On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 12:34:46 -0600, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If we don't cut the rise in benefits, we'll have to keep on increasing the > % of GDP that goes to SS. We've done a pretty good job reducing poverty in > the elderly. We've done a terrible job with children. Why not slow the > increase in the payments to the elderly, so we can adress other needs? > > Would you suggest that the benefits should keep on increasing on the > present schedule, even though it means that the maximum payment to a couple > would be 90k/year in 2005 dollars by 2045? If so, why? No, but I would suggest that proposals while there are GOP majorities in the House and Senate and a GOP President will go nowhere. That is likely when something real will happen on the political equation that only Nixon could go to China. Only the Democrats will be able to get the support for a real fix. There are also some hidden bias in the example you use. By the time someone will be able to get 90K a year in benefits run through what their income subject to FICA would have to be. (Interesting how increasing this FICA high endcap is also one of the proposals on the table so the GOP doesn't see this as the problem.). All though this is something that can be pointed to as an example of a system supposedly out of control the real fiscal problems do not come from this maximum wage earners but the low end and the median. -- Gary Denton Easter Lemming Liberal News Digest _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
