People should be able to retire whenever they choose

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 01:12 PM
link   
In a capitalistic and free country work is a choice. Those that don't want to work can live on welfare and those that want to live high on the hog can figure out how to make that happen, numerous people do just that in America all the time.

Ordinary Americans become rich or richer by investing in the stock market.
If people were "allowed" to put portions of their social security money into the stock market they could build a very nice nest egg for retirement.

Politicians incite people to blame corporations for nearly every ill in order to distract them from economic reality. Politicians have made it impossible for workers to choose where their social security money is invested. Workers have to contribute a portion of their earnings to social security from every paycheck, why can't people make a choice where some of that money goes?

Where does all that social security money go? All that money that has been plowed into social security the last sixty years should be more than enough to take care of those reaching retirement age. Yet, social security is facing insolvency, running out of money and leaving a lot of old people in dire predicaments.

The only people that can afford to retire are those that have built a business, invested in the stock market, or have inherited money from parents that have invested in the stock market or their own companies.

The stock market swings high and low, which is the nature of how stocks perform. If young people were allowed to put a portion of their money into the stock market, into companies, those people would have a nest egg built up by the time they were in their 30's 40's and 50's, and able to retire or start a business with the money. Social security makes no promise that there will be any money that was put into it by the time a young person today is old enough to retire, nearly a hundred years from now, the way things are heading.

"Some" people have lost money in the stock market but "all" people have lost money in the social security system. People who depend 100% on social security will live in poverty, no way around that. People that have put money in the stock market will do far far better, and many will become rich and retire way before they are too old to enjoy their money.

You can give your money to the politians and they will happily squander it for you, as they have consistently done the last few decades or you can put your money into large and small corporations...that consistently have made money for those that have invested in them.

No one has gotten rich investing in social security but millions of ordinary people have become rich or better off, investing in money-making companies.

Nearly all senators and presidents are rich, and not because they made lots of money from a government paycheck, they made their millions because they invested in the golden goose, also known as the stock market on Wall Street!

Why then are some of these stock-market-rich politicians against workers placing some of their money designated for social security into stocks? My guess is that people with money and freedom are difficult to control. People on welfare or fearful of ending up on welfare, are easier to manipulate when votes count.




posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 01:20 PM
link   
This is a rather ignorant post, and it's not even really related to the thread title.

First off, the stock market is no sure fire thing. You don't put money in it and automatically make a fortune. In fact, the vast majority of people putting money in the stock market either make very little, or lose money. So why would we allow people to put their retirement savings fund into something so volatile? So they get old and either starve or ask for more money? No thanks.

If people want to invest in the stock market, they can take their money and do that. But having a little set aside for social security is a good thing. I see no reason why they can't do both. People should be saving 10-20% of their income. They shouldn't have to rely on social security, but it is a good fallback.
edit on 21-1-2013 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375
This is a rather ignorant post, and it's not even really related to the thread title.

First off, the stock market is no sure fire thing. You don't put money in it and automatically make a fortune. In fact, the vast majority of people putting money in the stock market either make very little, or lose money. So why would we allow people to put their retirement savings fund into something so volatile? So they get old and either starve or ask for more money? No thanks.

If people want to invest in the stock market, they can take their money and do that. But having a little set aside for social security is a good thing. I see no reason why they can't do both. People should be saving 10-20% of their income. They shouldn't have to rely on social security, but it is a good fallback.
edit on 21-1-2013 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)


It might be a little confused, but it's not ignorant. The OP is right. The bums in Washington have squandered our money while they are all getting rich. They weren't held to the same laws and standards the rest of us were regarding inside information and investing in the markets. They would steer our tax dollars to projects that enrich themselves. And Social Security is one of the biggest frauds perpetrated on us tax paying Americans. That money was supposed to be in a lock box but instead was and still is used as their slush fund. It's how Clinton balanced the budget and is why it will be insolvent in the not too distant future. Bush may have been a lot of things, but he wanted to give people more control over their retirements, yet the democrats in Congress saw this as a threat to their control and their shady incomes.

