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: LindyBill who wrote (111738)	4/29/2005 10:27:27 AM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793957

If you don't endorse benefit cuts, you are implicitly endorsing vast tax increases.

To: LindyBill who wrote (111738)	4/29/2005 10:34:31 AM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 793957

>>Some conservatives are no less blunt in their opposition to Pozen's approach. Under progressive indexing, the rate of return from what middle- and upper-income workers pay into the system and what they get back will get worse every year, said Peter Ferrara, a conservative Social Security analyst. Benefits would be an ever smaller percentage of workers' pre-retirement income. Such conservatives maintain that large, private investment accounts could replace Social Security with no cuts in promised benefits. But Pozen said their proposals are simply avoiding the difficult choices that he -- and the president -- are willing to make.<< "Some conservatives"? That failure to attribute is very irritating. Were there really "some conservatives" drinking Koolaid at Bush's personal-account tour? It never occurred to me that anyone championing private accounts who warranted reporting by the Post didn't realize that there was another shoe that sooner or later had to be dropped.