How to sell me on socialism.

[danielpalos]

Mogadishu had no taxes and virtually no regulation, for over a decade; how many fortune five hundred Firms, relocated there?

dear stupid liberal, they have no capitalism in Mogadishu

Not any more; true capitalism always fails; it is Only a matter of time.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If you had been faithfully depositing a regular amount of money in a safe and reliable investment throughout your working life you are an extremely rare exception, because it's a simple fact of human nature that the vast majority of workers would not, could not, do that. .

if they can steal 15% of your lifetime income weekly they can force you to put it in private account. Dah!!!!!!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

If you doubt that, consider the condition of the senior U.S. population prior to the implementation of the Social Security program.

why not consider the condition of seniors if they had not been ripped off their whole lives by libturd politicians???

 

[eflatminor]

You want to get me to support the idea of socialism? Here's how you do it.

The essential idea is that everyone has the same as everyone else, there are no rich and no poor.

1. The rich, like Gates, the Clintons, Warren Buffet, Al Gore, Michael Moore, Cher, Meryl Streep, and also the Koch Brothers, all of them must give up their riches.

2. The government controls the means of production, everyone gets paid the same.

3. The law of the land is that you must work. Unless it is medically impossible for you to do so, you have to have a job. Severe penalties for those who do not. You can and will get fired if you do not work to standards, and severe penalties for that as well.

4. As production and GDP increases, everyone gets raises.

The problem with socialism as Crazy Bernie and Hollywood and the DNC want is that they have no intention of giving up their riches. The rest of us little people will, but they won't. It will fail as it always has.

Bernie went way too far with his free everything...but it is fair to make sure that the mega rich pay taxes honestly

The meals on wheels , and kids school lunch cuts really pisses me of..

The federal government has no authority to feed people. It's not among the enumerated powers.

Start a charity if you feel strongly about it. Better yet, make lunch for a neighbor's kid.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Also, there is no reason why a worker cannot invest money in addition to his/her Social Security contribution.

so?????????? did anyone disagree?????

 

[danielpalos]

You want to get me to support the idea of socialism? Here's how you do it.

The essential idea is that everyone has the same as everyone else, there are no rich and no poor.

1. The rich, like Gates, the Clintons, Warren Buffet, Al Gore, Michael Moore, Cher, Meryl Streep, and also the Koch Brothers, all of them must give up their riches.

2. The government controls the means of production, everyone gets paid the same.

3. The law of the land is that you must work. Unless it is medically impossible for you to do so, you have to have a job. Severe penalties for those who do not. You can and will get fired if you do not work to standards, and severe penalties for that as well.

4. As production and GDP increases, everyone gets raises.

The problem with socialism as Crazy Bernie and Hollywood and the DNC want is that they have no intention of giving up their riches. The rest of us little people will, but they won't. It will fail as it always has.

Bernie went way too far with his free everything...but it is fair to make sure that the mega rich pay taxes honestly

The meals on wheels , and kids school lunch cuts really pisses me of..

The federal government has no authority to feed people. It's not among the enumerated powers.

Start a charity if you feel strongly about it. Better yet, make lunch for a neighbor's kid.

Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution.

 

[eflatminor]

You want to get me to support the idea of socialism? Here's how you do it.

The essential idea is that everyone has the same as everyone else, there are no rich and no poor.

1. The rich, like Gates, the Clintons, Warren Buffet, Al Gore, Michael Moore, Cher, Meryl Streep, and also the Koch Brothers, all of them must give up their riches.

2. The government controls the means of production, everyone gets paid the same.

3. The law of the land is that you must work. Unless it is medically impossible for you to do so, you have to have a job. Severe penalties for those who do not. You can and will get fired if you do not work to standards, and severe penalties for that as well.

4. As production and GDP increases, everyone gets raises.

The problem with socialism as Crazy Bernie and Hollywood and the DNC want is that they have no intention of giving up their riches. The rest of us little people will, but they won't. It will fail as it always has.

Bernie went way too far with his free everything...but it is fair to make sure that the mega rich pay taxes honestly

The meals on wheels , and kids school lunch cuts really pisses me of..

The federal government has no authority to feed people. It's not among the enumerated powers.

Start a charity if you feel strongly about it. Better yet, make lunch for a neighbor's kid.

Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution.

Read the Federalist Papers. General welfare had NOTHING to do with the modern understanding of welfare, as much as today's progressive leftists wish it did.

