On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 16:51:05 -0800, Larry Blanchard wrote:
In article ,
says...
Anyone who doesn't think there is a social security problem is
delusional. Whoever takes the problem on is going to be in for
a ****-storm; the Dems just prefer to let someone else do what has
to be done.

Now THAT's the Dave I love to disagree with :-).

Oh good. The normal order of things has been restored.

Yes, SS has a problem. No, SS is NOT in a crisis, as Bush would have us
believe.

But, that's word games. The sooner something gets done to get it
steered in the right direction (or at least, less in the _wrong_
direction), the less that steering will hurt. Deciding if the word
"problem" or "crisis" is more accurate, is just a pointless waste of
effort. I think everyone agrees that it's headed in the wrong
direction.

1. His estimates are based on a peeimistic forecast of grwoth at half
the rate it has averaged for 50 years or so.

I'd prefer the word "conservative" rather than "pessimistic", but OK.
If things turn out better than predicted, then so much the better.

2. Private accounts will do nothing to solve the problem - Bush glosses
over the fact that his solution requires reducing benefits. That would
work without the private accounts.

Yes, but I'd prefer to self-direct _some_ of my own investment. (I
honestly don't think I'll ever see any of it, so anything non-zero is
a plus, but that's beside the point.)

4. The "crisis", if any, is more properly called a "bubble". By the
time it occurs, the baby boomers will start dying off and the ration of
retirees to workers will improve again - although how much is anyones
bet.

Shouldn't that be simple to calculate? We've got birth rate data up
to and including 2004, after all. Why is it "anyone's bet"? Death
rates on a population the size of the US should be pretty calculable
as well?

5. Removing the limit on SS taxable earnings and slightly increasing
the rate at which retimement age is slated to rise would, if not
eliminate any fund shortage, at least push it considerably further into
the future.

That's another approach, yes. Something in the right direction needs
to be done, and at least Bush has the balls to start things moving
in the right direction. No matter who touches it, they're gonna
get burned. A lame-duck President is the ideal person to do that;
it's gonna **** off peole no matter what or who does whatever needs
to get done.

And it seems nobody knows (or will say) what'll happen to the employers
share of the taxes employees take out for the private accounts. Wanna'
bet the companies would get to keep them?

I don't see your point here, sorry.