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: TimF who wrote (212809)	12/6/2004 9:39:36 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573150

re: No one is advocating borrowing $2tril today. The transition cost is between $1Trillion and $2Trillion. re: The benefits would be cut by the fact that the money going in to these "private" accounts would not count towards the amount contributed to the regular SS retirement fund. At least you have quit the argument that the transitions costs would be recovered. re: I'm not so sure we will do better with the rest of the money because I expect benefits to be cut (at least after the baby boom and if they wait that long the cuts will have to be harsher). And what exactly makes you "expect" that? re: That is part of the problem with the current scheme. A lot of the obligation that the Feds have taken on themselves doesn't show up on the books. To the extent that Bush's plan only deals with a fraction of future contributions and payments it doesn't really resolve this problem. It could be argued that Bush's plan is insufficiently radical to deal with the social security mess. Are you not paying attention? Bush's plan INCREASES the obligation for generations. There has been some intelligent, non-partisan discussion on this thread on how the problem can be resolved. I suggest you catch up and leave your prejudice behind. You might learn something from folks that care about solutions instead of nit-picking debate. John