If it did, there would be no point in enumerating powers. Read:

To illustrate how enumeration limits power, consider the General Welfare Clause of Article I, section 8. Were the passage containing that clause to be read simply as authorizing Congress to tax and spend for the general welfare, as some read it today, Congress would have been granted all but unlimited power and the enumeration of other powers would have been to no purpose. Thus, the passage must be read as permitting taxing only for enumerated ends; and the clause restricts such funding to the general welfare only, not to the welfare of particular parties. Similarly, the power given Congress to regulate “commerce among the states” could not have been a power to regulate anything that “affects” commerce, which in principle is everything, for that too would have made pointless any limits imposed by enumeration. Rather, the Commerce Clause was meant primarily to restrain state power: to ensure the free flow of goods and services among the states, Congress was given the power to regulate such commerce—to make it “regular.” Those limitations are reinforced by the Necessary and Proper Clause, which limits the means available to Congress to those that are “necessary” for executing enumerated powers—without such means, the enumerated powers could not be executed—and “proper” for a government dedicated to liberty.

 

[danielpalos]

You want to get me to support the idea of socialism? Here's how you do it.

The essential idea is that everyone has the same as everyone else, there are no rich and no poor.

1. The rich, like Gates, the Clintons, Warren Buffet, Al Gore, Michael Moore, Cher, Meryl Streep, and also the Koch Brothers, all of them must give up their riches.

2. The government controls the means of production, everyone gets paid the same.

3. The law of the land is that you must work. Unless it is medically impossible for you to do so, you have to have a job. Severe penalties for those who do not. You can and will get fired if you do not work to standards, and severe penalties for that as well.

4. As production and GDP increases, everyone gets raises.

The problem with socialism as Crazy Bernie and Hollywood and the DNC want is that they have no intention of giving up their riches. The rest of us little people will, but they won't. It will fail as it always has.

Bernie went way too far with his free everything...but it is fair to make sure that the mega rich pay taxes honestly

The meals on wheels , and kids school lunch cuts really pisses me of..

The federal government has no authority to feed people. It's not among the enumerated powers.

Start a charity if you feel strongly about it. Better yet, make lunch for a neighbor's kid.

Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution.

Read the Federalist Papers. General welfare had NOTHING to do with the modern understanding of welfare, as much as today's progressive leftists wish it did.

If it did, there would be no point in enumerating powers. Read:

To illustrate how enumeration limits power, consider the General Welfare Clause of Article I, section 8. Were the passage containing that clause to be read simply as authorizing Congress to tax and spend for the general welfare, as some read it today, Congress would have been granted all but unlimited power and the enumeration of other powers would have been to no purpose. Thus, the passage must be read as permitting taxing only for enumerated ends; and the clause restricts such funding to the general welfare only, not to the welfare of particular parties. Similarly, the power given Congress to regulate “commerce among the states” could not have been a power to regulate anything that “affects” commerce, which in principle is everything, for that too would have made pointless any limits imposed by enumeration. Rather, the Commerce Clause was meant primarily to restrain state power: to ensure the free flow of goods and services among the states, Congress was given the power to regulate such commerce—to make it “regular.” Those limitations are reinforced by the Necessary and Proper Clause, which limits the means available to Congress to those that are “necessary” for executing enumerated powers—without such means, the enumerated powers could not be executed—and “proper” for a government dedicated to liberty.

Dear, we have a social Contract; providing for the general welfare is a Contractual term.

It is like the left claiming; there is No power delegated for the common Offense nor the general Warfare.

 

[eflatminor]

You want to get me to support the idea of socialism? Here's how you do it.

The essential idea is that everyone has the same as everyone else, there are no rich and no poor.

1. The rich, like Gates, the Clintons, Warren Buffet, Al Gore, Michael Moore, Cher, Meryl Streep, and also the Koch Brothers, all of them must give up their riches.

2. The government controls the means of production, everyone gets paid the same.

3. The law of the land is that you must work. Unless it is medically impossible for you to do so, you have to have a job. Severe penalties for those who do not. You can and will get fired if you do not work to standards, and severe penalties for that as well.

4. As production and GDP increases, everyone gets raises.

The problem with socialism as Crazy Bernie and Hollywood and the DNC want is that they have no intention of giving up their riches. The rest of us little people will, but they won't. It will fail as it always has.

Bernie went way too far with his free everything...but it is fair to make sure that the mega rich pay taxes honestly

The meals on wheels , and kids school lunch cuts really pisses me of..

