On Jan 6, 2005, at 10:15 PM, Dave Land wrote:
On Jan 6, 2005, at 5:03 PM, JDG wrote:
At 09:25 PM 1/5/2005 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote:Why should it?
Because it is obligated to, maybe? This strikes me as a very bizarre
question somewhere along the lines of why should I pay on a loan the bank
gave me, but perhaps I misunderstand you.
The difference is that a bank is another entity. Thus, you have a moral
responsibility to fulfill your agreement with them. If you borrow money
from yourself, however, you have no real obligation to pay it back.
D'you remember way back during the election a certain candidate jawing on and
on about how the gummint should let YOU keep YOUR money? Well, that's exactly
what the Social Security funds are: YOUR money (and MY money) and not the
government's. When the government spends itself so silly that it has to dip
its hands into MY money to stay afloat, you had better believe I expect it to
put it back.
Remember the lockbox? It was featured in *another* election starring that
certain candidate. You know what's in the lockbox? IOUs. And the U is YOU.
Yeah, that's a concern I have with "reform" too. I want my damned money back. I never wanted it taken from my checks to begin with, but I didn't have any choice. So if there's going to be a retooling, I fully expect the Fed to return to me every cent it took from me in the name of "putting it away" on my behalf.
-- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
