Reform Social Security!
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,988
Likes: 7
From: Nebraska
Well, maybe we should try to agree on this.
At least Bush has the ***** to take the subject on? SS is known at the "third rail of politics" meaning if you touch it your dead. (For those of you who live in the country the center rail of a subway line is HIGH voltage. Don't pee on it!
)
But then again Bush has nothing to loose so is trying to do good by tweeking the
system so it will remain viable.
Can we agree something needs to be done?
At least Bush has the ***** to take the subject on? SS is known at the "third rail of politics" meaning if you touch it your dead. (For those of you who live in the country the center rail of a subway line is HIGH voltage. Don't pee on it!
) But then again Bush has nothing to loose so is trying to do good by tweeking the
system so it will remain viable.
Can we agree something needs to be done?
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,988
Likes: 7
From: Nebraska
Originally posted by DustyRock
I did not want to even read this thread.......Finally I succumbed and was drawn in.
I did not want to even read this thread.......Finally I succumbed and was drawn in.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 847
Likes: 0
From: Houston, TX
The federal deficiet that we have amassed in the past 4 years along with the windfall tax brakes we all got and the bonus's that have been handed out to large corporations and the pharmasutical companies would proably bailed SS out for a long time.
The whole SS thing doesn't bother me so much, I pretty much count on the fact I'll pay in it my whole life and never get anything back. I kind of like Bush's idea in my perspective since I have a chance of putting part of my own (tax) money away rather than just giving it away. However I don't think this will fix the real problem. Even if I can get my own money back out 30 years from now, what happens to SS until then? They'd be getting less money in since people would be putting it away for themselves, so I'd think it'd make the matter even worse. I haven't really read into the details. Am I correct in saying that I'd be putting money otherwise sent to the gov't away for myself or is this just a gov't supported 401k?
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
From: Central New Mexico
I find it kind of amusing that in previous election campaigns, the Demos and Repubs were debating this same subject. All were claiming that SS would be bankrupt within 30 years or so but blaming each other for the problem. NOW, these same Demos scream that there's nothing wrong with SS, so leave it alone. Sorta sounds like they want the credit for fixing a program that BOTH parties have turned into a FUBAR (Fouled Up Beyond All Repair) and SNAFU (Situation Normal - All Fouled Up).
Additionally, isn't there at least one South American Country (Peru ???) who privatized their SS - and everyone there is much better off because of it??
DW
Additionally, isn't there at least one South American Country (Peru ???) who privatized their SS - and everyone there is much better off because of it??
DW
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 4,312
Likes: 1,063
From: Commerce, OK
Originally posted by DeaconWayne
Additionally, isn't there at least one South American Country (Peru ???) who privatized their SS - and everyone there is much better off because of it??
DW
Additionally, isn't there at least one South American Country (Peru ???) who privatized their SS - and everyone there is much better off because of it??
DW
http://www.socsec.org/publications.asp?pubid=332
Edwin
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post