🚀 go-pugleaf

In ca.general BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> In article <i7msb1dpip0ulhf2plke5fuonr24rt70hq@4ax.com>,
>  Lawrence Glickman <Lawrence_Glickman@comcast.net> wrote:

>> On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 07:26:31 GMT, Gunner <gunner@lightspeed.net>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> >On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 01:56:50 -0500, Lawrence Glickman
>> ><Lawrence_Glickman@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>And regarding Social Security, don't DARE fuck with the money I put
>> >>into my account since I was 16 years of age.  I need this to live on.
>> >>It is my ONLY source of income, outside of a small pension from a
>> >>private company that will pay for a couple of heart-clogging
>> >>cheeseburgers a month.

>> >You are aware..though the Leftists fail to mention it..that the 3-4%
>> >amount you may Voluntarily put in an investment account..is
>> >voluntary..are you not?
>> 
>> "The Legislation" will not be passed in its' current form.  That we
>> know, otherwise it wouldn't STILL be on the drawing boards at this
>> late date.
>> 
>> Furthermore, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

> It's broke.

>> We've got $100 BILLION
>> for a useless war, so if they don't skim from Soc Sec, the funds
>> should be there 25 years down the road.

> Telling me we've only get enough money for 25 years doesn't go a very 
> long way toward proving your point that it ain't broke.

    You are aware, aren't you, that private accounts do absolutely
nothing to solve the financial problems of Social Security, in fact
they make the problems worse by incurring $1 trillion or so in
transition costs.  Even Bush has admitted this when pressed.
    Yes, Social Security has financial problems, and those problems
can only be solved with some combination of increased income or
decreased expenses.  But that is a completely separate issue from
private accounts.