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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (429093)	2/5/2020 2:51:35 PM
From: Sam	6 Recommendations Recommended By Alex MG epicure JohnM M. Murray research1234 and 1 more member Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 540750

Thanks for the cite to that article. Bloomberg's advocacy of converting to the chained weighted CPI isn't something that I would support either. But the truth is, Bloomberg is first and foremost a pragmatist. My guess is that in the end he would support raising the cap and taxing the rich more--as he has repeatedly done, although it is also true that he does not support the "wealth tax" that Sanders and Warren propose in different iterations. Leading Democrats would have to be true politicians and negotiators to get it done with a President Bloomberg. Someone like Pelosi could do it, IMO. There certainly is nothing in there which suggests that he would privatize SS. IMHO, Bloomberg would actually be more like FDR than most people suppose. He would, in effect, save capitalism from itself. Most people don't know that FDR was regarded as a lightweight and another spoiled rich kid before he was elected. His party switching shows that he isn't ideological or chained to a party. He actually is what Trump pretends to be--a doer who sees a problem and wants to fix it. Too much sugar in people's diet? Get rid of one of the leading causes of it--sugary drinks. You think a standard R would do that? No way. That, at any rate, is my POV at the moment.

To: koan who wrote (429093)	2/5/2020 2:53:13 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 540750

From your article - It sounds to me like he wants to fix it: Bloomberg: When you look at Social Security’s underlying numbers, the need for reform is undeniable – especially when you consider that one of every two children born today is likely to live to be more than 100 years old. [ My link: The rich live longer]. That’s great news for the next generation. But to support their retirements, we’re going to have to adjust. Already, Social Security is the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of the world – with the possible exception of OPEC. And as fewer and fewer workers support more and more retirees, that transfer will get ever more burdensome for American workers. In 1950, there were 16 workers for every one retiree, which kept taxes reasonably low for each worker. Today, there are only 3.3 workers for every retiree. And 15 years from now, the number is expected to be only two workers per retiree. That means Americans will spend more and more of every day working to support other people’s retirement, instead of supporting their own families. The sooner we address this problem, the more gradually we can phase in changes. By making modest adjustments to future benefits now, by slowly and gradually phasing in a higher retirement age over the next six decades, and by adopting the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ more accurate measure of the Consumer Price Index, known as the Chain Weighted CPI, which seems to be a point of agreement on the Super Committee, we can make Social Security solvent for the next 75 years – and we can make sure that young people of tomorrow are not spending far more of their income supporting seniors than the young people of today.