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


To: RetiredNow who wrote (218391)2/9/2005 9:53:58 PM
From: combjelly  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1574205
 
"the SSA will have to reduce benefits to somewhere between 60% and 70% from the amount at the 2042 timeframe."

Which is built into the system. Bankruptcy isn't.



To: RetiredNow who wrote (218391)2/10/2005 12:45:06 AM
From: Elroy  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1574205
 
Bankruptcy is when liabilities exceed assets.

Is Quest bankrupt?



To: RetiredNow who wrote (218391)2/10/2005 6:38:18 AM
From: Road Walker  Respond to of 1574205
 
re: Bankruptcy is when liabilities exceed assets. That will happen in 2042.

That's a lie. Either benefits will be reduced or revenue will be increased (hopefully long before that), or a combination of both.

There isn't an economist worth salt that says private account do anything to save SS. In fact they hasten the day that outflow exceeds inflows by 6 years.

re: Luckily for you, your lies only impact people younger than yourself.

True, Bush has told me I don't have skin in the game, because I was born in 1949 my program (I've been paying in my entire life, BTW) stays the same. So why do you think I want it changed? Especially the part about averaging wage and inflation adjustments (lowering benefits)?

Could it be that I want to see a good program preserved for future generations? Could it be that I think Bush's scheme and it's associated debt will have more impact on my economic well being than lower SS benefits?

John