Gravitymaster 0 #51 December 23, 2006 QuoteQuoteYou need to remove your shoes. I count 5. Did I hit a nerve? Quote5? Where? You must be incredibly thin skinned!! No, just apparently more observant, analytical and able to make a fairer assesment. QuoteHmmm... I can't seem to find where you responded to the O.P. questions. Oh...that's right, you didn't. QuoteSo? I don't believe I said anything about Bush either. Nobody said you did. Actually you didn't do anything but try and stir shit, as I said. QuoteI suppose I should have included shit-stirrers in my observation. QuoteBut you were doing it so well.... Ah, but at least on topic. QuoteAnyway, if I were in charge? First thing I would do would be to call another round of elections! Sure there are certain things I would like to change and certain things I would like to see done differently. However I'm currently thinking that success or failure is only 50% the policies that you implement and 50% how organised and efficient the implementation is. Gotcha, first step is to tear up the Constitution and put yourself in as Dictator. Good move. I'm sure you will be very popular. QuoteIn which case, unless being in charge means I have a magic wand that makes all my policies run smoothly then I'd have a fair chance of fucking things up even more than they are now! I don't want that kind of responsibility. I doubt if anyone else wants you to either. - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,120 #52 December 23, 2006 >I did say what they paid into it. I know. That's why I said your proposal was effectively a 401k. >Why should I have to work 50 years to get the same benefit they get for landing their ass here . . . Same reason you have to work (and pay taxes) so the CDC can handle bird flu - even though you don't have it and may never get it. Same reason your taxes have to pay for a fire department - even though you may never need it. Social security, in my mind, provides the bare minimum to keep someone alive if they screw up and don't save. Or if they have a great 401k and the market collapses, leaving them with nothing. Or if all that 401k goes to treating their kid's disease. One of the basic tenets of this country is that we don't let people starve to death in the streets. I'm willing to pay a small part of my salary into a program that does that - provided it's well-administered, pays for itself etc. Right now it needs some work. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #53 December 23, 2006 QuoteRight now it needs some work. Make you wish they'd never moved it to the General Fund umpteen years ago, doesn't it?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,596 #54 December 23, 2006 QuoteNobody said you did. Actually you didn't do anything but try and stir shit, as I said. Seems like I would have had to prize the paddle from your cold dead fingers first! (To paraphrase Mr Heston) QuoteQuoteAnyway, if I were in charge? First thing I would do would be to call another round of elections! Sure there are certain things I would like to change and certain things I would like to see done differently. However I'm currently thinking that success or failure is only 50% the policies that you implement and 50% how organised and efficient the implementation is. Gotcha, first step is to tear up the Constitution and put yourself in as Dictator. Good move. I'm sure you will be very popular. Congratulations - that is a first rate job of twisting my statement a full 180 degrees. Most people only go for the tangent, but you said "Fuck it, why should I stop at a right angle? I'm taking this baby as far as she can go!" Bravo sir, I am impressedI took the statement "If you were in charge, what would you do?" as implying what would I do if I had supreme power. If that wasn't the OPs intent with the question then hey, I was wrong, big deal. Anyway, taking that interpretation I said that the first thing I would do would be to step down and hold a general election! Now please, in your very far from infinite wisdom, explain to me again how I want to be a dictator?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #55 December 24, 2006 QuoteI took the statement "If you were in charge, what would you do?" as implying what would I do if I had supreme power. If that wasn't the OPs intent with the question then hey, I was wrong, big deal. Well, I wasn't really thinking supreme power like causing the Big Bang or anything. I just wanted to start a thread made up more of suggestions than criticisms. We have enough other threads bitching about how things are and the problems we have. I am interested in knowing what people would do if they were somehow in a position to be able to implement change etc. on a national level.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jakee 1,596 #56 December 24, 2006 QuoteI am interested in knowing what people would do if they were somehow in a position to be able to implement change etc. on a national level. Well, I'm in a different nation than you so this might not mean a lot - but some things I would like to do with the UK are, get closer to Europe - blind nationalism is pointless. Overhaul the NHS management structure. Do away with semi private companies - they're either state owned or they're not. Full 24/7 licencing (which we kinda have already) and legalisation of several drugs (haven't totally decided which yet) in conjunction with a huge crackdown on yob behaviour. Strong international lobbying (and leading by example) on debt relief and constructive aid for third world nations. To be honest, without delving into the issues of Iraq and how closely we should tie our foreign policies to the US, I feel that anything else (and even some of what is listed) is simply nitpicking. Lets face