The federal government has no authority to feed people. It's not among the enumerated powers.

Start a charity if you feel strongly about it. Better yet, make lunch for a neighbor's kid.

Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution.

Read the Federalist Papers. General welfare had NOTHING to do with the modern understanding of welfare, as much as today's progressive leftists wish it did.

If it did, there would be no point in enumerating powers. Read:

To illustrate how enumeration limits power, consider the General Welfare Clause of Article I, section 8. Were the passage containing that clause to be read simply as authorizing Congress to tax and spend for the general welfare, as some read it today, Congress would have been granted all but unlimited power and the enumeration of other powers would have been to no purpose. Thus, the passage must be read as permitting taxing only for enumerated ends; and the clause restricts such funding to the general welfare only, not to the welfare of particular parties. Similarly, the power given Congress to regulate “commerce among the states” could not have been a power to regulate anything that “affects” commerce, which in principle is everything, for that too would have made pointless any limits imposed by enumeration. Rather, the Commerce Clause was meant primarily to restrain state power: to ensure the free flow of goods and services among the states, Congress was given the power to regulate such commerce—to make it “regular.” Those limitations are reinforced by the Necessary and Proper Clause, which limits the means available to Congress to those that are “necessary” for executing enumerated powers—without such means, the enumerated powers could not be executed—and “proper” for a government dedicated to liberty.

Dear, we have a social Contract; providing for the general welfare is a Contractual term.

It is like the left claiming; there is No power delegated for the common Offense nor the general Warfare.

We have no such thing. We have a constitutional republic in which the federal government is granted few, well defined powers. Everything else falls to the people.

Screw your social contract.

 

[danielpalos]

Bernie went way too far with his free everything...but it is fair to make sure that the mega rich pay taxes honestly

The meals on wheels , and kids school lunch cuts really pisses me of..

The federal government has no authority to feed people. It's not among the enumerated powers.

Start a charity if you feel strongly about it. Better yet, make lunch for a neighbor's kid.

Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution.

Read the Federalist Papers. General welfare had NOTHING to do with the modern understanding of welfare, as much as today's progressive leftists wish it did.

If it did, there would be no point in enumerating powers. Read:

To illustrate how enumeration limits power, consider the General Welfare Clause of Article I, section 8. Were the passage containing that clause to be read simply as authorizing Congress to tax and spend for the general welfare, as some read it today, Congress would have been granted all but unlimited power and the enumeration of other powers would have been to no purpose. Thus, the passage must be read as permitting taxing only for enumerated ends; and the clause restricts such funding to the general welfare only, not to the welfare of particular parties. Similarly, the power given Congress to regulate “commerce among the states” could not have been a power to regulate anything that “affects” commerce, which in principle is everything, for that too would have made pointless any limits imposed by enumeration. Rather, the Commerce Clause was meant primarily to restrain state power: to ensure the free flow of goods and services among the states, Congress was given the power to regulate such commerce—to make it “regular.” Those limitations are reinforced by the Necessary and Proper Clause, which limits the means available to Congress to those that are “necessary” for executing enumerated powers—without such means, the enumerated powers could not be executed—and “proper” for a government dedicated to liberty.

Dear, we have a social Contract; providing for the general welfare is a Contractual term.

It is like the left claiming; there is No power delegated for the common Offense nor the general Warfare.

We have no such thing. We have a constitutional republic in which the federal government is granted few, well defined powers. Everything else falls to the people.

Screw your social contract.

dear, our social Contract is our supreme law of the land. there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

Providing for the general welfare is in our federal Constitution.

There is no power to provide for the common offense or general warfare; as business as usual, like there is for the general welfare regarding our Commerce Clause.

 

[eflatminor]

The federal government has no authority to feed people. It's not among the enumerated powers.

Start a charity if you feel strongly about it. Better yet, make lunch for a neighbor's kid.

Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution.

Read the Federalist Papers. General welfare had NOTHING to do with the modern understanding of welfare, as much as today's progressive leftists wish it did.

