Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alighieri who wrote (180948)	1/19/2004 10:59:31 AM
From: i-node	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1575239

>>> ...it can and must be saved, even if it means reduced benefits and higher premiums. Yeh, just let a Republican call for reduced benefits and see what happens. LMAO. But, I agree it should be saved at this point. The problem is that "higher premiums" (what you're really talking about here is those FLAT PAYROLL TAXES that liberals want to get rid of) alone won't do it. Over the next 30 years, we would need a FLAT payroll tax rate of 40% or more just to fund social security. JUST SOCIAL SECURITY. The only possible escape is Bush's plan to GROW our way out of this mess. First of all, by pre-Bush measures, the system was solvent to 2025... You're talking 20 years from now. People who are 40 today could not even count on it. Yet, 12.4% of these people's salaries are going into the "fund". The Lockbox. LMAO. but please stand by your comment and tell us how Clinton passed the buck. By not acting to resolve the problem. He had eight years, four of which were as a lame-duck, where he could have politically gotten it done. And he didn't. So now, Bush has to deal with it. The damned Democrats won the battle in Bush's first term, but it is clear Bush will tackle it again after his reelection.