it, we live in two of the most successful countries in the world, we're incredibly lucky to be where we are and yet all we do is bitch about itDo you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #57 December 24, 2006 QuoteQuoteNobody said you did. Actually you didn't do anything but try and stir shit, as I said. Seems like I would have had to prize the paddle from your cold dead fingers first! (To paraphrase Mr Heston) QuoteQuoteAnyway, if I were in charge? First thing I would do would be to call another round of elections! Sure there are certain things I would like to change and certain things I would like to see done differently. However I'm currently thinking that success or failure is only 50% the policies that you implement and 50% how organised and efficient the implementation is. Gotcha, first step is to tear up the Constitution and put yourself in as Dictator. Good move. I'm sure you will be very popular. Congratulations - that is a first rate job of twisting my statement a full 180 degrees. Most people only go for the tangent, but you said "Fuck it, why should I stop at a right angle? I'm taking this baby as far as she can go!" Bravo sir, I am impressedI took the statement "If you were in charge, what would you do?" as implying what would I do if I had supreme power. If that wasn't the OPs intent with the question then hey, I was wrong, big deal. Anyway, taking that interpretation I said that the first thing I would do would be to step down and hold a general election! Now please, in your very far from infinite wisdom, explain to me again how I want to be a dictator? I don't really know why you want to be a dictator. Perhaps you are compensating for some some inadequacy. Anyway, that's kind of a personal assessment you are asking me to make and I don't feel this is the proper forum to discuss something so personal. If you would like to PM me, I may be able to recommend some sources to help you deal with whatever makes you feel the need to be a Dictator. But honestly, I don't feel qualified. - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Butters 0 #58 December 26, 2006 Quote1. I support neither privatizing nor eliminating Social Security. I do support workers being allowed to match their Social Security contributions with contributions into a privately controlled investment account. Both the contributions into and the payments from this account would be tax free, like a combination of a traditional and Roth IRA. Replace Social Security with a way for individuals to make tax free investments. Quote2. I would support an amendment to the Constitution (or Constitutional legislation) that both clarifies indivuals' right to keep and bear arms, and that a national citizens' militia comprises the bulk of the nation's military. Our military should be defensive, not offensive. Against. We already have the right to bear arms. Quote3. I would support progressive tax breaks for corporations that are partially (or completely) employee owned, the amount of which would be one half of the percentage of the company owned by employees. For example, a company which has employees that own 20 percent of the stock would receive a ten percent discount on their tax bill. Against. Would hurt both big and small businesses. Quote4. I would support an amendment to the Constitution (or Constitutional legislation) that required a balanced budget, with ten percent of revenue being saved for unforeseen emergencies, and ten percent of revenue being invested in such a manner as to help reduce the taxes of future generations without reducing the revenue of the government. If it is not too much to ask of individuals to invest in their own future, it should not be too much to ask of the government to do the same thing. If the government expects us to balance our budgets than they should be expected to do the same. I don't think our taxes need to be reduced, I think our taxes need to be spent more appropriately. Quote5. I would support making the top two funding priorities education and healthcare. An educated, healthy population is the most valuable asset any nation can have. Agreed but I don't think funding is the problem. I think the systems currently in place are the problem."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #59 December 26, 2006 The thing I *STILL* can't understand.... People gripe about how wasteful and inefficient the government is..and it is. Why, then, is everyone so hot to put the GOVERNMENT in charge of healthcare, education and retirement?????Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #60 December 26, 2006 QuoteWhy, then, is everyone so hot to put the GOVERNMENT in charge of healthcare, education and retirement????? Because there are enough wealthy Americans (at this time) to subsidize everyone else. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Butters 0 #61 December 26, 2006 QuoteThe thing I *STILL* can't understand.... People gripe about how wasteful and inefficient the government is..and it is. Why, then, is everyone so hot to put the GOVERNMENT in charge of healthcare, education and retirement????? I don't want the government in charge of retirement. I want them to allow companies and individuals to make tax free investments to be used for retirement. As far as health care and education ... if both were run by business (the goal of a business is to maximize profits) then health care costs would continue to rise, the wealthy would receive better health care, and the wealthy would receive better education."