"DSK" wrote in message
...
And please answer the question... just exactly *who* are you accusing of
"living large" on Social Security?



Bill McKee wrote:
You and your side are the ones saying it is the national retirement plan
and you get a good return on you money.

Baloney. Can you make an intelligent statement without setting up a straw
man to attack? Provide one quote where I said any such thing. And I don't
have a side, since nobody has ever proposed doing what I think would be
sensible.

What *has* been said about Social Security: It will be in the black for
the next 20+ years. It's long term solvency looks better now than 5 years
ago. Some potential solutions for the distant future cash-flow imbalance
would be to cut benefits and/or raise the salary cap 9this would also
reduce the regressiveness of the tax).


... And the plan put forward by Bush allows you to either leave the tax
money in SS (WHICH THE GOVERNMENT IS HAPPILY SPENDING NOW) or put part in
a private investment account. You do not get to keep and spend the money
each month like a raise in pay.

So you're in favor of Bush's "plan"? And can you explain how this "plan"
is supposed to fix Social Security? Do you feel that it offers such a
great improvement that it's worth increasing U.S. deficit spending?

BTW if the Social Security Trust Fund did not buy US treasuries, then Bush
would be borrowing yet more from the Chinese. And the stock market gives
better returns but is also prone to crash from time to time. So far Uncle
Sam has not defaulted on the national debt. So the SS trust is invested in
lower returns but much much more secure. Do you think this is bad?

And when are you going to answer the question: who exactly is "living
large" on Social Security?

If you can't answer these questions with at least an attempt at honesty,
then why should anybody take your opinions seriously?

DSK



Living large: one example: Any body who put very little in to the "trust
Fund" and is getting a nice sized check is living large. 10 quarters is all
you have to contribute if I remember correctly. State employee 40 years, 3
years in industry, nice check. At least Bush is proposing a fix. Under
the last administration SS was in trouble in 10 years, and now it is 20
years. The way it is going, we are going to be like France. They are
having public employee strikes over the governments attempts to fix their
retirement system. In 25 years, there will be only 2 workers in France for
each retiree. You want to just keep raising the money collected by SS while
not paying out for even more years. What kind of fix is that?