greg1199{at}yahoo.com wrote:

> Deborah Terreson wrote:
>
>>In article  ,
>>greg1199{at}yahoo.com  wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Deborah Terreson wrote:
>>>
>>>>Gotta love Alan Greenspan. Here he was earlier last week, before
>
> the
>
>>>>congress.
>
> [...]
>
>
>>> What am I, a frigging bank?  Actually no, because my borrower
>
> tells me
>
>>>what the interest and repayment terms are, and he'll jail me for
>
> not
>
>>>loaning him money.
>>
>>You can always quit working and find employment that pays under the
>
> table. I
>
>>work with several tradesmen that earn over 60k a year and pay no
>
> taxes. At
>
>>this point, I may just decide to chuck it all myself and join in that
>>movement.
>
>
> Right on.  I'd go for a deal like that.  It's too bad I don't know a
> trade.
>
>
>>>If I have to loan my money, I'd rather loan to someone who pays
>
> decent
>
>>>interest, and who pays off the loan before I die.  If a Wall Street
>
> Fat
>
>>>Cat can do that, I don't care what he makes, what he wears, what he
>>>drives, or how tall his Manhattan high rise is.
>>
>>Hey, then why then can I not take my money directly and put it in a
>>*savings* or an IRA or 401 then? Bank accounts and money markets are
>
>
> Good question.  It's your money, and you should be able to put your
> money where you think it should be.  Some in our government would give
> you that choice.
>
>
>>starting to pick up again, as the Fed raises the interest rates.
>
> Businesses
>
> Oh yeah they are.  I used to get 8 percent on a money market, which is
> of minimal risk.  I believe SS pays 2 percent, and I think SS is even
> riskier.  It's like loaning money to someone who is already in
> mountains of debt.
>
>
>>are not creating enough new investors with the new salary scale all
>
> too many
>
>>are paying. Take a look at how the numbers have a potential to shift
>
> - to
>
>>think that business will not be in the same boat as the government,
>
> with
>
>>more retirements being cashed out and less working americans with
>
> money left
>
>>over TO invest beyond what the SS accounts offer. I don't object to
>
> the
>
> Exactly.  When pay the SS tax, there's not much left to save, which is
> a case for SS privitization.
>

No. It is a case for better (more honest)
management of SS funds.

>
>>change, but in the direction it will only be allowed to go. Why the
>
> fuck
>
>>should Wall Street be the sole beneficiary of this new investment
>
> 'freedom'?
>
> I'm not sure WS will be the sole beneficiary.  I believe they will
> limit you to the more conservative investments, like money markets or
> bonds, because otherwise the dems will be able to call it a "risky
> scheme."  So the tech-sector fund managers won't benefit much.
>
>
>>>This is what capitalism is all about.  You do what you can for
>>>yourself, and you don't worry what anyone else is doing, as long as
>
> he
>
>>>isn't hurting you.
>>
>>And what of it if it hurts someone else? Do you do nothing, and stay
>
> silent?
>
>>Is this what a stable, moral, Christian society is about? When
>
> someone is
>
>>gonna get ripped off or scammed, you just let them go down, huh?
>
>
> Absolutely not.  The point of govt is to protect people from crime,
> like fraud, theft, assault, and so on.  When people dupe novice
> investors into throwing down on risky stocks, I have a problem.  You
> can tell investors to be careful, just as you can tell old men not to
> walk down dark alleys.  But if the man gets assaulted in the dark
> alley, the assailant should be taken in.
>
> I don't think Bush or his supporters want to put people at the mercy of
> Wall Street scammers.  It's not moral.  The entire idea of
> privitization is to help people, and also to get rid of a system that
> isn't really working.
>
>
>>> Socialism is when you start worrying what others
>>>make, and for doing what, and whether it's fair.  How well has that
>>>system generally done?
>>
>>Better then what this disaster is turning out to be. I'm looking at
>
> my
>
>>livlihood going up the spout with the diminishing middle class. Shit,
>
> at
>
>>least those horrid rotten socialists have healthcare. I've not got
>
> any.
>
> I am sorry.  I had the same problem when I was jobless, and it royally
> sucked.  There are plans that give you coverage for catastrophic
> events, and that let you pay the routine expenses.  That's a good route
> for people who are healthy and unemployed, or self-employed, or
> contract workers.  Perhaps you can look into this.
>


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/2/05 1:34:36 AM ---