This country is severely broken. Unfortunately it will probably take something drastic to fix it and that probably means just what it sounds like.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375
This is a rather ignorant post, and it's not even really related to the thread title.

First off, the stock market is no sure fire thing. You don't put money in it and automatically make a fortune. In fact, the vast majority of people putting money in the stock market either make very little, or lose money. So why would we allow people to put their retirement savings fund into something so volatile? So they get old and either starve or ask for more money? No thanks.

If people want to invest in the stock market, they can take their money and do that. But having a little set aside for social security is a good thing. I see no reason why they can't do both. People should be saving 10-20% of their income. They shouldn't have to rely on social security, but it is a good fallback.
edit on 21-1-2013 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)


You say the stock market is no sure thing, are you implying that social security is? Social security is bankrupt.

If retirement age people had put a portion of their money into stocks as well as social security they would have a whole lot of money in their stock accounts, no ifs ands or butts.

Millions of people have made fortunes in the stock market, just because they are not out there bragging about it don't mean they haven't.

The stock market is the best road to wealth that is available to the rank and file, the working class, that there is. Short of owning a business there is no other way, well get two or three jobs might do it.

No one is going to get instantly wealthy...for most it will take time and some planning. Many people don't have enough money or discipline to buy stocks and it will only happen for them if part of the money going to social security also goes into mutual funds.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by sleeper
 



The only people that can afford to retire are those that have built a business, invested in the stock market, or have inherited money from parents that have invested in the stock market or their own companies.


In 2011, 49% of the population lived in a household where at least one member received a direct benefit from the federal government.

You might as well call that retired - they get paid to sit on their arse. I'm sure Obama will grow that number over the next 4 years.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost375
This is a rather ignorant post, and it's not even really related to the thread title.

First off, the stock market is no sure fire thing. You don't put money in it and automatically make a fortune. In fact, the vast majority of people putting money in the stock market either make very little, or lose money. So why would we allow people to put their retirement savings fund into something so volatile? So they get old and either starve or ask for more money? No thanks.

If people want to invest in the stock market, they can take their money and do that. But having a little set aside for social security is a good thing. I see no reason why they can't do both. People should be saving 10-20% of their income. They shouldn't have to rely on social security, but it is a good fallback.
edit on 21-1-2013 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)


While I agree that the body of the post doesn't support the title, maybe the OP's point was to show why his title should be a given . . . You may be operating under the assumption, as am I, that he is complaining about retirement age being raised.

Also, you are quite wrong in your statement about the market. Most people make little or lose because they don't know what the hell they are doing and take bad advice (or worse) from those that don't really have their best interest at heart . . . say those that advise everyone to buy gold while it's at an all time high or advisors that care more about their fees than what is best for client. If you are invested in the market for the express purpose of retirement or wealth building than you need to be in vehicles that will help this cause. Most people want individual stocks for some reason, even though this is the worst type of investment to hold on to for, say, retirement. Too volitile. However, if you are fanned out between several mutual funds w/various risk, growth, div, income factors and you are not averaging a 10+% growth . . . either everyone is hurting or you are in the wrong vehicles. But, everyone wants companies because it sounds cool to say you "own" Apple or they want to play around with options for the most reward to investment. Well . . . don't be suprised when you look at the roller coaster. Also, you should have a vehicle not tied to the market like a REIT that pays monthly, so you can bucket that and hedge through dollar/cost averaging.

Investing is common sense and at the very least you should be mirroring the S&P chart, again, if you are not you are in the wrong vehicle. There really is no need for SS. If the gov wanted us to be secure in the future they would educate their citizens on personal finance and wealth creation. Look at the 2008 drop, everyone checked their balances on a daily basis (bad idea), everyone panicked when it dropped (bad idea), everyone pulled out whatever was left (bad idea) and swore off the market (bad idea). Now these same people are complain they lost their retirement and SS won't be there . . . boo hoo. However, those that didn't even look at their accounts during the bubble, have now, at least doubled their losses back through gain.
edit on 1/21/13 by solomons path because: for clarification
edit on 1/21/13 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by sleeper
 



The only people that can afford to retire are those that have built a business, invested in the stock market, or have inherited money from parents that have invested in the stock market or their own companies.


