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.

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.

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.  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?

> 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.



--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/28/05 9:34:29 PM ---