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Zipp0 1 #62 December 26, 2006 Quote I don't want the government in charge of retirement. I want them to allow companies and individuals to make tax free investments to be used for retirement. They do - 401K/304B. (tax deferred anyway) Quote As far as health care and education ... if both were run by business (the goal of a business is to maximize profits) then health care costs would continue to rise, the wealthy would receive better health care They do now. Quote, and the wealthy would receive better education. They do now. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #63 December 26, 2006 QuoteQuoteThe thing I *STILL* can't understand.... People gripe about how wasteful and inefficient the government is..and it is. Why, then, is everyone so hot to put the GOVERNMENT in charge of healthcare, education and retirement????? I don't want the government in charge of retirement. I want them to allow companies and individuals to make tax free investments to be used for retirement. As far as health care and education ... if both were run by business (the goal of a business is to maximize profits) then health care costs would continue to rise, the wealthy would receive better health care, and the wealthy would receive better education. I don't necessarily agree... but your view would be different than what we currently have, how?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Butters 0 #64 December 26, 2006 QuoteI don't necessarily agree... but your view would be different than what we currently have, how? The government currently has limits on the amount and type of investments. I want the limits removed and the type broadened."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #65 December 26, 2006 QuoteQuoteI don't necessarily agree... but your view would be different than what we currently have, how? The government currently has limits on the amount and type of investments. I want the limits removed and the type broadened. I can agree with the general idea... I'd much rather have .gov entirely out of my retirement, though...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,150 #66 December 26, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteI don't necessarily agree... but your view would be different than what we currently have, how? The government currently has limits on the amount and type of investments. I want the limits removed and the type broadened. I can agree with the general idea... I'd much rather have .gov entirely out of my retirement, though... Other than saying "Neener neener it's all you own fault", what would you to about people whose investments went bad (such as investing in Enron) to prevent them from starving in the streets in old age?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Butters 0 #67 December 26, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteI don't necessarily agree... but your view would be different than what we currently have, how? The government currently has limits on the amount and type of investments. I want the limits removed and the type broadened. I can agree with the general idea... I'd much rather have .gov entirely out of my retirement, though... Do you want tax free investments for retirement? If so, how would this be possible without some government involvement?"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Butters 0 #68 December 26, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI don't necessarily agree... but your view would be different than what we currently have, how? The government currently has limits on the amount and type of investments. I want the limits removed and the type broadened. I can agree with the general idea... I'd much rather have .gov entirely out of my retirement, though... Other than saying "Neener neener it's all you own fault", what would you to about people whose investments went bad (such as investing in Enron) to prevent them from starving in the streets in old age? To those whose investments went bad, keep working. For those unable to keep working due to physical or mental limitations, a welfare system that covers that basic necessities."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #69 December 26, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI don't necessarily agree... but your view would be different than what we currently have, how? The government currently has limits on the amount and type of investments. I want the limits removed and the type broadened. I can agree with the general idea... I'd much rather have .gov entirely out of my retirement, though... Other than saying "Neener neener it's all you own fault", what would you to about people whose investments went bad (such as investing in Enron) to prevent them from starving in the streets in old age? Translation: Libertarians oppose extorting people's money at gunpoint to give to other people who need it more. How do you think people were taken care of before Nanny-care started promising the cradle to grave gravy train? By their families and community charity.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #70 December 26, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI don't necessarily agree... but your view would be different than what we currently have, how? The government currently has limits on the amount and type of investments. I want the limits removed and the type broadened. I can agree with the general idea... I'd much rather have .gov entirely out of my retirement, though... Do you want tax free investments for retirement? If so, how would this be possible without some government involvement? What is the tax BESIDES government involvement?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Butters 0 #71 December 26, 2006 QuoteWhat is the tax BESIDES government involvement? So you suggest the government does not tax any investments?"