In 2011, 49% of the population lived in a household where at least one member received a direct benefit from the federal government.

You might as well call that retired - they get paid to sit on their arse. I'm sure Obama will grow that number over the next 4 years.



Lucky for them that they live in a capitalistic country, where the haves take care of those preferring to sit on their arses. Should capitalism be downgraded to socialism by those in Washington who don't know any better, the people sitting comfortably at home and living off the dole of others may find themselves living under a bridge instead.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by sleeper
 



Should capitalism be downgraded to socialism by those in Washington who don't know any better, the people sitting comfortably at home and living off the dole of others may find themselves living under a bridge instead.


GOOD!


If things keep going the way they are now we may all be living under a bridge. When the greedy keeping robbing from those who have money eventually the money will run out.




posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Yep people should retire when they want, and they should also be paying 100% of the benefits they receive however the way the current system is set up people only pay 6% employers match that contribution, then the difference is made up by taking more from others.

A person can make more at that most vilified Wall Street, but they don't care, it is the same ideology why no person in this country owns their own home sure they vilify banks, but failure to pay property taxes and you forfeit your home.

Same thought process "for the common good" having a hard time in finding good any that.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96

A person can make more at that most vilified Wall Street, but they don't care, it is the same ideology why no person in this country owns their own home sure they vilify banks, but failure to pay property taxes and you forfeit your home.



It is for this very reason that I am thinking about buying a RV. Ya pay a one time tax on the purchase. Gas tax is a given. But once you own it, you own it.

And as long as you maintain it, you can pick up and leave anytime you want.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


Nope same deal failure to pay registrations/insurance (taxes) they can seize it if you take it on the road.

There is no escape from the long arm of the law same with SS.

Amerkia has not been "land of the free" for quite sometime.
edit on 21-1-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
Yep people should retire when they want, and they should also be paying 100% of the benefits they receive however the way the current system is set up people only pay 6% employers match that contribution, then the difference is made up by taking more from others.

A person can make more at that most vilified Wall Street, but they don't care, it is the same ideology why no person in this country owns their own home sure they vilify banks, but failure to pay property taxes and you forfeit your home.

Same thought process "for the common good" having a hard time in finding good any that.


I moved to a town that had no property taxes, they did just fine with sales taxes up until a new mayor was voted in. Soon after they put to a vote to create a property tax. I and only a hand full of people showed up to vote. We know have a city property tax on top of a very large county property tax and a sales tax.

More people lose their homes to tax liens than bank foreclosures, has always been that way in my large city, yet few people complain...in public. People don't vote and don't complain publicly, must be something in the water.

I don't know how old people with only social security will be able to stay in their homes even if the house is paid for. Property taxes are as high as a monthly mortgage payment. Good thing we have welfare and government housing or there would be old people sleeping under bridges.

If these people had the option to put some of their social insecurity money into mutual funds when they were working the last four decades, they could have earned enough money to stay a few steps ahead of the tax collector and perhaps enjoyed living in their homes instead of having to live in gang infested government housing.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 04:16 PM
link   
People already retire whenever they choose. They get some doctor to give them an excuse to live off Welfare or Social Security and they sit around all day stuffing their faces and watching TV. Nobody forces anybody to work in the U.S. If you want to be a lazy, shiftless bum, you can find somebody to support you. You won't necessarily live in style, but you probably won't die from hunger or exposure.

edit on 21-1-2013 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


Nope same deal failure to pay registrations/insurance (taxes) they can seize it if you take it on the road.

There is no escape from the long arm of the law same with SS.

Amerkia has not been "land of the free" for quite sometime.
edit on 21-1-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)


Still, a hell of lot less than property taxes.

But I get your point.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 07:15 PM
link   
People who have been drawing SS now or have for many years may have not lost money. I know some people who most likely have drawn more than they contributed (30 years of retirement). It is a broken pyramid scheme that relies on an increasing base population to pay for those who are recieving benefits. I agree that I should be able to do have my own options with regarding my social security because we all know how well the governemnt takes care of things...

I do not believe that people should necessarily retire whenever they want, even if they have the means to. People take for-granted all of the cumulative wealth (different thing than money) that the United States has. 90% of the houses in my community are approximately 70-100 years old. Some of the roads are 150+ year old brick roads that Abraham Lincoln himself walked as a lawyer. It is easy to assume that since all this was here when we were born that it will just all be there forever. Everybody uses the roads and other infrastructure even if you dont drive. All that food you eat gets to town somehow. Once the infrastructure was solidly in place and the hardest work was finished (1940's through 1950's) the mentality of people has been to look out for yourself and what is best for you. You should be obligated to put in some work at this level, regardles of your resources. Throwing money at the ground won't get the water and sewer lines buried; somebody has to dig the trench.

Take for instance an 18 year old man inherits a fortune large enough where he never has to have a job and can live off the interest and profits of money he may not even know much about. Advisors handle everything for him. To me it is morally wrong for him to become a straight consumer and just throw paper at his problems or obligations and think thats fine.

I may sound bitter or jealous to some but that is not the case. I do walk the walk. Over the span of a year I had purchased and repaired 4 homes and used them as rental properties. In any given month 1 tenant would be rent free and at least 1 would be short of rent (not always the same units). They all were struggling with medical bills and had children etc. so I never pushed too hard for rent but I decided to sell them as I dont have time for the maintanence and was annoyed about being shorted all the time. I sold all of them to the tennants for what was owed on the mortgage. Never even compensated myself for the work I had done. I could have listed them and averaged 30k profit per unit, but then 4 families would have been displaced. 120k left on the table so a couple of families could have a home of their own. (I had about 5k in the bank at the time)

The love that people have for money is disgusting, repugnant and repulsive. Imagine throwing a handful of $100 bills in a crowd and just watch the feeding-frenzy that happens. It would even be dangerous. All for peices of paper. The Federal Reserve has corrupted the minds of Americans thoroughly with a nearly complete monopoly on thier product. I often feel isolated and alone with my ideals. Some people think I was crazy but they dont realize THEY have been corrupted. I contribute like this on a smaller scale almost every day. It is always the greedy self-centered type that try to take advantage of what you have to offer. I was blessed with certain skills and talents and thus feel obligated to share them with as many people as I can, not horde them for myself. I am only 30 and have plenty of time to take one of the many avenues to get wealthy once the time is right.

There are many avenues to become rich (I prefer real estate). Getting rich isn't nearly as hard as people will tell you. It is about effort and persistance. Odds are they just kept a 9-5 job and never really tried. It's not wrong to be rich or want to be rich unless its all for YOU. I personally won't set the goal to become wealthy until we shake the enslaving, fiat money system for a wealth-backed system, but good luck to you and dont forget the people who weren't given the gifts that it takes...

p.s. The hipocracy of people hating on banks while owning stocks and equities is great.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue Shift
People already retire whenever they choose. They get some doctor to give them an excuse to live off Welfare or Social Security and they sit around all day stuffing their faces and watching TV. Nobody forces anybody to work in the U.S. If you want to be a lazy, shiftless bum, you can find somebody to support you. You won't necessarily live in style, but you probably won't die from hunger or exposure.

edit on 21-1-2013 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)


While sitting at home watching television enjoying the fruits of other peoples' labor such people are bombarded by dozens of lawyer adds trying to entice them to sue anyone with deep pockets for real or imagined wrongs or injuries.

Many people don't seem to understand that life situations are Karma traps...in my humble opinion.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 08:51 PM
link   
I have a problem calling a system you contributed to an "entitlement." I collect Social Security. I paid 15% of my wages into the fund for forty-five years. That's MY money the government forced me to put into the fund. I had no choice in the matter. Now you can correctly point out that the money paid to me today was paid in by younger people still working. I understand that point of this Ponzi scheme, but forgive me for pointing out that regardless of the excesses of social security, it was still MY money extorted from me and now paid back to me according to what the government says I can have back.

The fact is that had I been allowed to place this money in a typical no-risk, long-term CD for all those years, it would have earned enough interest to do me just fine. During the Carter years when inflation was high I could get over 10% on a seven-year CD. Today I'm lucky to get 1.5%, but the point is that had I been left alone or, frankly, even forced to do that by the government, I would have a social security nest egg that was all mine, financed by myself only--not younger workers, that would have lasted me until my life expectancy.

Just give me back my money with CD-level interest, and we'll call it even.

But the government decided they would interfere and "help" me. That the government is "allowing" me (How sweet of them!) to get my money back in a trickling fashion is NOT an "entitlement." That's my gripe here. Welfare is an entitlement; social security is MY money being returned to me, and unlike a typical pension where I have a vested interest in my own funds, if I die, it all goes away. Had I this money in my own name, it would be part of my estate and able to be willed to whomever I saw fit. Instead, should I die "early" all this is forfeit to the state. That's robbery, plain and simple.

Do I believe everyone should be able to "retire" whenever they choose. Sure--IF YOU PAY YOUR OWN WAY. That's your obligation. Nobody owes you a large-screen TV lifestyle, and nobody should be allowed to steal your money to provide one for themselvers.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by SouthernForkway26
People who have been drawing SS now or have for many years may have not lost money. I know some people who most likely have drawn more than they contributed (30 years of retirement). It is a broken pyramid scheme that relies on an increasing base population to pay for those who are recieving benefits. I agree that I should be able to do have my own options with regarding my social security because we all know how well the governemnt takes care of things...

I do not believe that people should necessarily retire whenever they want, even if they have the means to. People take for-granted all of the cumulative wealth (different thing than money) that the United States has. 90% of the houses in my community are approximately 70-100 years old. Some of the roads are 150+ year old brick roads that Abraham Lincoln himself walked as a lawyer. It is easy to assume that since all this was here when we were born that it will just all be there forever. Everybody uses the roads and other infrastructure even if you dont drive. All that food you eat gets to town somehow. Once the infrastructure was solidly in place and the hardest work was finished (1940's through 1950's) the mentality of people has been to look out for yourself and what is best for you. You should be obligated to put in some work at this level, regardles of your resources. Throwing money at the ground won't get the water and sewer lines buried; somebody has to dig the trench.
I may sound bitter or jealous to some but that is not the case. I do walk the walk. Over the span of a year I had purchased and repaired 4 homes and used them as rental properties. In any given month 1 tenant would be rent free and at least 1 would be short of rent (not always the same units). They all were struggling with medical bills and had children etc. so I never pushed too hard for rent but I decided to sell them as I dont have time for the maintanence and was annoyed about being shorted all the time. I sold all of them to the tennants for what was owed on the mortgage. Never even compensated myself for the work I had done. I could have listed them and averaged 30k profit per unit, but then 4 families would have been displaced. 120k left on the table so a couple of families could have a home of their own. (I had about 5k in the bank at the time)

The love that people have for money is disgusting, repugnant and repulsive. Imagine throwing a handful of $100 bills in a crowd and just watch the feeding-frenzy that happens. It would even be dangerous. All for peices of paper. The Federal Reserve has corrupted the minds of Americans thoroughly with a nearly complete monopoly on thier product. I often feel isolated and alone with my ideals. Some people think I was crazy but they dont realize THEY have been corrupted. I contribute like this on a smaller scale almost every day. It is always the greedy self-centered type that try to take advantage of what you have to offer. I was blessed with certain skills and talents and thus feel obligated to share them with as many people as I can, not horde them for myself. I am only 30 and have plenty of time to take one of the many avenues to get wealthy once the time is right.

There are many avenues to become rich (I prefer real estate). Getting rich isn't nearly as hard as people will tell you. It is about effort and persistance. Odds are they just kept a 9-5 job and never really tried. It's not wrong to be rich or want to be rich unless its all for YOU. I personally won't set the goal to become wealthy until we shake the enslaving, fiat money system for a wealth-backed system, but good luck to you and dont forget the people who weren't given the gifts that it takes...

p.s. The hypocrisy of people hating on banks while owning stocks and equities is great.


There is no shortage of work that needs to be done in this country but America is one of the few free countries left in the world and people are free to be whatever they want to be even bums.

I use to have my own construction company before the economy went south, and the biggest problem I had was finding people to work...understandably, because construction is hard work, you froze your but off in the winter and roasted in the summer. It got to the point where only illegal aliens showed up looking for work, 25 dollars an hour went a long way back in Mexico but hardly enticement enough for American carpenters in my part of the country. It was and is illegal to hire illegal aliens so I closed my small contracting company and became a bum, well, I bum around the house with my honey do list.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 01:59 PM
link   
I don't play political ISM games of right or left. Right and Left both have ups and downs, but they're not the ones shoved down our throats by the crooks in office. The real energies of it are Dad and Mom, and both are needed. However left isn't communism and thwarting people's dreams and right shouldnt be monopolies and abuses. We need free enterprise and many many opportunities and choices. I personally would choose to buy my products from ethical, ordinary folk, who use clean technology, and don't benefit from slaves like Apple does in China where they're installing suicide nets because the ones working 18 hour days, sleeping in cubicles, are trying to off themselves.

By the way mom and dad need to be soul mates, thats the way out of here. But its not about ISMS or selling out to believes. All roads here lead to rome and are corrupt.

Ethics.

Also, those in need, need equal lives too.

We're living in artificial scarsity, where things could be done in ever so many positive and effective ways, and meet the needs of all the different people, so that they would be eager to develop and contribute their talents to the world. The scarsity dog eat dog system has most of the world unable to contribute, just tossed aside.

Don't like any of the politics here, though a few countries like Norway and New Zealand are decent.

And renounce and denounce it all.

Trying to opt out, ie. get little hobby eco farms together for friends and family, and aquaponics like the 3 acres that grew 1 million pounds of produce a year, and 10 000 fish, sounds like it should be everyones goal. And as many businesses as one has the funds or ability to start spread amongst family and friends to create abundance, and yet, look after those in need too.

Thats the goal to work for or die trying in my books.

To me, if you have a big overpriced city home, and want to retire, then sell it and buy land for just over 100 000, sudvidable, and put up inexpensive but beautiful cob homes and get some smaller ones too and help all your family and friends. Cob homes can go up for 10 000-20 000.
edit on 24-1-2013 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2013 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by sleeper
 


Hello Sleeper, (this is Izzy BTW)

I'm gong to try to approche this with an open mind here...

An 18 year old adult starts working and chooses to start his nest egg by buying stock in a company. Now the guy is working at McieD's while going to school so he can one day get a high paying job save up some money and stat a business. How is this id going to know what company to invest in? I imagine there will be a great consultant company expert in taking new workers like this guy and for a small fee do all the investing for him right?

The consultant company takes a loo at the guys wages and thinks "ummm, this kid has just enough money to invest in this catagory" and takes the kids money along with the money of another 20 thousand 18 year olds like him bundles up their money, turns it into a pension fund, bundles it even further with mutual funds and hand hands it over to an investment company tat invests it into the market.

Now the market does not use this money to invest in corporations no, what would be the point of talking a nations wealth, propping up companies only to have it sucked out in mass when it's time to retire? After all a good company in a capitalistic country will always find direct investors.....so what do they do with this money....

Well why not use this bundled money as collateral, national collateral. But why for?

Well, You see a good corporation is only good if it is useful, and many corporations are considered useful because of the demand for their services and the best corporations are the best because there is so much demand for their services and nothing creates more demand than war. But a country needs money to fight a war, some times more money than it can spare...

This is where that guys bundled money comes in, as collateral. The country fuels the corporations demand through war using the nations pension and mutual funds all the while saying it is borrowed money from..let's say a country like China which would be a complete and total lie. But no one would even know it was a lie, especially the guy who starts his nest egg, until it was time to cash in.

This is all hypothetical and would NEVER happen of course....

But what i'm trying to say is both investing in the stock market and in social security can be risky you can end up with nothing but the shirt on your back either way. In either case the best investment you can make is in having some kids, raising them the best you can and hope they are there for you when you need hem but even them hope s all you have.

Invest in yourself and family, that's my o2

The Rat.





 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join