I have never read Atlas Shrugged so it doesn't prove much to me. My central point though is this --- which is a better investment? It's a utilitarian argument. See John Stuart Mills.
Dana On 5/27/05, loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We're going to base this on need? > > Do I really need to get back into Rand, and Atlas Shrugged? > > Some things never change :) > > IMNSHO we need to let those people that didn't have savings for retirement > fall flat on their faces and mooch off family and friends, I bet more people > would make sure they saved :) > > Tim > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, May 27, 2005 6:44 PM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: Re: Go Bush, Fabricate as much as you can.... > > > > > > I have previously suggested a cutoff of $100,000. Nobody below would > > get it. There was a large outcry and I was told that I did not > > understand Social Security and besides, $100,000 isn't as much money > > as I think it is. > > > > I actually understand it just fine. I understand that Bill Gates pays > > the same as that person who felt broke at $100,000 a year, and will > > receive a check just like they do. My point is that he does not really > > need it, now does he. > > > > In a climate where the current budget limits spending on Pell grants > > and student loans -- if I understood what I saw on C-SPan yesterday; > > have not seen this anywhere in the news --- then hello, where are our > > priorities. Where is marginal spending better put, sending a kid to > > college or sending Bill Gates a check he doesn't need? > > > > I'll shut up now > > Dana > > > > > > On 5/27/05, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Dana wrote: > > > > I agree, it's essentially welfare for little old white ladies, many of > > > > whom are far more affluen thant the people supporting them > > > > > > > > > > The thing that ticks me off is it's the baby boomers who've put our > > > country into massive debt and are now counting on social security > > > because they've also put themselves into massive debt. Since they've > > > been raiding social security they should bear the burden of the > > > solution. Why should we have to pay for their policy mistakes? > > > > > > If we did switch to welfare, however, it would be some of the > > > "greatest generation" that would pay since they would totally lose > > > their benefits. Although, as you point out, many of them can afford > > > too. > > > > > > Basically if, as of today, we said Social Security no longer exists, > > > anyone who'd like welfare has to prove that neither they nor their > > > kids can afford to pay for their retirement. When they prove that, > > > they become eligible for welfare. I bet that'd drop the SS deficit by > > > 50% or more. > > > > > > That doesn't touch the Medicare and Medicaid problem though, but it > > > helps move more money in that direction. > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Purchase Contribute 3 from House of Fusion, a Macromedia Authorized Affiliate and support the CF community. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=53 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:158981 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
