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: TimF who wrote (112130)	5/1/2005 3:05:56 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793927

If the "personal account" gets a better return than the recipient may make more even after you cut the rest of the benefit. Sure, but personal accounts don't put any money the pot for paying benefits. Personal accounts may be desirable for many reasons, but, given that solvency has been defined as the problem, then personal accounts don't address let alone fix the problem. For a long time personal accounts were promoted in a way that, shall we say, finessed the fact that they don't fix the problem and a lot of people are under the mistaken impression that they will. Sort of like the infamous mistaken impression people had that Iraqis had destroyed the WTC. Some people probably still think that.

To: TimF who wrote (112130)	5/2/2005 12:17:54 AM
From: unclewest	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793927

Benefit cuts may be more politically achievable if they don't result in an actual cut of the money someone gets through SS. I hope you don't believe that is possible. When SS and the trust fund became part of the demo Great Society program and benefits were expanded every few years without an adequate increase in funding, and the trust fund was spent, SS was doomed. SS was expanded a leetle bit at a time. It is going to collapse the same way. SS is going to die a death of a thousand tiny leetle cuts.