It's scary the things the Democrats are thinking of doing with the 52% majority that elected Obama. A "mandate" they call it. Michael Savage continually reminds us that it was a vote against [McCain], not a vote for Obama.

I thought it was interesting the remarks in the article about "we need to get them to retire on time", or the whole system collapses. They don't say exactly, but it seems obvious they are refering to how unemployment rates will skyrocket if people don't retire themselves out of the job market. Probably democrats are also afraid to some lose their voter base if they don't get us to retire and be dependent on their government programs.

As a contrast to retirement, it is said that Ellen G. White, famous writer from mid 1800's to early 1900's, was active in her writing work until she died in her 80's or 90's. She, and many others from her age, survived quite well in old age without Social Security programs. Why not plan on being productive until the end?

I was thinking the other day that with the limits on maximum contributions, and now this article about how the gov't has the ability to change the rules whenever they want that cover the nest egg you're trying to build in a 401K, perhaps the 401K is actually sucker bet. I am wondering if the 401K mantra is just anesthesia to keep us busy. Even if you make the max 401K contributions, the accumulation won't get you really rich and well off unless you are getting decent rates of compound interest, which hasn't been happening in the last 10+ years. And, if you were making really good money, the tax benefit of the 401K contribution would be so small in comparison to your overall income, (and possible AMT). I think rich people find more sophisticated ways that they can actually control to guarantee their future, ways better than just increasing their 401K contribution.....

I have a senior friend, who at one point was worth $40 million, but then lost it all betting on the stock to be worth even more. Now it seems he's never met a government program or government intervention that he is not in favor of. He loves to tell me from time to time how he's "getting a $100 a month raise in my entitlement" meaning the increases in Social Security. He knows I can't say anything about it, good for him he was old enough to actually get Social Security, unlike those of us who are much younger. At one point a few years ago he was supposed to be getting something like $1600 a month, who knows what it is up to now. But it's a shame he didn't do more reasonable things to ensure his retirement, he could be doing so much better.

Now he's firmly in the pro government-needs-to-give-more-handouts camp. Loves to tell me how wonderful the governments interventions were in the last depression, etc. Other economists and writers say it was only the governments involvement that made them so deep and drawn out. Previous recessions in the 1700's and 1800's sorted themselves out just fine without government interventions. He considers me naïve when I talk about government needing to be smaller, of course he doesn't want to listen to anything contrarian to the idea that the government interventions of the past were anything other than extremely wise and needed. I'm not alone in my thoughts, see "Politically Incorrect Guide To Capitalism", and "Capitalism the unknown virtue" by Ayn Rand. But he will have none of that, despite being registered as a Republican and having been a business man, I never hear out of him any idea that I haven't heard from the liberal news media.

Instead of letting the market decide the fates, now we have industry after industry coming to the government for billions of dollars in handouts. A government handout is an interference in the natural order of things just as surely as a corrupt zoning office, or county planning board, preventing a landowner from developing his land in the way he sees fit because the collective in this country now had greater control over property than the individual who is working, and taxed, for the property.

Why is no one talking about how these handouts are going to dwarf the money spent in Iraq? Because they are going to be spent on effemeral things like "health care", and "eradicating" poverty. And most of these government handouts may buy things that are a lot more temporary than the regime change in Iraq. Once the temporary changes dissipate, will they be leaving us back in our same position, or even worse? Was one economist saying that our national debt is nearing 50% of GDP? That's incredibly high.

While the democrats around Barack Obama pretend they are going to lower taxes on "lower" income individuals, Republicans in Name Only (RINO's) like Arnold Swarzenneger propose increasing California sales tax rates from +8% to possible 9.5% or 10%, and to start taxing services as well as tangible sales. The states are poised to step in and soak up the individuals savings from any federal tax breaks with increases of their own.

What if we live our lives as if social security and other government programs don't exist? What if it were considered shameful to accept social security and various other government programs, shameful that you hadn't taken enough personal responsibility to provide for yourself and your family? What if we plan for how we will be productive until the end? How would that change things?