Such a child, can only see what's in front of them. My point was its more complex than yes or no. It would be a whole new system, such as: every child born is given $10,000 by the government at birth. It goes into a private account in their name, and is invested in either a money market or broad stock index fund. They cannot touch it until the age of 65, and the government has no access to it. The money comes from the Sovereign Wealth Fund, which is funded by tariffs and other corporate taxes. Social Security is only grandfathered to those born before the program starts. There is much more, but the point again, it's not a yes or no question.
Let me guess - another fuckin' Cry Boomer weasle - benefitted/gained from asset price inflation for half-a-century and never became adults - telling us we're children. "It's the well-behaved children that make the most formidable revolutionaries they don't say a word, they don't hide under the table, they eat only one piece of chocolate at a time. But later on, they make society pay dearly." [Jean-Paul Sartre] It's no surprise - in a time when extinction rebellion couldn't be more urgently called for - we still need to school those who don't understand the horrors of adrenacrome extraction. "When I criticize the system they think I criticize them, and that is of course because they fully accept the system and identify themselves with it. [Thomas Martin] Send me your assassins - I will change their minds and send them back at you.
That fact that the government HAS money to invest in a Sovereign Wealth Fund means that [1] we paid too much tax and they have money left over, or [2] money was borrowed from the FED to invest. So in response: [1] Give me my portion back and I'll invest it directly as I see fit [2] I don't feel comfortable being liable (because if the government borrows $, in the end we're liable for the loan) for loans made with me as a guarantor and for which I have no control whatsoever. Feel free to let me know if I'm getting this wrong...
As apposed to USAID, that would be a definite yes, with the caveat that it’s audited once a year. However there are a lot of homeless people (mentally ill) that could use the help first.
I think one has only to look at the Freedom 55 concept to know that a 50 year cycle is very hard to predict. If Freedom 55 worked so very well everyone would be ready for retirement now wouldn't they. Yet one malinvestment after another has decimated most people's nest eggs (mostly because they believed in someone). You see the collapses in the stock market over time created this mess. Mom and pop don't buy at the bottom. They create the bottom. Just as they create the top. Find a way to keep stable and compounding returns over time. If you do then most people would invest. Find a way to keep the sharks from skimming off the top and raiding the portfolios and they would once again trust this process. Correct me if I am wrong but isn't the US government on the hook for over 200 trillion in social security and old age benefits? Did they save for that? I rest my case. Trust is in desperate need of being reestablished.
I'm for it if it would lead to the elimination of all direct taxation. All direct taxation is theft and amounts to paying tribute to tyranny. If you owe any tax, you are not free.
There are some universities with endowment funds so large that all of their expenses could be covered by investment earnings several times over yet they still charge large amounts for tuition and fees. Why?? If the government intends to follow that model, then it's of no benefit to us.
SWF buys bitcoin to fund the debt crisis. do they not have to sell it to actually pay that debt down leaving retail holding their bag? or are they going to take a loan out on the investment to pay a debt with a debt??
20 miles off the Gaza strip 600 ft below the ocean lies one of the largest gas fields discoversd,and that is why Gaza is so valuable
Nope we care about people that’s why Zelensky is putting up Ukraine resources
Greg, your surveys are like the government "yes or no" questions during hearings. My answer would be yes, if it replaces social security.
So, what you're saying is....that you want to replace one CORRUPT PONZI SCHEME......for ANOTHER CORRUPT PONZI SCHEME? lol O-tay!
Yep waiting on the last bag holder the American way
Such a child, can only see what's in front of them. My point was its more complex than yes or no. It would be a whole new system, such as: every child born is given $10,000 by the government at birth. It goes into a private account in their name, and is invested in either a money market or broad stock index fund. They cannot touch it until the age of 65, and the government has no access to it. The money comes from the Sovereign Wealth Fund, which is funded by tariffs and other corporate taxes. Social Security is only grandfathered to those born before the program starts. There is much more, but the point again, it's not a yes or no question.
Riiiiight! You keep believing that.
Let me guess - another fuckin' Cry Boomer weasle - benefitted/gained from asset price inflation for half-a-century and never became adults - telling us we're children. "It's the well-behaved children that make the most formidable revolutionaries they don't say a word, they don't hide under the table, they eat only one piece of chocolate at a time. But later on, they make society pay dearly." [Jean-Paul Sartre] It's no surprise - in a time when extinction rebellion couldn't be more urgently called for - we still need to school those who don't understand the horrors of adrenacrome extraction. "When I criticize the system they think I criticize them, and that is of course because they fully accept the system and identify themselves with it. [Thomas Martin] Send me your assassins - I will change their minds and send them back at you.
I think Trump has a deeper strategy at play that may involve cryptos here?
That fact that the government HAS money to invest in a Sovereign Wealth Fund means that [1] we paid too much tax and they have money left over, or [2] money was borrowed from the FED to invest. So in response: [1] Give me my portion back and I'll invest it directly as I see fit [2] I don't feel comfortable being liable (because if the government borrows $, in the end we're liable for the loan) for loans made with me as a guarantor and for which I have no control whatsoever. Feel free to let me know if I'm getting this wrong...
It is yet ANOTHER PONZI SCHEME........JUST LIKE.......
SOCIAL SECURITY!
And I want NO part of it!!
No thank you!
George W once proposed this.
As apposed to USAID, that would be a definite yes, with the caveat that it’s audited once a year. However there are a lot of homeless people (mentally ill) that could use the help first.
It depends on what it is used for.
Trump dad gave him and his brother a billion dollars and told them to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps
🤣
I think one has only to look at the Freedom 55 concept to know that a 50 year cycle is very hard to predict. If Freedom 55 worked so very well everyone would be ready for retirement now wouldn't they. Yet one malinvestment after another has decimated most people's nest eggs (mostly because they believed in someone). You see the collapses in the stock market over time created this mess. Mom and pop don't buy at the bottom. They create the bottom. Just as they create the top. Find a way to keep stable and compounding returns over time. If you do then most people would invest. Find a way to keep the sharks from skimming off the top and raiding the portfolios and they would once again trust this process. Correct me if I am wrong but isn't the US government on the hook for over 200 trillion in social security and old age benefits? Did they save for that? I rest my case. Trust is in desperate need of being reestablished.
Can’t TRUST THE Government
I'm for it if it would lead to the elimination of all direct taxation. All direct taxation is theft and amounts to paying tribute to tyranny. If you owe any tax, you are not free.
There are some universities with endowment funds so large that all of their expenses could be covered by investment earnings several times over yet they still charge large amounts for tuition and fees. Why?? If the government intends to follow that model, then it's of no benefit to us.
Stop busting Trump out the maga crowd will be filling up the psych clinic so invest in big pharmaceutical companies happy pills
It was just my answer to Greg's question. The whole country is mostly stupid or crazy.
I would love for that to become reality. Trump has a lot of political opposition to overcome to get that done.
How about the system catering now for which it was meant to do. Not put us in the do, do, do. Pie in the Sky, way too late now.
A good dictator could clean it all up even at this late date, but we don't have a good dictator anywhere on the horizon.
Political true but they all love money and looking at the children while they play J Trull
I don't know what J Trull is, but if it's akin to pizzagate then I get it.
SWF buys bitcoin to fund the debt crisis. do they not have to sell it to actually pay that debt down leaving retail holding their bag? or are they going to take a loan out on the investment to pay a debt with a debt??
Bitcoin is what it will be used for. To back Tether, the new digital money that's coming.