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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: geode00 who wrote (261958)	4/19/2008 9:18:22 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

No, that is simply a skewed argument meant simply to remove all safeguards from the budget What safeguards for/from the budget? We don't have any. The right wing tried to loot Social Security and privatize it. Loot? No. Privatize? Again no. The "individual accounts" would still be under government control, and also would not amount to 100% of the Social Security system. But even if it was really prvatized that would not amount to looting. The government can't loot the "trust fund", because to the extent the idea of a trust fund has any validity at all, its something owned by the government. Its bizarre the way everyone here seems to think that the Social Security program is something other than part of the Federal Government. Social Security isn't an entitlement program, it is a mandatory insurance program. You can label it anything you want, but what it is, is government spending, under the control of congress, no matter what label you give it. Unlike standard insurance it is NOT a contract. You don't have any contractual rights to receive SS benefits. You have legal rights under the current law, which congress could in theory change as easily and quickly as any other law. (In practice it would be more difficult, but thats a political issue, not an issue about the nature of Social Security)