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #72 December 26, 2006 QuoteQuoteWhat is the tax BESIDES government involvement? So you suggest the government does not tax any investments? As it stands now, a Roth IRA is tax-free upon withdrawal due to the input funds being already taxed. Letting people stipulate WHERE their Social Security funds are placed would still go a long way towards providing a better standard of living for most.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,150 #73 December 26, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI don't necessarily agree... but your view would be different than what we currently have, how? The government currently has limits on the amount and type of investments. I want the limits removed and the type broadened. I can agree with the general idea... I'd much rather have .gov entirely out of my retirement, though... Other than saying "Neener neener it's all you own fault", what would you to about people whose investments went bad (such as investing in Enron) to prevent them from starving in the streets in old age? Translation: Libertarians oppose extorting people's money at gunpoint to give to other people who need it more. How do you think people were taken care of before Nanny-care started promising the cradle to grave gravy train? By their families and community charity. Soup kitchens and Hoovervilles, eh? And free pauper's graves for those who starve. Great solution.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites NCclimber 0 #74 December 26, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI don't necessarily agree... but your view would be different than what we currently have, how? The government currently has limits on the amount and type of investments. I want the limits removed and the type broadened. I can agree with the general idea... I'd much rather have .gov entirely out of my retirement, though... Other than saying "Neener neener it's all you own fault", what would you to about people whose investments went bad (such as investing in Enron) to prevent them from starving in the streets in old age? If the government allowed people to opt out of Social Security and put that money in a 401k or some similar vehicle, then certain restrictions should be implemented, to limit the risk to those accounts. For example - require 30% to be invested in interest bearing/bond vehicles, set a limit of 10% in stocks that are considered high risk as well as a 10% limit on an individual stock. Some people might say this is still keeping the government in our private business. As far as I'm concerned, if the govt. is giving us preferential treatment with a tax-exempt/deferred status, then it should have a (limited) say in the matter. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #75 December 26, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote Translation: Libertarians oppose extorting people's money at gunpoint to give to other people who need it more. How do you think people were taken care of before Nanny-care started promising the cradle to grave gravy train? By their families and community charity. Soup kitchens and Hoovervilles, eh? And free pauper's graves for those who starve. Great solution. More hyperbole from the left...imagine that. I never realized we were in another Great Depression, John...thanks for pointing that out to me! What part of "By their families and community charity" did you not understand? I know that won't be popular with the "womb-to-tomb" bunch, since that means they'd actually need to help take care of Grandma/Grandpa instead of shuffling them off to the nursing home...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 3 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
billvon 3,120 #52 December 23, 2006 >I did say what they paid into it. I know. That's why I said your proposal was effectively a 401k. >Why should I have to work 50 years to get the same benefit they get for landing their ass here . . . Same reason you have to work (and pay taxes) so the CDC can handle bird flu - even though you don't have it and may never get it. Same reason your taxes have to pay for a fire department - even though you may never need it. Social security, in my mind, provides the bare minimum to keep someone alive if they screw up and don't save. Or if they have a great 401k and the market collapses, leaving them with nothing. Or if all that 401k goes to treating their kid's disease. One of the basic tenets of this country is that we don't let people starve to death in the streets. I'm willing to pay a small part of my salary into a program that does that - provided it's well-administered, pays for itself etc. Right now it needs some work. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #53 December 23, 2006 QuoteRight now it needs some work. Make you wish they'd never moved it to the General Fund umpteen years ago, doesn't it?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,596 #54 December 23, 2006 QuoteNobody said you did. Actually you didn't do anything but try and stir shit, as I said. Seems like I would have had to prize the paddle from your cold dead fingers first! (To paraphrase Mr Heston) QuoteQuoteAnyway, if I were in charge? First thing I would do would be to call another round of elections! Sure there are certain things I would like to change and certain things I would like to see done differently. However I'm currently thinking that success or failure is only 50% the policies that you implement and 50% how organised and efficient the implementation is. Gotcha, first step is to tear up the Constitution and put yourself in as Dictator. Good move. I'm sure you will be very popular. Congratulations - that is a first rate job of twisting my statement a full 180 degrees. Most people only go for the tangent, but you said "Fuck it, why should I stop at a right angle? I'm taking this baby as far as she can go!" Bravo sir, I am impressedI took the statement "If you were in charge, what would you do?" as implying what would I do if I had supreme power. If that wasn't the OPs intent with the question then hey, I was wrong, big deal. Anyway, taking that interpretation I said that the first thing I would do would be to step down and hold a general election! Now please, in your very far from infinite wisdom, explain to me again how I want to be a dictator?