I take your point but it's still reduced revenue.

----- Original Message -----
From: Sam Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 21:28:37 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: haplessly marching like lemmings into the sea.
To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

--- dana tierney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> <rant>
> Here is an example of what I mean (story and link
> below). I am looking
> at the online version, but I would be willing to bet
> money that this
> story was buried on an inside page and that less
> than ten percent of
> the Post's readership will even notice it.

It's an analysis so it should be in with the
editorials.

I'm not going to take the time and argue against it
but I will point out one issue I noticed.

"His proposed changes in Social Security to allow
younger workers to invest part of their payroll taxes
in stocks and bonds could cost the government $2
trillion over the coming decade"

Why will this cost the government anything? Isn't it
my money? I put money in and the government borrows
it. When I retire the government borrows from someone
else to pay me back. Bush's plan is to put my money
aside, reminds me of the lockbox. So by saying it'll
cost the government $2 trillion means they need to
borrow that money from someplace else? Again fixing
the SS problem may cause a different problem but
should we do nothing?

-sm

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com________________________________
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]

Reply via email to