Originally Posted by IndyFan
Now if we could just change Social Security and let us make the investments, I'd be very rich when I retire. It is a big sham that they don't change the law so we can do that. It has done wonders for Chile. People ripped GW Bush to pieces when he floated a proposal just to allow some of it to be privately invested. I think one particular party's leaders are against anything that could possibly get people to be less dependent on them. It sure seems that way, anyway. I can't think of one single pro growth policy they support. (They do try to sell horribly bankrupting ideas as being pro growth, but they are not.)
They all think they are Robin Hood, but I don't remember Robin Hood putting any of it in his own pocket like they do.
While I agree it would have been nice, but I think they were probably worried that people would make horrible decision and it'd be worse. After all, some people seem to think lottery tickets are a worthwhile investment vehicle. Even if 50% of those that invested the money properly and did really well, what do you do about the other 50% or even if was as low as 10 or 20%, the optics are still very bad. And the ones that got wiped out would still need money. Basically you'd be giving money to everyone to gamble and hope that they're good at it. As you can see from the earlier messages, lots of people aren't even in the market.
Now if we could just change Social Security and let us make the investments, I'd be very rich when I retire. It is a big sham that they don't change the law so we can do that. It has done wonders for Chile. People ripped GW Bush to pieces when he floated a proposal just to allow some of it to be privately invested. I think one particular party's leaders are against anything that could possibly get people to be less dependent on them. It sure seems that way, anyway. I can't think of one single pro growth policy they support. (They do try to sell horribly bankrupting ideas as being pro growth, but they are not.)
They all think they are Robin Hood, but I don't remember Robin Hood putting any of it in his own pocket like they do.
While I agree it would have been nice, but I think they were probably worried that people would make horrible decision and it'd be worse. After all, some people seem to think lottery tickets are a worthwhile investment vehicle. Even if 50% of those that invested the money properly and did really well, what do you do about the other 50% or even if was as low as 10 or 20%, the optics are still very bad. And the ones that got wiped out would still need money. Basically you'd be giving money to everyone to gamble and hope that they're good at it. As you can see from the earlier messages, lots of people aren't even in the market.
