bubble that was not sustainable and needed to burst.
ZV
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,514
- 44
- 91
Originally posted by: chess9
As for social security, the Libertarians would have had us all invested in the stock market, gold, hedge funds, cds, etc. and we'd be facing even worse catastrophe than we are now facing. (Erm, ok, granted that gold is UP.
Free markets sound great, but are horrible in practice.
-Robert
And yet, somehow, people still get more money out of properly-managed 401(k) funds than they do out of social security. Strange, that.
Yes, right now the market is down. But a person who was managing his or her portfolio properly would not be invested in stocks by the time he or she is within a decade of retirement. As people get closer to retirement, investments need to be moved to less risky options like bonds, other fixed-income securities, and, yes, commodities like gold. Anyone who is near retirement age and still has a portfolio that is mostly stock is either stupid, insane, or a compulsive gambler.
The average net return on the stock market is approximately 12% annualized, this is far better than the annual return on the Social Security fund. Yes, the market has down periods, but in the long run it's clearly a superior investment vehicle. As long as the accounts a properly managed there is absolutely no question that investing in the stock market would make Social Security more solvent in the long run.
ZV
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: chess9
As for social security, the Libertarians would have had us all invested in the stock market, gold, hedge funds, cds, etc. and we'd be facing even worse catastrophe than we are now facing. (Erm, ok, granted that gold is UP.
Free markets sound great, but are horrible in practice.
-Robert
And yet, somehow, people still get more money out of properly-managed 401(k) funds than they do out of social security. Strange, that.
Yes, right now the market is down. But a person who was managing his or her portfolio properly would not be invested in stocks by the time he or she is within a decade of retirement. As people get closer to retirement, investments need to be moved to less risky options like bonds, other fixed-income securities, and, yes, commodities like gold. Anyone who is near retirement age and still has a portfolio that is mostly stock is either stupid, insane, or a compulsive gambler.
The average net return on the stock market is approximately 12% annualized, this is far better than the annual return on the Social Security fund. Yes, the market has down periods, but in the long run it's clearly a superior investment vehicle. As long as the accounts a properly managed there is absolutely no question that investing in the stock market would make Social Security more solvent in the long run.
ZV
Without agreeing with your numbers, the accounts won't be properly managed without a lot of regulation.
Also, when you say "a lot of Libertarians" you aren't talking about your party's platform.
Hell, I have a few mildly Libertarian ideas, but to elect a Libertarian? What, you think I'm on life support?-Robert
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,514
- 44
- 91
Originally posted by: chess9
Also, when you say "a lot of Libertarians" you aren't talking about your party's platform.
-Robert
"My" party? I'm a registered Republican, thank you, though I tend to vote all over the map.
There's a reason that I say "libertarian" and not "Libertarian". Big "L" "Libertarian" is the party, small "l" "libertarian" is the ideology. Most libertarians I know are registered as either Democrats or Republicans; many Libertarians (registered with the Libertarian Party) are slightly off their rocker.
Personally, when people ask me what my political affiliation is, I generally answer RINO.
ZV
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: chess9
As for social security, the Libertarians would have had us all invested in the stock market, gold, hedge funds, cds, etc. and we'd be facing even worse catastrophe than we are now facing. (Erm, ok, granted that gold is UP.
Free markets sound great, but are horrible in practice.
-Robert
And yet, somehow, people still get more money out of properly-managed 401(k) funds than they do out of social security. Strange, that.
Yes, right now the market is down. But a person who was managing his or her portfolio properly would not be invested in stocks by the time he or she is within a decade of retirement. As people get closer to retirement, investments need to be moved to less risky options like bonds, other fixed-income securities, and, yes, commodities like gold. Anyone who is near retirement age and still has a portfolio that is mostly stock is either stupid, insane, or a compulsive gambler.
The average net return on the stock market is approximately 12% annualized, this is far better than the annual return on the Social Security fund. Yes, the market has down periods, but in the long run it's clearly a superior investment vehicle. As long as the accounts a properly managed there is absolutely no question that investing in the stock market would make Social Security more solvent in the long run.
ZV
I don't think you understand the purpose of social security. It's point is not to achieve the highest return possible for the citizens of the US, it's point is to always be there. (the hint is in the name)
If we're letting people risk it in the stock market, what happens if they lose it? What would we be doing with all those elderly people right now? I'll tell you what we would be doing, we would be paying for them anyway somehow, because nobody is willing to accept large amounts of indigent elderly people. So really all we would be doing (once again) is privatizing gains and socializing losses, but now on such a massive scale that events such as this one would be catastrophic.
Yeah social security isn't perfect, feel free to oppose it in principle all you want. The idea that we should be investing it in the stock market is absolute silliness though, it runs counter to the entire purpose of the program.
Zenmervolt
Elite member
- Oct 22, 2000
- 24,514
- 44
- 91
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Originally posted by: chess9
As for social security, the Libertarians would have had us all invested in the stock market, gold, hedge funds, cds, etc. and we'd be facing even worse catastrophe than we are now facing. (Erm, ok, granted that gold is UP.
Free markets sound great, but are horrible in practice.
-Robert
And yet, somehow, people still get more money out of properly-managed 401(k) funds than they do out of social security. Strange, that.
Yes, right now the market is down. But a person who was managing his or her portfolio properly would not be invested in stocks by the time he or she is within a decade of retirement. As people get closer to retirement, investments need to be moved to less risky options like bonds, other fixed-income securities, and, yes, commodities like gold. Anyone who is near retirement age and still has a portfolio that is mostly stock is either stupid, insane, or a compulsive gambler.
The average net return on the stock market is approximately 12% annualized, this is far better than the annual return on the Social Security fund. Yes, the market has down periods, but in the long run it's clearly a superior investment vehicle. As long as the accounts a properly managed there is absolutely no question that investing in the stock market would make Social Security more solvent in the long run.
ZV
I don't think you understand the purpose of social security. It's point is not to achieve the highest return possible for the citizens of the US, it's point is to always be there. (the hint is in the name)
If we're letting people risk it in the stock market, what happens if they lose it? What would we be doing with all those elderly people right now? I'll tell you what we would be doing, we would be paying for them anyway somehow, because nobody is willing to accept large amounts of indigent elderly people. So really all we would be doing (once again) is privatizing gains and socializing losses, but now on such a massive scale that events such as this one would be catastrophic.
Yeah social security isn't perfect, feel free to oppose it in principle all you want. The idea that we should be investing it in the stock market is absolute silliness though, it runs counter to the entire purpose of the program.
I'm not suggesting individual accounts. Too many people wouldn't manage it properly and we'd be right back where we started.
I am suggesting, however, that there needs to be at least some investment of the overall fund in the stock market. Well-diversified funds that large just plain don't "lose it all". That doesn't happen. Every large corporate pension plan (guaranteed money paid out to employees, just like social security) is invested in the stock market and even with this current correction they haven't "lost it all". In fact, many of them remain healthy because they are managed in such a way that there is buffer room for exactly these kinds of economic shocks.
The US Government Employees Retirement Pension is invested in the stock market. Most (all?) states have their State Employees Retirement Pensions invested in the stock market. Guess what? Those all do better than Social Security, and those are all guaranteed benefits (i.e. they're always there). Just because people don't know that these plans are invested in the stock market doesn't mean they're not.
The problem is that whenever someone suggests investing Social Security in the stock market, people who have never taken a financial management class in their lives come out of the woodwork screaming about risks they don't understand.
ZV
Atomic Playboy
Lifer
- Feb 6, 2007
- 16,432
- 1
- 81
I can't believe that OP spawned a discussion about anything other than the fact that this sounds like it was written by James Joyce channeling Rush Limbaugh. Stream of conciousness may work in literature, but it's completely inappropriate for a political forum.
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 81
Originally posted by: chess9
Sorry, mate, but Libertarians get put in the same category as Chicago School of Economics economists, witchcraft, Zoroastrianism, and other squalid disorders of the brain. Since the Wall Street meltdown, I think the argument is now a mortal lock.
-Robert
Explain. Especially what is in bold.
TRENDING THREADS
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 312
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter