Would you Want Advice on How to Handle your Money from the Government?

The SEC has launched a Web site (http://investor.gov/) to provide financial and investment information and advice.

how about some other government managed efforts like "The War on Poverty", TARP, Stimulus, The Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 . . . all either miserable failures or well on their way to becoming so.

Why then, in the name of all that is sane, would anyone want to take advice from the government about how to handle their money? As near as I can tell, there is a high probability that when the government tells you how to handle your money, they want to get their greedy hands on it and would like you to position it in a way to make it easier for them to do exactly that! Before you can say “pickpocket”, your money will be moved into the General Fund and be eligible to be tapped by any and every politician who can garner a vote. This is exactly what happened to Social Security when LBJ moved those monies from the lockbox type trust FDR put it into, to the General Fund.

No . . . I would not advise letting the government have anything to do with your personal investments. For that matter, when they try to give you advice about investments, run . . . don’t walk away . . . but, that is just my opinion!

Writer Robert Collinsworth is an American who isn't hesitant to talk about the good side of his country, and that is a welcome thing in this day and age. Salem-News.com admittedly, is very critical of both American politics, as well as those of other nations that we perceive is being wrong in their motives and actions. At the same time, within these structures we criticize, are many outstanding people who make each day a better place for all those around them. They embody and personify the American spirit that is sometimes fleeting, but always present. These are some of the things Robert takes into account when writing commentary that is designed reach people, to "get them thinking" in his words, and indeed it does. Salem-News.com's goal is for all people to be on the same page, we appreciate Bob's more conservative approach toward that same goal."

You can write to Bob Collingsworth at this email address: colli2@webryders.net

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

M. Dennis Paul, Ph.D. October 7, 2010 8:22 pm (Pacific time)

Bob.. You are only partially correct, however, mostly incorrect. There is a great misunderstanding about Social Security that is largely promoted by individuals, groups and parties that have an interest in undoing Social Security. Three-quarters of the money that's collected in Social Security taxes goes right out the door again in the form of benefits to Social Security recipients. The surplus that isn't needed to pay benefits is loaned to the federal government to pay for other programs. In return for this loan, the trust fund gets IOUs in the form of special-issue, interest-paying Treasury bonds. The interest isn't paid in cash, however; the Treasury issues the fund additional bonds for the interest amount. Periodically, the government must make adjustments which mainly means calling in the "IOU's" so that the balance of T-Bonds does not exceed a specific margin. This is managed by the trust fund that so many deny exists. The Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance Trust Funds collects the money from our paychecks, pays out the funds as required, and then invests the surplus. I definitely agree with you regarding the lock-box. That makes sense, however, the present system works pretty well and is no where near being broke.

Anonymous October 7, 2010 10:31 am (Pacific time)

This statement certainly acknowledges how little they understand our form of government and our economic system: "...The government has allowed private companies like FedEx and UPS to take all the profitable roles..."

All right, explain what I apparently don't understand. DJ

Colli October 7, 2010 9:45 am (Pacific time)

Hi Daniel:
I neither believe that "All government is bad" nor that "All government is good". What I do believe is that greed tends to be pervasive and that too many Congressional Representatives and Senators have felt the gravitational pull from the dark-side of that pervasive greed. Do you honestly believe for one second that the lobbyists that court our elected officials are doing so for patriotic reasons or just because they are "Good guys" looking-out for the U.S. taxpayer? Corruption, lack of term limits, and the growing belief that "all's fair in war and politics" is crippling our country and the very structure of its government. Both political parties sponsor and promote the belief that you must be loyal to the party regardless of all else. They urge a "Rah-Rah" team mentality that is devoured by the voting public who loves nothing more than good competition. Until the average U.S. citizen starts reading the news from websites such as Salem-News.com, asking where each candidate stands on the issues, and using their heads to make logical decisions, the downhill slide we are on will continue.

As to the PO being a service rather than a business, all government departments are supposed to be services. As I understand it, the government is supposed to govern and provide necessary services. However, the various service departments should strive to be self-sustaining . . . not money-losing propositions.