If it did, there would be no point in enumerating powers. Read:

To illustrate how enumeration limits power, consider the General Welfare Clause of Article I, section 8. Were the passage containing that clause to be read simply as authorizing Congress to tax and spend for the general welfare, as some read it today, Congress would have been granted all but unlimited power and the enumeration of other powers would have been to no purpose. Thus, the passage must be read as permitting taxing only for enumerated ends; and the clause restricts such funding to the general welfare only, not to the welfare of particular parties. Similarly, the power given Congress to regulate “commerce among the states” could not have been a power to regulate anything that “affects” commerce, which in principle is everything, for that too would have made pointless any limits imposed by enumeration. Rather, the Commerce Clause was meant primarily to restrain state power: to ensure the free flow of goods and services among the states, Congress was given the power to regulate such commerce—to make it “regular.” Those limitations are reinforced by the Necessary and Proper Clause, which limits the means available to Congress to those that are “necessary” for executing enumerated powers—without such means, the enumerated powers could not be executed—and “proper” for a government dedicated to liberty.

Dear, we have a social Contract; providing for the general welfare is a Contractual term.

It is like the left claiming; there is No power delegated for the common Offense nor the general Warfare.

We have no such thing. We have a constitutional republic in which the federal government is granted few, well defined powers. Everything else falls to the people.

Screw your social contract.

dear, our social Contract is our supreme law of the land. there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

Providing for the general welfare is in our federal Constitution.

There is no power to provide for the common offense or general warfare; as business as usual, like there is for the general welfare regarding our Commerce Clause.

The actual law of the land does not comport with your little fantasy.

 

[danielpalos]

Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution.

Read the Federalist Papers. General welfare had NOTHING to do with the modern understanding of welfare, as much as today's progressive leftists wish it did.

If it did, there would be no point in enumerating powers. Read:

To illustrate how enumeration limits power, consider the General Welfare Clause of Article I, section 8. Were the passage containing that clause to be read simply as authorizing Congress to tax and spend for the general welfare, as some read it today, Congress would have been granted all but unlimited power and the enumeration of other powers would have been to no purpose. Thus, the passage must be read as permitting taxing only for enumerated ends; and the clause restricts such funding to the general welfare only, not to the welfare of particular parties. Similarly, the power given Congress to regulate “commerce among the states” could not have been a power to regulate anything that “affects” commerce, which in principle is everything, for that too would have made pointless any limits imposed by enumeration. Rather, the Commerce Clause was meant primarily to restrain state power: to ensure the free flow of goods and services among the states, Congress was given the power to regulate such commerce—to make it “regular.” Those limitations are reinforced by the Necessary and Proper Clause, which limits the means available to Congress to those that are “necessary” for executing enumerated powers—without such means, the enumerated powers could not be executed—and “proper” for a government dedicated to liberty.

Dear, we have a social Contract; providing for the general welfare is a Contractual term.

It is like the left claiming; there is No power delegated for the common Offense nor the general Warfare.

We have no such thing. We have a constitutional republic in which the federal government is granted few, well defined powers. Everything else falls to the people.

Screw your social contract.

dear, our social Contract is our supreme law of the land. there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

Providing for the general welfare is in our federal Constitution.

There is no power to provide for the common offense or general warfare; as business as usual, like there is for the general welfare regarding our Commerce Clause.

The actual law of the land does not comport with your little fantasy.

It is the law, not fantasy; only the right wing, has nothing but fantasy, along with a majority.

 

[PredFan]

You want to get me to support the idea of socialism? Here's how you do it.

The essential idea is that everyone has the same as everyone else, there are no rich and no poor.

1. The rich, like Gates, the Clintons, Warren Buffet, Al Gore, Michael Moore, Cher, Meryl Streep, and also the Koch Brothers, all of them must give up their riches.

2. The government controls the means of production, everyone gets paid the same.

3. The law of the land is that you must work. Unless it is medically impossible for you to do so, you have to have a job. Severe penalties for those who do not. You can and will get fired if you do not work to standards, and severe penalties for that as well.

4. As production and GDP increases, everyone gets raises.

The problem with socialism as Crazy Bernie and Hollywood and the DNC want is that they have no intention of giving up their riches. The rest of us little people will, but they won't. It will fail as it always has.

Bernie went way too far with his free everything...but it is fair to make sure that the mega rich pay taxes honestly

The meals on wheels , and kids school lunch cuts really pisses me of..

The federal government has no authority to feed people. It's not among the enumerated powers.

Start a charity if you feel strongly about it. Better yet, make lunch for a neighbor's kid.

Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution.

Are you really that ignorant or are you just arguing for the sake of it?

 

[PredFan]

The federal government has no authority to feed people. It's not among the enumerated powers.

Start a charity if you feel strongly about it. Better yet, make lunch for a neighbor's kid.

Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution.

Read the Federalist Papers. General welfare had NOTHING to do with the modern understanding of welfare, as much as today's progressive leftists wish it did.