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #55 December 24, 2006 QuoteI took the statement "If you were in charge, what would you do?" as implying what would I do if I had supreme power. If that wasn't the OPs intent with the question then hey, I was wrong, big deal. Well, I wasn't really thinking supreme power like causing the Big Bang or anything. I just wanted to start a thread made up more of suggestions than criticisms. We have enough other threads bitching about how things are and the problems we have. I am interested in knowing what people would do if they were somehow in a position to be able to implement change etc. on a national level.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,596 #56 December 24, 2006 QuoteI am interested in knowing what people would do if they were somehow in a position to be able to implement change etc. on a national level. Well, I'm in a different nation than you so this might not mean a lot - but some things I would like to do with the UK are, get closer to Europe - blind nationalism is pointless. Overhaul the NHS management structure. Do away with semi private companies - they're either state owned or they're not. Full 24/7 licencing (which we kinda have already) and legalisation of several drugs (haven't totally decided which yet) in conjunction with a huge crackdown on yob behaviour. Strong international lobbying (and leading by example) on debt relief and constructive aid for third world nations. To be honest, without delving into the issues of Iraq and how closely we should tie our foreign policies to the US, I feel that anything else (and even some of what is listed) is simply nitpicking. Lets face it, we live in two of the most successful countries in the world, we're incredibly lucky to be where we are and yet all we do is bitch about itDo you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #57 December 24, 2006 QuoteQuoteNobody said you did. Actually you didn't do anything but try and stir shit, as I said. Seems like I would have had to prize the paddle from your cold dead fingers first! (To paraphrase Mr Heston) QuoteQuoteAnyway, if I were in charge? First thing I would do would be to call another round of elections! Sure there are certain things I would like to change and certain things I would like to see done differently. However I'm currently thinking that success or failure is only 50% the policies that you implement and 50% how organised and efficient the implementation is. Gotcha, first step is to tear up the Constitution and put yourself in as Dictator. Good move. I'm sure you will be very popular. Congratulations - that is a first rate job of twisting my statement a full 180 degrees. Most people only go for the tangent, but you said "Fuck it, why should I stop at a right angle? I'm taking this baby as far as she can go!" Bravo sir, I am impressedI took the statement "If you were in charge, what would you do?" as implying what would I do if I had supreme power. If that wasn't the OPs intent with the question then hey, I was wrong, big deal. Anyway, taking that interpretation I said that the first thing I would do would be to step down and hold a general election! Now please, in your very far from infinite wisdom, explain to me again how I want to be a dictator? I don't really know why you want to be a dictator. Perhaps you are compensating for some some inadequacy. Anyway, that's kind of a personal assessment you are asking me to make and I don't feel this is the proper forum to discuss something so personal. If you would like to PM me, I may be able to recommend some sources to help you deal with whatever makes you feel the need to be a Dictator. But honestly, I don't feel qualified. - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #58 December 26, 2006 Quote1. I support neither privatizing nor eliminating Social Security. I do support workers being allowed to match their Social Security contributions with contributions into a privately controlled investment account. Both the contributions into and the payments from this account would be tax free, like a combination of a traditional and Roth IRA. Replace Social Security with a way for individuals to make tax free investments. Quote2. I would support an amendment to the Constitution (or Constitutional legislation) that both clarifies indivuals' right to keep and bear arms, and that a national citizens' militia comprises the bulk of the nation's military. Our military should be defensive, not offensive. Against. We already have the right to bear arms. Quote3. I would support progressive tax breaks for corporations that are partially (or completely) employee owned, the amount of which would be one half of the percentage of the company owned by employees. For example, a company which has employees that own 20 percent of the stock would receive a ten percent discount on their tax bill. Against. Would hurt both big and small businesses. Quote4. I would support an amendment to the Constitution (or Constitutional legislation) that required a balanced budget, with ten percent of revenue being saved for unforeseen emergencies, and ten percent of revenue being invested in such a manner as to help reduce the taxes of future generations without reducing the revenue of the government. If it is not too much to ask of individuals to invest in their own future, it should not be too much to ask of the government to do the same thing. If the government expects us to balance our budgets than they should be expected to do the same. I don't think our taxes need to be reduced, I think our taxes need to be spent more appropriately. Quote5. I would support making the top two funding priorities education and healthcare. An educated, healthy population is the most valuable asset any nation can have. Agreed but I don't think funding is the problem. I think the systems currently in place are the problem."