Posted on 09/28/2004 7:27:13 AM PDT by The Great Yazoo
Thomas Sowell ping..........
At the very least I should be able to put just a portion of the money I pay in to be put into government bonds. What is wrong with that? How can the Libs argue with investing in the governemnt?
We should have the option of what Galveston TX did.
How Galveston Opted Out of Social Security
http://www.libertyhaven.com/politicsandcurrentevents/healthcarewelfareorsocialsecurity/galveston.shtml
The Republicans need to alter Social Security, but it has to be done incrementally. The best first step would be to give title to the underlying assets to each American. Each person should have ownership of the "investments" made on his behalf, at least after death.
The Republicans need to alter Social Security, but it has to be done incrementally. The best first step would be to give title to the underlying assets to each American. Each person should have ownership of the "investments" made on his behalf, at least after death.
Press once Schultze.
People sign up for marriage contracts all the time, even though the government can and does change the terms without the consent of EITHER of the parties to the marriage. Time to rebel against ALL these contracts with the government.
That said, being that politicians pander to the large senior voting bloc, I expect to be living under a bridge someday just to subsidize the maintanance fees on their condos.
Agreed. A slow but steady movement to a new hybrid system.
I'd get a better return on my investment buying baseball
cards.
Good point about marriage contracts being altered or amended by the government from time-to-time without consent. But at least with marriage contracts, the parties themselves can alter the consequences of governmental mettling through the use of pre- and post-nuptial agreements. That is an option not afforded we subjects to the federal social security system nanny.
Correction: The real reason...
Or...would you invest your retirement savings in a plan that showed a -1% long-term return?
Federal Employees have the option of investing a portion of their income in the Thrift Savings Program( http://www.tsp.gov ). If they can do something like this, why not the rest of the population?
Ping list for the discussion of the politics and social aspects that directly effects Gen-Reagan/Generation-X (Those born from 1965-1981) including all the spending previous generations (i.e. The Baby Boomers) are doing that Gen-X and Y will end up paying for.
Freep mail me to be added or dropped. See my home page for details and previous articles.
Measure twice, cut once, or something.
What about when a couple with a dependent spouse (usually the wife) moves from one state to another, from a "community property" state to one that isn't? The marriage already occurred, and given the laws of the state where the couple married, they didn't feel a pre-nup was necessary. But now, say with the husband having finished medical which the wife worked to put him through, the national residency matching system is forcing them to move to a non-community property state. And the husband secretly isn't so sure any more that the marriage is forever, and throws cold water on the idea of doing a financial agreement (or more likely doesn't even have to, since probably neither of them is even aware of the different laws in the state they're heading to) -- so the wife is totally screwed, when hubby finds a cute young nurse a couple of years down the road, long after residency in the new state has been established.
This sort of thing really does happen to people, and it's high time that government be booted out of the marriage business. The traditional legal concept of marriage dates to an era when women were legally chattel, and were not able to enter into any kind of contract. That's how the government got to be a party to the marriage contract -- to protect the poor helpless females who weren't full fledged citizens. It just doesn't have any applicability to modern society.
" If it's illegal for private citizens, it ought to be illegal for the federal government."
Yes, but the government employees don't have to depend on Social Security, they have a much more lucrative disability, medical, retirement scheme. Think of it...the people who approve or refuse to approve your claim, never have to depend on that same system. That alone makes it intolerable.
Privitize SS. The recent totalization agreement with Mexico by the State Dept. and the SSA will give Social Security to ILLEGALS, who will only need 6 work credits to qualify. You and I need 40.
At least the government could put some equity in this scheme.
Don't hold your breath.
Social Security is a ponzi/pyramid scheme. It's about time liberals faced up to it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.