Replies

If you actually want to respond to my questions then list and answer each of them individually. Address and answer the questions with a direct answer. That does not mean you get to play fantasy politics by answering that social Security is unconstitutional or that it is socialism. Those answers are fine for Fantasy Politics but it does not address the real world with real people. Changing Social Security would effect the lives of a great number of people, I won't play games with their lives even if you want. If you address the questions directly I will respond, otherwise I will let you know when you are playing Fantasy Politics again.
I don't have the time or patience for those kind of games.

If you want to play in a fantasy world then I highly recommend a game called Civilization III. Then you can play in your make believe world all you want.

Your threats are meaningless to me and I'm not going anywhere just because you want me to. Posting letters from "Old People" as you put is extremely pertinent. They are the voters who will be effected directly by changes to Social Security. Trying to make changes that will benefit younger voters isn't going to work at the ballot box.

Younger voters are barely aware of the subject and are not nearly as likely to have their votes effected by the proposed changes. Elderly voters will turn out in huge numbers if they feel that their security is threatened.

That makes the letter I posted directly to the point. In fact I have added that letter to my profile page for your further edification. If you can deal with those facts "Bring It On". Otherwise get a copy of CIV III and enjoy playing with yourself.

If you actually want to respond to my questions then list and answer each of them individually.

I did that.

Address and answer the questions with a direct answer.

I did that.

That does not mean you get to play fantasy politics by answering that social Security is unconstitutional or that it is socialism.

I never addressed the unconstitutionality of it. It surely is socialism. Not to mention, that when you advocate that the government buy stocks, it is the actual precise definition of socialism.

So what you really want is to ask questions, but then say that they cannot be answered with the correct answer, and mark that down as unresponsive. That is truly playing with yourself. How old are you to play these childish games in a fantasy world where you ask all the questions but reject all the answers and keep asking the same dumb question? Are you in high school yet?

Changing Social Security would effect the lives of a great number of people,

NOT Changing Social Security would effect the lives of a great number of people,

f you want to play in a fantasy world then I highly recommend a game called Civilization III

Is that the game you play with your friends after school? Did you do your homework yet?

You are the one playing with yourself.

They really should keep keep children off this adult forum.

I rewrote the responses to dumb them down to the elementary school level so you could understand them more easily. I'm still not hopeful that you can handle it, But here goes.

If allowing individuals to take part of their Social Security payments and invest it in the Stock Market is such a terrific idea why hasn't the government already done the same thing?

Let's break it down one part at a time so you can grasp it, I'll go slow for you.

If allowing individuals

It's not "allowing", it's theft, the government takes your money (at gunpoint, if necessary) and says that maybe, someday, it might give some of the money it has stolen from others, to you.

invest it in the Stock Market is such a terrific idea why hasn't the government already done the same thing?

BECAUSE THE CITIZENS WON"T LET THEM, RIGHTFULLY SO. HERE"S WHY:

Investing in stocks is called an equity investment. Equity = ownership. Governments who own businesses are SOCIALISTIC countries. Socialism is a system where government owns the means of production. When individual people own businesses, it's called CAPITALISM. Therefore, the country would have to change to Socialism for the government to do what you propose.

If it is such a great investment and the government had already done so then we should be seeing a strong return on the investment. That would mean an increase in Social Security benefits and a reduction in taxes.

It is a good investment, but not allowable for government to do.

See above comments. Socialism = bad. Capitalism = good.

BTW, ownership of companies has outperformed all other forms of investment over the long term for as long as Capitalism has been allowed to exist.

For that matter if it's such a great idea why don't they make the change now?

BECAUSE WE WON'T ALLOW THEM TO OWN PRIVATE COMPANIES. Damn it gets tiring repeating myself for the benefit of those unable to understand simple concepts.

It's not a good idea to allow government to take over the economy. It is a good idea for individuals to own businesses.

It wouldn't require a big political battle just a change in the way the money is invested.

You are delusional. Or a liberal, but that's redundant.

You don't understand the fundamentals of forms of governance, but most Americans do. You will change this into a socialistic country over my, and many other, dead bodies.

But I suspect the government knows it is too risky of an investment so they leave the money in T Bills.

I suspect that you suspect the government is smart. You suspect wrong.

The reason is twofold. The first reason is that the government cannot really invest in T Bills or bonds. They are debt instruments, and you cannot loan money to yourself. And debt instruments are LOANS, not investments.

They simply pretend there is a "trust fund", and steal the money they pretend is there, and replace it with IOUs to itself. It's a plan that only a child or mentally incompetent person would believe.

THERE IS NO TRUST FUND.

The second reason is, if the government didn't take your money, but instead YOU invested it in ownership of companies and loaned to others in the form of debt instruments, THEY COULDN'T STEAL IT TO USE FOR OTHER PROGRAMS.

So I guess the real question is if the stock market is too risky of an investment for the government why is not too risky for individuals?

It's not too risky, you came to an incorrect conclusion, purposely or out of ignorance, and tried to make a false argument based on it. It's kind of a bait and switch trick. Adults don't fall for such childish tactics.

I believe the answer is that we're being scammed again.

Correct, when you bought into the same lie that has been sold for several generations, you were scammed, again. Social Security is a scam. Anyone who believes in it has been scammed.