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #59 December 26, 2006 The thing I *STILL* can't understand.... People gripe about how wasteful and inefficient the government is..and it is. Why, then, is everyone so hot to put the GOVERNMENT in charge of healthcare, education and retirement?????Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #60 December 26, 2006 QuoteWhy, then, is everyone so hot to put the GOVERNMENT in charge of healthcare, education and retirement????? Because there are enough wealthy Americans (at this time) to subsidize everyone else. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #61 December 26, 2006 QuoteThe thing I *STILL* can't understand.... People gripe about how wasteful and inefficient the government is..and it is. Why, then, is everyone so hot to put the GOVERNMENT in charge of healthcare, education and retirement????? I don't want the government in charge of retirement. I want them to allow companies and individuals to make tax free investments to be used for retirement. As far as health care and education ... if both were run by business (the goal of a business is to maximize profits) then health care costs would continue to rise, the wealthy would receive better health care, and the wealthy would receive better education."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #62 December 26, 2006 Quote I don't want the government in charge of retirement. I want them to allow companies and individuals to make tax free investments to be used for retirement. They do - 401K/304B. (tax deferred anyway) Quote As far as health care and education ... if both were run by business (the goal of a business is to maximize profits) then health care costs would continue to rise, the wealthy would receive better health care They do now. Quote, and the wealthy would receive better education. They do now. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #63 December 26, 2006 QuoteQuoteThe thing I *STILL* can't understand.... People gripe about how wasteful and inefficient the government is..and it is. Why, then, is everyone so hot to put the GOVERNMENT in charge of healthcare, education and retirement????? I don't want the government in charge of retirement. I want them to allow companies and individuals to make tax free investments to be used for retirement. As far as health care and education ... if both were run by business (the goal of a business is to maximize profits) then health care costs would continue to rise, the wealthy would receive better health care, and the wealthy would receive better education. I don't necessarily agree... but your view would be different than what we currently have, how?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #64 December 26, 2006 QuoteI don't necessarily agree... but your view would be different than what we currently have, how? The government currently has limits on the amount and type of investments. I want the limits removed and the type broadened."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #65 December 26, 2006 QuoteQuoteI don't necessarily agree... but your view would be different than what we currently have, how? The government currently has limits on the amount and type of investments. I want the limits removed and the type broadened. I can agree with the general idea... I'd much rather have .gov entirely out of my retirement, though...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #66 December 26, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteI don't necessarily agree... but your view would be different than what we currently have, how? The government currently has limits on the amount and type of investments. I want the limits removed and the type broadened. I can agree with the general idea... I'd much rather have .gov entirely out of my retirement, though... Other than saying "Neener neener it's all you own fault", what would you to about people whose investments went bad (such as investing in Enron) to prevent them from starving in the streets in old age?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #67 December 26, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteI don't necessarily agree... but your view would be different than what we currently have, how? The government currently has limits on the amount and type of investments. I want the limits removed and the type broadened. I can agree with the general idea... I'd much rather have .gov entirely out of my retirement, though... Do you want tax free investments for retirement? If so, how would this be possible without some government involvement?"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #68 December 26, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI don't necessarily agree... but your view would be different than what we currently have, how? The government currently has limits on the amount and type of investments. I want the limits removed and the type broadened. I can agree with the general idea... I'd much rather have .gov entirely out of my retirement, though... Other than saying "Neener neener it's all you own fault", what would you to about people whose investments went bad (such as investing in Enron) to prevent them from starving in the streets in old age? To those whose investments went bad, keep working. For those unable to keep working due to physical or mental limitations, a welfare system that covers that basic necessities."