Colli

You're right on in your comment. As for government services, some of them are by definition "money losing" in that they supply a service to the public that can only be paid for out of taxes. The prison system is one, the military is another. As for the PO it could have been self-sustaining if all the profitable parts hadn't been tiven away leaving the taxpayer left to support a "losing" operation. DJ

Daniel Johnson October 7, 2010 9:07 am (Pacific time)

You're still living in the 80s, Bob. Even minority leader John Boehner repudiated Ronald Reagan in a recent speech: “Republicans should not start from the assumption that all government is bad. Nor should Democrats start from the assumption that all government is good.” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/01/us/politics/01boehner.html?scp=1andsq=boehner%20government%20is%20not%20all%20badandst=cse

On the Post Office you don't seem to be distinguishing between a government service as opposed to a government business. Of course the PO is not profitable. The government has allowed private companies like FedEx and UPS to take all the profitable roles, leaving the poor taxpayer holding the bag for all the unprofitable services like rural mail delivery.

Colli October 7, 2010 7:42 am (Pacific time)

As far as pushing the corrupt Republicans and Democrats out . . . Roger That! The problem there would be finding one from either side who is not corrupt. Just think of how many lobbyists who represent special interest groups would be added to the unemployment lines. For once, I would see an increase in unemployment that didn't bother me!

Colli October 7, 2010 7:39 am (Pacific time)

Dr. Paul: As I understand it, Social Security holds IOU's in the form of Government Bonds. The monies put there by you and I have been spent by those who have the ability to draw from the General Fund. All monies collected for the new health care program promoted by President Obama will also be going into the General Fund and eligible for a draw-down similar to that experienced by Social Security. So - once the General Fund is filled with these IOU's and China is no longer willing to bail us out, what will those dependent on Social Security do? I do not recommend privatizing Social Security but I would back a Government Department that maintained a lock-box type trust similar to the one FDR originally put Social Security into and make it inviolate this time. When LBJ promoted legislation making Social Security monies part of the General Fund in order to help defray the expenses incurred by stepping-up the Viet Nam war, the American people should have raised a holy ruckus. Every Congressional Representative and Senator should have been on LBJ’s doorstep screaming “ABSOLUTELY NOT”. But then, trusting Congress is very much like kissing a Rattlesnake – you may get away with it once or twice . . . maybe even three times but sooner or later you are going to get bit! President Obama has just recently stopped cost of living increases for those whose survival depends on Social Security. This stoppage will last 2 years (or more). Yet, Congress received their pay increases. You certainly may believe that Social Security is safe for the next 30 years and will make full payouts for that time-frame, but if I were you, I wouldn't bet the farm on it!

M. Dennis Paul, Ph.D. October 7, 2010 2:13 am (Pacific time)

Bob... Social Security is not broke. Yes, it is due for a periodic repair and yes it has suffered as a result of the economic depression caused by Wall St. (Fewer paychecks to tax). Social Security, with periodic repairs to the system, has been protecting citizens for 65 years and looks to protect them for at least another 30 years at full payout. Without a fix, it would survive until the end of the century (after the next 30 years) at a 75% payout. There is actually more money in private retirement funds than in Social Security as a result of legislation authorizing such accounts. Ask those who invested in retirement accounts during the tech boom and those who took the most recent hit from the failed economy how secure they really feel. Medicare.. that's another story. Massive unchecked fraud severely damaged that but it can be fixed. The Postal Service fell behind the times, like many businesses do. There are modernization plans already in effect to bring the service back. It will be much smaller (no longer needs to be so large due to modern communication). Fannie Mae and Freddie.. well thanks to deregulation those two fell to the same greed and corruption that felled the economy. Even though TARP didn't have the desired effect (the one average Joe hoped for) it did what the corrupt politicians and Wall St knew it would and the Government hasn't lost a cent as a result. A lot of scary comments can be printed in an attempt to paint government as totally inept but the truth is if we keep voting in idiots who still believe in "trickle down" BS, we will continue to destroy everything that is a real social benefit to the country. Obama's new regulations are basically more of the same and we have our Congress and Senate to thank for that (along with the Prez). So.. is your answer to deregulate more and privatize social security? Wall St is drooling at the prospect. Or is the answer to vote in real workers for the people and push the corrupt Republicans and Dems out?

[Return to Top]