If it did, there would be no point in enumerating powers. Read:

To illustrate how enumeration limits power, consider the General Welfare Clause of Article I, section 8. Were the passage containing that clause to be read simply as authorizing Congress to tax and spend for the general welfare, as some read it today, Congress would have been granted all but unlimited power and the enumeration of other powers would have been to no purpose. Thus, the passage must be read as permitting taxing only for enumerated ends; and the clause restricts such funding to the general welfare only, not to the welfare of particular parties. Similarly, the power given Congress to regulate “commerce among the states” could not have been a power to regulate anything that “affects” commerce, which in principle is everything, for that too would have made pointless any limits imposed by enumeration. Rather, the Commerce Clause was meant primarily to restrain state power: to ensure the free flow of goods and services among the states, Congress was given the power to regulate such commerce—to make it “regular.” Those limitations are reinforced by the Necessary and Proper Clause, which limits the means available to Congress to those that are “necessary” for executing enumerated powers—without such means, the enumerated powers could not be executed—and “proper” for a government dedicated to liberty.

Dear, we have a social Contract; providing for the general welfare is a Contractual term.

It is like the left claiming; there is No power delegated for the common Offense nor the general Warfare.

We have no such thing. We have a constitutional republic in which the federal government is granted few, well defined powers. Everything else falls to the people.

Screw your social contract.

dear, our social Contract is our supreme law of the land. there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

Providing for the general welfare is in our federal Constitution.

There is no power to provide for the common offense or general warfare; as business as usual, like there is for the general welfare regarding our Commerce Clause.

You have a serious misunderstanding of history, the Constitution, and our system of government. Just wow!

 

[danielpalos]

You want to get me to support the idea of socialism? Here's how you do it.

The essential idea is that everyone has the same as everyone else, there are no rich and no poor.

1. The rich, like Gates, the Clintons, Warren Buffet, Al Gore, Michael Moore, Cher, Meryl Streep, and also the Koch Brothers, all of them must give up their riches.

2. The government controls the means of production, everyone gets paid the same.

3. The law of the land is that you must work. Unless it is medically impossible for you to do so, you have to have a job. Severe penalties for those who do not. You can and will get fired if you do not work to standards, and severe penalties for that as well.

4. As production and GDP increases, everyone gets raises.

The problem with socialism as Crazy Bernie and Hollywood and the DNC want is that they have no intention of giving up their riches. The rest of us little people will, but they won't. It will fail as it always has.

Bernie went way too far with his free everything...but it is fair to make sure that the mega rich pay taxes honestly

The meals on wheels , and kids school lunch cuts really pisses me of..

The federal government has no authority to feed people. It's not among the enumerated powers.

Start a charity if you feel strongly about it. Better yet, make lunch for a neighbor's kid.

Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution.

Are you really that ignorant or are you just arguing for the sake of it?

do you always appeal to ignorance of the law to try to make a point you don't have, with a valid argument you couldn't come up with?

 

[danielpalos]

Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution.

Read the Federalist Papers. General welfare had NOTHING to do with the modern understanding of welfare, as much as today's progressive leftists wish it did.

If it did, there would be no point in enumerating powers. Read:

To illustrate how enumeration limits power, consider the General Welfare Clause of Article I, section 8. Were the passage containing that clause to be read simply as authorizing Congress to tax and spend for the general welfare, as some read it today, Congress would have been granted all but unlimited power and the enumeration of other powers would have been to no purpose. Thus, the passage must be read as permitting taxing only for enumerated ends; and the clause restricts such funding to the general welfare only, not to the welfare of particular parties. Similarly, the power given Congress to regulate “commerce among the states” could not have been a power to regulate anything that “affects” commerce, which in principle is everything, for that too would have made pointless any limits imposed by enumeration. Rather, the Commerce Clause was meant primarily to restrain state power: to ensure the free flow of goods and services among the states, Congress was given the power to regulate such commerce—to make it “regular.” Those limitations are reinforced by the Necessary and Proper Clause, which limits the means available to Congress to those that are “necessary” for executing enumerated powers—without such means, the enumerated powers could not be executed—and “proper” for a government dedicated to liberty.

Dear, we have a social Contract; providing for the general welfare is a Contractual term.

It is like the left claiming; there is No power delegated for the common Offense nor the general Warfare.

We have no such thing. We have a constitutional republic in which the federal government is granted few, well defined powers. Everything else falls to the people.

