Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For most hvac filters or oil changes aren’t poverty situations. For a lot of SS recipients the income is the difference. Let me know if you need help with the math
Maybe they're the ones who need to do the math.
SS is the reason they're in poverty. Insurance is not the proper financial instrument by which to prepare for something with virtually a 100% probability of occurrence.
SS is the reason they're in poverty. Insurance is not the proper financial instrument by which to prepare for something with virtually a 100% probability of occurrence.
It’s clear to me you don’t understand SS at all.
This also raises some very thorny constitutional issues. If the government buys corporate shares, then one could argue that what corporations do is a government action. Presumably this would mean that corporate actions could be unconstitutional!
This also raises some very thorny constitutional issues. If the government buys corporate shares, then one could argue that what corporations do is a government action. Presumably this would mean that corporate actions could be unconstitutional!
I'm not saying I necessarily support investing social security funds in securities markets. However, what you say could easily be avoided. I'll give some examples:
1. The government could purchase non-voting shares of stock in corporations.
2. The government could make sure it never purchases a majority interest in any corporation.
3. Social security funds could be put into a "blind trust" so its not clear exactly what the exact investments are.
I'm kind of neutral over this idea. My problem is some people complain that social security funds aren't being invested and that because of that all contributors are being "ripped off". Now, we hear complaints that if some of those funds were invested in a way that got a greater rate of return that it would be wrong because the government would than own private business. I might accept one criticism. I won't accept both at the same time.
Not exactly. The federal government owns several businesses such as Freddie Mac, Freddie Mae, TVA and Amtrak. These are businesses, but do not sell stock, but they do sell bonds. When the US govt. bailed out AIG, did it take partial ownership? Not sure. But that is the problem - owning a company, seeing it fail and then taxpayers stepping in - the AIG bailout was controversial at the time, one can only imagine folks demanding the govt. bailout more companies.
Not exactly. The federal government owns several businesses such as Freddie Mac, Freddie Mae, TVA and Amtrak. These are businesses, but do not sell stock, but they do sell bonds. When the US govt. bailed out AIG, did it take partial ownership? Not sure. But that is the problem - owning a company, seeing it fail and then taxpayers stepping in - the AIG bailout was controversial at the time, one can only imagine folks demanding the govt. bailout more companies.
those listed are not private companies .
the govt cannot buy the stock of private companies or public ones …the above are considered agency’s of the government . amtrak is an independent agency so to speak
bail outs were loans secured by stock
it wasn’t the intention to own them so exceptions were made for holding collateral
the govt cannot by stock for investment purposes is the bottom line
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.