... What I have said is based 100% on what has been announced by
the Bush Administration as their plan, and applying some very straight
forward common sense.


Dave Hall wrote:
Specific details have not been finalized yet.

Is President Bush going to backpedal as hard as you are?


.... Your "common sense" is based mostly on speculation and
conjecture.

And the facts of what Social Security *is* and what the SS trust Fund *is*.

One of the most definite facts about Bush's plan is that his supporters
are trying to sell it by lying about Social Security... and you claim
that telling the truth about SS is "scare tactics."



Since we're on the subject, what practical alternatives have the
democrats offered up to help to "fix" SS? Other than the typical raise
taxes and lower payments that is?


Oh, other than actually fixing it, you mean?

The ONLY way to "fix" the upcoming (in about 20+ years) imbalance in
Social Security is to either reduce payouts, or increase taxes, or both.


Really? Talk about binary thinking.


That's the name of the thread.


But to a tax and spend democrat, increasing taxes is a simple
solution.

Except that in this case, it's not "tax & spend." It's tax & already spent.

When the "borrow & spend" Republicans finish their terms, we will have
all the gov't programs in the boat SS is headed for.


... After all, we should just open our wallets and pay out more
now so that we can earn the same amount later. That seems REAL fair.

I'd rather take my chances with the stock market.


You are confused. Social Security is not an investment program.


The info that I rely on is from many
widely different sources, and is consistant with facts that I have
observed directly myself.


That's a load of crap.

Agreed. Your statements about Social Security, such as claiming that
Democrats want to spend the excess and comparing SS to investments, are
a total load of crap.


... Your "sources" are mostly agenda driven.

Wrong. You are the one with an agenda, my "sources" are things like the
SSA itself... clearly a hotbed of liberal spinmeistering...


... Ask
yourself, why are you against people having their SS contributions
invested in a private interest bearing retirement account instead of
the current system?


Because people's SS tax payments are already committed paying for
benefits of those already retired.

Again, SS is *not* an investment program.

Furthermore, this is a method of diverting tax money into private
pockets for profit. This is not the way I want the gov't to operate,
helping Wall St profit off citizen's taxes. It's not the way the
Founding Fathers wanted it to operate, either.

I would not have a problem with restructuring Social Security tazes &
benefits to bring the system into long term balance.... although the
imbalance is not going to happen for 20+ years anyway...

Certainly I don't have a problem with encouraging people to save and
invest their own money. For one thing, that's what I've been doing for
the past 25+ years.



The "info" that you post is straight from the
Bush/Cheney tub-thumpers playbook.


Not at all. It's info driven from a common sense approach to reducing
the government's role in people's financial business.

So why do you want the gov't to take an *increased* role by making the
SS system more complex? Why do you want the gov't to take charge of your
savings, and "encourage" savings by shaving it off SS taxes... creating
a shortfall which will have to be made up by more taxes.

... I'd rather
control my own destiny than have the government do it.

Good. Then save your money & invest it wisely.

... I'm supporting
the IDEA, not getting hung up on the, as of yet, undefined details.


heh heh heh maybe if they change 100% of Bush's plan it will become
actually conservative in nature, and might even do something to help
Social Security. Of course you support Bush & Cheney blindly no matter
what they do.

DSK