D'artagnan wrote:What pisses me off about the Bush argument is this idea that it's young people he's worried about, because there won't be anything left for them once the baby boomers get it all.
Please explain how this makes sense to you in the context of the personal accounts.
What are you asking me to explain? You took that quote out of context. What I was saying was: This argument was made decades ago, and was false.
Does that help?
"Personal accounts" do not guarantee anything. It might end up as a gain or loss; no guarantees. The actual benefits will be reduced dollar for dollar for those opting out of the current social security to 'invest' in their personal accounts. Social security was never meant to cover 100 percent of anybody's retirement needs. The other issue nobody seems to question is the ability or inability of most Americans to manage their own finances. That's the reason most are up to their eyeballs in debt.
Groundhog Day and the State of the Union Address were on the same day this year.
As Air America Radio pointed out, it is an ironic juxtaposition: "one involves a meaningless ritual in which we look to a creature of little intelligence for
prognostication and the other involves a groundhog."
D'artagnan wrote:What are you asking me to explain? You took that quote out of context. What I was saying was: This argument was made decades ago, and was false.
Does that help?
I suppose. You do not think there is a SS problem?
How are Social Security and "wealth redistribution" connected?
The only problem with social security is the inability of our government to extend the retirement age of recipients. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that when social security was established in 1935, the life expectancy was below 65. With the life expectancy well into the seventies and eighties, our government must a) extend the retirement age, and/or b) increase taxes.
Voluntary personal accounts will not solve the future shortfalls in the "trust fund."
Ticomaya:
As I said on the last page: "And there will be [enough in the fund] for the 20 year olds, too, if a few intelligent changes are made."
You're repeating the Bush argument, which is: "If you oppose my plan, it means you deny that there's a problem with SS."
False.
D'artagnan wrote:Ticomaya:
As I said on the last page: "And there will be [enough in the fund] for the 20 year olds, too, if a few intelligent changes are made."
You're repeating the Bush argument, which is: "If you oppose my plan, it means you deny that there's a problem with SS."
False.
I'm full of rancor today.
How is 10% of my salary going to fund social security NOT a form of wealth redistribution?
They keep increasing the amount to keep the damn thing solvent. Pretty soon it won't be worth it to have a job.
They can keep it solvent by not spending what they collect for social security for all other government programs. They can keep it solvent by extending the retirement age. They can keep it solvent by not creating a larger government deficit through Bush's cockamamee "voluntary" investment plan.
cjhsa, since you seem to enjoy making statements to provoke outrage, here's one for you:
I'm all in favor of using tax policy to redistribute wealth, when appropriate. Including my own, and including yours...
And your kind is being voted out of office and out of power and will continue to be until you change your mind and get a grip on reality.
Quote:And your kind is being voted out of office and out of power and will continue to be until you change your mind and get a grip on reality.
Why don't you go back to polishing your guns and leave the politics to those who understand them?
Reality. Hah.
Cycloptichorn
Reality really sucks for you right now, eh Cy?
It depends. My personal life is fine; politically, things aren't going as well as I would like.
Though I would say that the reality in Silicon Valley might be a little different than most places, so I don't blame you for having a hard time being objective.
Cycloptichorn
Care to elaborate on your concept of Silicon Valley?
