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