In article  ,
greg1199{at}yahoo.com  wrote:

> Deborah Terreson wrote:
>> Gotta love Alan Greenspan. Here he was earlier last week, before the
>> congress.
>>
>> Note his careful choosing of words to describe the Bush Social
> Security plan
>> and what it means for working and middle class Americans..
>>
>> I quote Mr. Greenspan directly here..
>>
>>   "These accounts, properly constructed and managed, will create ...
> a sense
>> of increased wealth on the part of the middle and lower-income
> classes of
>> American society, who have had to struggle with very little capital."
>>
>> Ahem..
>>
>> Isn't it nice that you and I only will get a *sense* of increased
> wealth out
>> of these plans? So much for a real solution that will benefit those
> who need
>> it most.
>>
>> Can you say Wall Street Welfare?
>>
>> Hey, here's a novel idea: How about if these big corporations that
> are
>> outsourcing jobs to the third world and creating only lower paying
> new jobs
>> in their wake, just learn the hard way that not paying the hired help
> enough
>> to buy your product (and in a corporation's case, that would be it's
>> stocks), means that you'll have that many less new investors in the
> future!
>>
>> Oh no, can't do that! gotta keep the overall numbers UP!
>>
>> Let's give them access to Social Security savings, after all, the
>> billionaire and millionaire stakeholders are SO needy aren't they?
>
> Doesn't matter.  If Bob Worker wants to put his SS in private
> investments, who are we to tell him he can't?  Who are we to tell him
> that he _must_ put his retirement savings into a phantom trust fund
> that pays meager interest?  Who are we to tell him he can only get it
> back after a certain age, which of course will be raised over and over
> until only the dead are eligible?
>
> Essentially, Bush is offering people a choice that they should always
> have had.  They can invest in this so-called trust fund, or a low-risk
> money market with four times the yeild, or even put a portion in
> medium-risk investments.  Why were they denied this choice before?  And
> why do we force people to save for retirement?  Did I miss some clause
> in the Constitution that grants this power to the feds?


>
>> My vote is for a national VAT to be added to fund this transition to
> the
>> investment scam, with the hope that it becomes so onerous, that
> America
>> loses it's pussified, materialistic, spending proclivity and these
>> corporates and CEO's (who've seen an average 46% pay increase in
> 2004, BTW)
>> lose their shirts.
>
> You know, I really don't care what they make.  The federal government
> tells me, "Greg, under pentalty of law, you must loan us money, and
> we'll pay you back at two percent interest .... when we're good and
> ready.  Suck it up."  (I know it's only money, but I'll still need it
> for food and medicine when I'm old.)  I have a problem with that, and I
> call it a loan because that's exactly what it is.  They take it from
> me.  They use it.  At some time that they determine, they give it back,
> along with an additional amount of interest, which they also determine.
>  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.
>
> 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
starting to pick up again, as the Fed raises the interest rates. Businesses
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
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'?
>
> 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?

>  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.
>
>> Fuck big business and it's craven ways. Bring on the Christian
> morality -
>> esp, the material poverty part.
>
> That's easy.  We have only to keep doing what we're doing.

I know.


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/28/05 9:34:31 PM ---