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #69 December 26, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI don't necessarily agree... but your view would be different than what we currently have, how? The government currently has limits on the amount and type of investments. I want the limits removed and the type broadened. I can agree with the general idea... I'd much rather have .gov entirely out of my retirement, though... Other than saying "Neener neener it's all you own fault", what would you to about people whose investments went bad (such as investing in Enron) to prevent them from starving in the streets in old age? Translation: Libertarians oppose extorting people's money at gunpoint to give to other people who need it more. How do you think people were taken care of before Nanny-care started promising the cradle to grave gravy train? By their families and community charity.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #70 December 26, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI don't necessarily agree... but your view would be different than what we currently have, how? The government currently has limits on the amount and type of investments. I want the limits removed and the type broadened. I can agree with the general idea... I'd much rather have .gov entirely out of my retirement, though... Do you want tax free investments for retirement? If so, how would this be possible without some government involvement? What is the tax BESIDES government involvement?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #71 December 26, 2006 QuoteWhat is the tax BESIDES government involvement? So you suggest the government does not tax any investments?"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #72 December 26, 2006 QuoteQuoteWhat is the tax BESIDES government involvement? So you suggest the government does not tax any investments? As it stands now, a Roth IRA is tax-free upon withdrawal due to the input funds being already taxed. Letting people stipulate WHERE their Social Security funds are placed would still go a long way towards providing a better standard of living for most.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #73 December 26, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI don't necessarily agree... but your view would be different than what we currently have, how? The government currently has limits on the amount and type of investments. I want the limits removed and the type broadened. I can agree with the general idea... I'd much rather have .gov entirely out of my retirement, though... Other than saying "Neener neener it's all you own fault", what would you to about people whose investments went bad (such as investing in Enron) to prevent them from starving in the streets in old age? Translation: Libertarians oppose extorting people's money at gunpoint to give to other people who need it more. How do you think people were taken care of before Nanny-care started promising the cradle to grave gravy train? By their families and community charity. Soup kitchens and Hoovervilles, eh? And free pauper's graves for those who starve. Great solution.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #74 December 26, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI don't necessarily agree... but your view would be different than what we currently have, how? The government currently has limits on the amount and type of investments. I want the limits removed and the type broadened. I can agree with the general idea... I'd much rather have .gov entirely out of my retirement, though... Other than saying "Neener neener it's all you own fault", what would you to about people whose investments went bad (such as investing in Enron) to prevent them from starving in the streets in old age? If the government allowed people to opt out of Social Security and put that money in a 401k or some similar vehicle, then certain restrictions should be implemented, to limit the risk to those accounts. For example - require 30% to be invested in interest bearing/bond vehicles, set a limit of 10% in stocks that are considered high risk as well as a 10% limit on an individual stock. Some people might say this is still keeping the government in our private business. As far as I'm concerned, if the govt. is giving us preferential treatment with a tax-exempt/deferred status, then it should have a (limited) say in the matter. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #75 December 26, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote Translation: Libertarians oppose extorting people's money at gunpoint to give to other people who need it more. How do you think people were taken care of before Nanny-care started promising the cradle to grave gravy train? By their families and community charity. Soup kitchens and Hoovervilles, eh? And free pauper's graves for those who starve. Great solution. More hyperbole from the left...imagine that. I never realized we were in another Great Depression, John...thanks for pointing that out to me! What part of "By their families and community charity" did you not understand? I know that won't be popular with the "womb-to-tomb" bunch, since that means they'd actually need to help take care of Grandma/Grandpa instead of shuffling them off to the nursing home...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 3 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
