Great question this morning from former candidate for Kentucky Auditor of Public Accounts Linda Greenwell about the federal government nationalizing trainwrecks:
"Wonder why they voted to force us to invest in these failing companies but forbid us to willfully invest in stable companies of our choice using our Social Security money?"
Thanks Linda. These hurry-up bills usually wind up with nasty surprises for taxpayers. Sure would be nice to see compromise run the other way just once.
1 comment:
Linda can always take her Social Security money and invest it wherever she wants.
Why does she think that the rest of us want to follow her ill-conceived advice? How much of her Social Security does she now invest in "stable" companies?
Linda doesn't seem to understand the concept of fixed and variable. A fixed source of income establishes a floor. That's why Congress pays itself such lucrative retirement benefits. That's why CEOs get such lucrative Golden Parachute awards even if they're major screw ups such as the Wall Street banking interests.
Variable income is what can be made above the fixed. If it's good you're glad. If it's a bad investment, you're glad you have your fixed income.
If all your income is variable that's like putting all your eggs in one basket. If Linda's variable income flopped like Wall Street Linda would be just like Wall Street, running to the federal government wanting a free handout with no strings attached.
Is her name Linda Paulson by any chance?
Post a Comment