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.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Les H who wrote (17256)	2/13/2004 9:37:53 AM
From: J. P.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

<<Greenspan says cut Social Security benefits to pay for tax cuts>> Hey, great idea! Here's another one, how about we cut off food for poor people? Instead of giving food to poor people we give the money for the food to the rich people who create jobs? If the poor people starve to death, it will only decrease the burden on the rich and worthy people, right? Next, how about we go after the medicine for the old and sick, who are so burdonsome. Heck, they don't contribute to the economy at all. Most of those people just sit around all day and don't even work. We can divert the money to the upper 1% who have proven themselves fit. Note: This is satire only for the purpose of humor

To: Les H who wrote (17256)	2/13/2004 10:07:20 AM
From: Les H	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 306849

Some question zero-down plan realtytimes.com

To: Les H who wrote (17256)	2/14/2004 2:59:49 AM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

Les Horowitz, RE: soc sec cuts They shouldn't cut it for the current seniors, since these people weren't informed during their working years, in advance, their program is broke. Nor did that age group even have companies with 401K's back then - they had pension plans that corporations robbed. But people my age, have always realized SS is broke and are fully aware of the dire consequences ahead if we don't save enough money for retirement in our 401K's. Right, everyone? I think they should privatize 4% of SS, because this reportedly would make it solvent in 20 years and the huge transition debt would be paid off by then, since the 4% privatization means the gov't pays out 4% less at that point (since people have already taken their 4% and invested it.) Congress should try to solve a problem head-on, and be upfront about an issue early on. If Congress was a corporation, its leaders would have been fired long ago, for ineffective problem solving. Congress appears to bury their collective heads in the sands. It's cruel for Congress to pretend SS will be there for an elderly person, and then pull the rug out from under them without adequate warning. It's also rude to rattle the current retires and keep them in suspense, literally hanging. A good business leader would address the issue head-on, and present some solutions and get a move on it. Congress sometimes gives appearances of not representing Americans. They never want to work on something until it's in dire straights and has a lot of media attention. If it's not in the media enough, Congress doesn't want to solve it, because they like to only solve the visible problems, possibly due to votes. Congress gets no credit for preventing problems, they only get credit for solving absolute disasters. So we'll probably have to wait until SS is an absolute disaster before Congress will actually have the courage and guts to address it. Until then, they'll bury their heads in the sand. Typical, non-preventive style. Regards, Amy J