On Jan 6, 2005, at 5:12 PM, Erik Reuter wrote:
On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 01:49:52PM -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
Not just the Dems. Don't forget the silvering Boomers and all the current AARP members. They have, I'm quite sure, no intention of tolerating even the vaguest *hint* of gefingerpoken on their SS plans.
Which is why all the plans I have seen DO NOT REDUCE BENEFITS TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE ALREADY BEGUN CONTRIBUTING TO SS. The only SS benefit reduction would be for people who voluntarily choose to reduce their SS contributions and put some into a private account.
Use your indoor voice, sweetie.
The across-the-board benefit changes being discussed (switching
wage-indexing to inflation-indexing, etc.) only apply to people retiring
after about 2075 -- people who are less than 5 years old today.
Does this mean that the "retirement" age is going to rise further? Because in 2075, today's infants will be 70+ years old...
We are allegedly a wealthy nation; why are we being cheap about this?
We are not being cheap. We are being realistic. Resources are finite. They need to be allocated in some way. I tend to favor the most efficient way that is not inhumane.
Well, I'd accept the finite resource argument if the current allegedly conservative government would stop hemorrhaging funds that it cannot replace on, oh, I don't know, frivolous wars.
I mean, $87bln+ is not really a defensible behavior if a perspective of parsimony is to be assumed. They sure spends it like they gots it.
-- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
