This was definetly true for those times. Today I sometimes fear that many (military) actions are justified by using the “freedom” theme.

link here

And unfortunatly according to many bloggers (and I’ll try and keep it civil) if someone doesn’t save enough money to fund a comfortablle retirement than they deserve to eat dog food for dinner.

“I do not want social security …. If I could opt out I would do so in a heartbeat”

Purely from a FP point of view that’s a very bad decision. What your saying is you want to trade the equivalent to a defined benefit pension plan for a defined contribution one. In other words your moving all the risk from the company to your self. PF 101 is about reducing risk and by doing that your violating, as I mentioned the first rule reducing risk.

At best you might do a bit better (and if your really that good you won’t care about SS because you’re the next warren buffet) but more than likely your make a few good moves but alot of bad moves. Why do you think seniors OVERWHELMINGLY rejected Bush’s plan to introduce private accounts to SS. It wasn’t because they were a bunch of liberals but that at that age they were risk adverse.

I’m sure your aware that the DOW is down almost 50%, sure if your 20 who cares, but if you’re 65 it’s a hell of a scary thought.

Opting out of SS as you say is simply bad financial advice, sad coming from such a good blog.

Secondly the real issue isn’t taxation or lack there of but income inequity. And a lot of that has nothing to do with hard work or a lack there of.

Thirdly Canadians pay much higher taxes (50% which kicks in a a very low $50,000) and have socialist medicine yet that hasn’t relegated Canada to the economic backwaters. Ditto for Europe. The problem in Europe isn’t so much high taxation as over unionization and mind numbing bureaucracy.

I’m not opposed to a good argument but I get very tired of the mindless right wing talking points. A good starting point would be to cancel your subscription to Rush Limbaugh and start reading/listening to someone with more substance. It’s not just you but Lynnae of Beingfrugal.net posted the same thing in fairness hurts the frugal

Good God you guys are turning me into a liberal, it’s embarrassing:)

Yes, I gladly support taxation at the federal level for national defense and infrastructure. However, in my opinion, the other things you mentioned should be handled at the state level.

Total dependence and total independence are equally irrational goals for any individual in any society, primitive or modern. Scientific research has shown us that what enabled primitive man to survive and thrive was inter-dependence. It is no less true today. The very fact that you have a daily article on the Internet that people like me respond to is evidence the success of inter-dependence, not a testimony to independence.

I’m frankly growing a little tired of the “I got mine; who cares about you?” mentality that somehow has been elevated to the point of nobility. I suppose you don’t want a defense system, public parks and schools, affordable health care, social security, or interstate highways either?

Learning to take care of one’s self well can be a lifelong process. Sometimes, bad things DO happen to good people. I’m all for personal responsibility. But it would be foolhardy of me, or anyone, to suggest that there is nothing I cannot control. That’s irrational, and what is more irrational is pretending that what happens to other people, and what other people do, does not affect me.

Of course, industriousness and hard work should be valued more highly than lack of industriousness and lack of hard work, but not to the point of, say, infinity. Even our current president has virtually admitted that greed-driven, unchained, unregulated human behavior suggests a response when it affects society as a whole. Therefore, I would conclude that there are limits even to how much hard work and industriousness, and how much reward, are appropriate in today’s global society.