[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> I think the Bush idea of private accounts for Social Security is an effort >> to >> reduce government responsibility for entitlements which has potential, >> depending on how it is done. If it took the form of an ESOP, where as a >> worker worked he or she would earn shares in a fund composed of various >> stocks, it *might* work, as long as no one is allowed to p*ss in the soup. > > I'm all for private accounts, but the Ds will never go for it. Individual > control means less
government control which is anathema to the donkey party. I don't get it. I thought Rs where in for govt. control of the population in order to 'protect' them. And I thought that if govt. had the duty to 'protect' then this duty would not be circumscribed only to terrorism, thus 'the people' would be 'protected' from private corporations that wage economic terrorism on people's savings. My concern is that if they have too much influence, the benefits will be tempered in the same way tax deductions are in that they start going away when you start making a reasonable amount of money. Then they just become smoke and mirrors like so many govt programs supposed to help us all. > > It's funny you mention Sens Kennedy and Kerry as they would be the ones to > put in these provisions that if you earn more than 30K you are not deserving > of this benefit. > > A pox upon them all! > > Larry Miller > _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
