On 5/2/05, JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 09:49 PM 5/1/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote: > > Reducing benefits to the neediest while > > > <snip> > > > >Can we tell them with a straight face that we are being good > >stewards by passing legislation that will reduce their benefits? > > What's your source for this? The plan the President presented last week > cut preserved benefits for the neediest, and reduced benefits for the > highest income earners. It looks like you are playing word games again.
Word game analysis cut preserved benefits for the neediest The "cut" I assume was a slip where you indicated you know it cut the preserved benefits even for the neediest. Preserved benefits for the neediest is what I believe you meant. I'll ignore this for now. "Reduced benefits for the highest income earners" wow. You do know don't you that those "highest income earners" is everyone earning over $20,000 a year? > > As for privitization, I support it because I believe that if many Americans > who earn enough to save enough themselves for their retirement do so, then > they won't *need* Social Security when they retire. Somewhat agreed, and that is why companies developed pension plans and Congress created 401K plans. > This reduces > dependency on the public dole, and reduces the shocks to the federal budget > from generational shifts. In particular, if benefit cuts are needed to > make Social Security solvent in the long run, then providing younger people > the opportunity to earn high returns by investing for retirement based on a > cut in the SS taxes. The threat is not Social Security going insolvent. It never does. The threat is that right now under pessimistic economic assumptions benefits will be cut under the current regulations over 20% forty or fifty years from now. Every single plan that the GOP has proposed cuts benefits more and sooner. I will repeat that - to avoid cutting benefits decades from now EVERY plan proposed cuts benefits more sooner. All of this to supposedly prevent these smaller cuts further off. The President's privatization schemes all add additional debt very soon to supposedly avoid less debt decades later. This has an additional benefit for its proponents of weaning people away from the community based (as opposed to private accounts) Social Security system. I am using "supposedly" for good reason. One of the reality-based main reason's for these smoke and mirrors logically inconsistent plans is to produce this privatized system instead of a community based system. Bush's press conference has placed him even further away from being able to pass any plan. Do you think that Congress will pass his plan now where he admits I am saving the system by cutting benefits to all those higher-income folks who make over $20K? > > JDG -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Blogs http://elemming.blogspot.com http://elemming2.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
