John H wrote:
An airplane with landing gear that won't deploy isn't in trouble either, until
it has to land.


And this is relevant to... what, exactly?


That "private investment" is somehow going to help cover the potential
Social Security shortfall in 30+ years


The personalization is not touted as a cure. It is touted as a way to give
people more control over their money.


Why not simply decrease SS taxes then? That would be much simpler, it
would give people more of their own money back, which they would then
"control" even more than with Bush's SS plan.

Why not?

Answer- because it would not serve Bush & Cheney's real purpose near as
well: to loot the SS trust Fund and ensure yet another fountain of
reliable campaign donations... using taxpayers money! It's beautiful!


The taking and putting into a personal savings account is voluntary. The other
option isn't.


And where does the SS payout come from, that these "voluntary personal
savings accounts" would normally have gone to cover? Bigger gov't
deficit spending, maybe?


Yup. It looks like it will take some up front money. But, so what?


Yeah.

Bush Leadership in action... "Sure it costs money, it's based on a lie,
and it won't fix the problem... SO WHAT?"


Sure it does. If I had the choice, I'd rather see half my Social Security
withdrawals going into an investment over which I had some control.

So why aren't you saving & investing an equal amount of money already?


Did someone say I wasn't?

Apparently you aren't, or else you would not be clinging to the illusion
that Bush's plan somehow gives you "control."


... I have no control over the money taken from my checks to cover Social
Security. I cannot invest it, nor can I bequeath it. When I die, it's gone.

Yep... gone to pay the SS income of those who already paid into the
system before you.


You, as you well know, are wrong. But I can see that you don't want to show it.


How do you "know" I'm wrong? So far you haven't poasted anything that in
any way disproved my statements... I guess if you just keep saying over
and over "you're wrong" maybe you can believe it.



... WTF is "conservative" about that?


My lack of fiscal responsibility? We aren't talking about me.

Yes we were.

Your lack of fiscal responsibility and your equally irresponsible
bally-hooing of this silly scheme to drum up pro-Bush campaign
contributions from Wall St.

... I won't have any
options.

Correct.

... My daughters would.

Not really

... Are you trying to imply you
*aren't* anti-choice?


I am definitely not anti-choice. That's just another of your distortions
and silly non-factual statements.

Are you claiming that you are now pro-choice?

DSK