BTW you might want to take a gander (if the facts aren't too painful) at
the blurb on President Bush's Social Security policy right below this.

"Most Democrats and some Republicans are critical of such ideas, partly
because of the large federal borrowing the plan would require ($1 trillion
or more) to finance the transition..."

DSK



Jeff Rigby wrote:
Yes that's true because there is NO SS money in the treasury, it's all been
spent.

More total horse manure. I guess you believe that US Treasury debt
instruments are "worthless pieces of paper" and "empty IOUs."

If you believe that, then go ahead and try to drive across that bridge
Bush is selling you. I ain't buying it, nor is anyone with a lick of sense.

DSK


To FORCE the government to invest the money and not spend it would
require either 1) We cut spending so some of the SS money coming in
(remember we still have a surplus, more coming in than is going to SS
recipients) can be invested, the goal is 20% which exceeds the surplus in SS
income 2) we borrow the money to invest and do not cut spending.