Screw your social contract.

dear, our social Contract is our supreme law of the land. there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

Providing for the general welfare is in our federal Constitution.

There is no power to provide for the common offense or general warfare; as business as usual, like there is for the general welfare regarding our Commerce Clause.

You have a serious misunderstanding of history, the Constitution, and our system of government. Just wow!

Dear, I am not the one who Only has appeals to ignorance of the law instead of valid arguments.

 

[eflatminor]

Read the Federalist Papers. General welfare had NOTHING to do with the modern understanding of welfare, as much as today's progressive leftists wish it did.

If it did, there would be no point in enumerating powers. Read:

To illustrate how enumeration limits power, consider the General Welfare Clause of Article I, section 8. Were the passage containing that clause to be read simply as authorizing Congress to tax and spend for the general welfare, as some read it today, Congress would have been granted all but unlimited power and the enumeration of other powers would have been to no purpose. Thus, the passage must be read as permitting taxing only for enumerated ends; and the clause restricts such funding to the general welfare only, not to the welfare of particular parties. Similarly, the power given Congress to regulate “commerce among the states” could not have been a power to regulate anything that “affects” commerce, which in principle is everything, for that too would have made pointless any limits imposed by enumeration. Rather, the Commerce Clause was meant primarily to restrain state power: to ensure the free flow of goods and services among the states, Congress was given the power to regulate such commerce—to make it “regular.” Those limitations are reinforced by the Necessary and Proper Clause, which limits the means available to Congress to those that are “necessary” for executing enumerated powers—without such means, the enumerated powers could not be executed—and “proper” for a government dedicated to liberty.

Dear, we have a social Contract; providing for the general welfare is a Contractual term.

It is like the left claiming; there is No power delegated for the common Offense nor the general Warfare.

We have no such thing. We have a constitutional republic in which the federal government is granted few, well defined powers. Everything else falls to the people.

Screw your social contract.

dear, our social Contract is our supreme law of the land. there is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

Providing for the general welfare is in our federal Constitution.

There is no power to provide for the common offense or general warfare; as business as usual, like there is for the general welfare regarding our Commerce Clause.

The actual law of the land does not comport with your little fantasy.

It is the law, not fantasy; only the right wing, has nothing but fantasy, along with a majority.

Now that's funny...in a sad and pathetic sort of way.

 

[MikeK]

if they can steal 15% of your lifetime income weekly they can force you to put it in private account. Dah!!!!!!!

You mean like a 401K? Do you know how many millions of 401K portfolios were wiped out or close to it by the 2008 recession? And how many Americans were left destitute by the Market crash of 1929? But I'm sure you don't believe that could ever happen again. Right? What you don't know, or don't believe is that disaster was the inspiration for creating the Social Security System.

Retirement Dreams Disappear With 401(k)s

My family was among those who became destitute during the Great Depression. My father was among the millions of unemployed. The only thing that saved my family from being homeless was FDR's "make-work" programs, such as the CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps) and Highway Restoration. So my generation has a natural distrust of private investment programs and a supreme confidence in Social Security -- which cannot be wiped out by a Market crash.

While I would never consider any private investment, in addition to my generous New York City pension and my monthly Social Security check I have a nice stack of gradually maturing U.S. Savings Bonds which I've been buying since the 1960s, most of which are paying between 6 and 8 percent interest -- and all of which are immune to any kind of banking or Market crash or "fluctuation."

So how do you have it worked out in your mind that I've been "ripped off" by Government?

 

[eflatminor]

You mean like a 401K? Do you know how many millions of 401K portfolios were wiped out or close to it by the 2008 recession?

If I could just jump in here to make one point. The stock market is up well over 200% since the recession. The S&P has more than tripled. Just saying.

 

[MikeK]

You mean like a 401K? Do you know how many millions of 401K portfolios were wiped out or close to it by the 2008 recession?

If I could just jump in here to make one point. The stock market is up well over 200% since the recession. The S&P has more than tripled. Just saying.

Thanks for the input. It is interesting and some would say rather tempting. But can you say the bubble is never going to burst?

As mentioned in my last message, I was born at the peak of the Great Depression (1936), which made my family hungry and almost homeless. So I've been subjected to adamant warnings throughout my younger life to not trust private investments. I've been imbued with the notion that the Stock Market is analogous to a Las Vegas casino. I know my U.S. Savings Bonds do not pay off as much as some private investments do, but I also know they are immune to what happened in 1929 and 2008.

Again: Retirement Dreams Disappear With 401(k)s