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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DMaA who wrote (30330)	2/18/2004 2:28:37 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793719

See, it's not allowed to discuss consequences. It's fair and that's all there is to it. Of course we're allowed to discuss consequences. IMO, it's essential that consequences of all actions and inactions be considered and planned for. It would be irresponsible to do anything else. Both fairness and consequences are germane. What that piece about Social Security points out is that two people can benefit from or scam the SS system as long as they are not the same sex. That isn't fair. We can rectify the unfairness by allowing all pairs, regardless of sex, to do the same thing, which would be very expensive, we could disallow benefits and scams for everyone equally, which would save a while lot of money, or we could find better criteria for dispensing the benefits and to eliminate the scams. Let's discuss them... The problem with that piece and the reactions to it is the knee-jerk reaction reaction that we must continue to be unfair because it would be too costly to do otherwise. I don't call that discussion.