SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Peter Dierks who wrote (39719)3/25/2005 12:49:38 PM
From: Kevin Rose  Read Replies (2) of 173976
 
I don't understand this argument. A few points:

1) SS is still taking in more than it is paying out, and will do so until about 2017.

2) Raising taxes to cover the difference is one way to help close the gap. Cutting expenses is another. Both will be needed. The drunken sailors in power right now need to have their check writing hands slapped.

3) Private investment will do nothing to change the so-called 'Ponzi' scheme of SS. The current proposal is to allow people a choice of very conservative, low return investments. In fact, the system loses a significant amount of money because of the transition and setup costs. Who wins? Wall Street. More money on the street means more profits for them. Works the same as in Vegas. The more you play, the more they win.

The problem is in finding a good alternative. Having no fixed retirement scheme means that the government will be saddled with a bunch of retired people who have no money. Even though you can say "I told you to save", you're still stuck with them when they don't listen.

Bush is not even addressing this issue. He's catering to his special business interests, and striking a pose for his base. But then again, he's never been much at problem solving.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext