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 did that.
No, you haven't.
Address and answer the questions with a direct answer.
I did that.
No, you haven't.
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.
You pinged me to the thread on the Constitutionality of Social Security. If that isn't what you believe why bother?
Even if it socialism, it doesn't mean that the government can't theoretically create an independent group to invest the monies currently on hand. The group could easily be limited by law to owning such a small percentage of each corporation that they wouldn't have a controlling interest or even an influential interest. The Federal Reserve would make a good model for theoretical discussion purposes.
Theoretically this hypothetical group would improve the governments return on investment and reduce our tax load. This is very similar in concept to the proposed Social Security changes.
Under the proposed SS change the Federal Government would be the authority that approved the investment structure so the only difference is who assumes the risk, the government or the individuals.
So I reiterate my question if it is not a good idea for the government to invest it's cash holdings in such a manner why is a good idea for the individuals to do so under the government's directions.
Either one of these are very bad ideas but I won't tell you why until you actually attempt to answer. When you finally do we will be getting somewhere.
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.
No, I want you to actually answer the questions instead of answering them with generalities. Answers similar to "Four Legs Good, Two Legs Bad" are not an answer, they are just an attempt to redirect the discussion and influence the sheeples. That is exactly what you are doing when you state that Social Security is Socialism. Even if it is socialism your statement has no impact on todays political world, as such it is a Null Value for our discussion purposes.
That is truly playing with yourself.
No, it just means I won't allow you to misdirect the discussion.
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?
LOL! I turned 54 this month.
Graduated from High School at 16 had my BSEE at 18 and my MS at 20. My career has included over 20 years as an Engineer with the National Labs and another 10 as a consultant and business owner specializing in high speed networks and Automation Systems.
Our communications are almost certainly passing through some of the equipment I have designed and the electricity running your computer was probably generated, monitored, and metered by my companies products and systems.
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,
There is a case to be made for Social Security keeping the Communist Party from coming to power in the U.S. During the Depression Era the Communist Party was growing in strength in the U.S. because the populace was losing hope. After Social Security was implemented the CP's influence became insignificant.
That's one reason I am so adamantly against privatizing SS. If it is privatized, the next time we have a severe Stock Market down cycle a large portion of the voters will vote for the first party to guarantee them a check in the mail.
When the gap begins to widen between the rich and the poor someone will take advantage of the situation. If SS is privatized the next Stock Market down cycle could be a catalyst for severe mischief.
See how easy it is, when you actually address a question instead of attempting to redirect the discussion you get a discussion.
If 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.
As for Civilization III, my team studied the game as a model for games theory purposes and as a tool for encouraging out-of-the-box thinking. We were researching designs for self-healing networks and automation system applications. It didn't pan out for those purposes but it was an interesting game.
It's your turn if your up to it.