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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (288688)	5/20/2006 12:05:03 AM
From: combjelly	Respond to of 1571909

"How would you represent the "two out of three that ain't bad"?" Meatloaf...

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (288688)	5/20/2006 8:39:39 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571909

re: How would you represent the "two out of three that ain't bad"? You really want to revisit the SS thing NOW? Hell, the Republicans have "important" debates going on about "the official US language" and "gay marriage", why would we want to digress to a minor issue like social security? But OK: a) Increasing the payroll deduction. Maybe by .5% on both sides. But at least double the cap on FICA... $90K isn't what it used to be. b) Reducing benefits to current and future retirees. Change the COL adjustment from wage inflation to an average of wage and price inflation. Most economists think this would moderate the COL adjustment. c) Raising the retirement age. I don't buy into that. Lots of working folks can't do the job they have done all their lives at age 62; many more can't at age 65. As it is, the longer you wait to retire the more you get in each check, as it should be. A couple of other things: You might flatten the payout; right now the people that made the most get over $2K per month and the people who made the least (and presumably need SS more) can get less than $800 per month, not possible to live on that in this country. Get rid of the "unified budget" so that SS surplus receipts are not lowering the real government deficit. That should do it... probably fixed. Might have to revisit it in 10 years, to adjust up or down. The Bush plan would have added literally $Trillions to debt, and on top of all the other excess spending, especially military spending, would have threatened the solvency of the US government. John