The numbers Bush is using to promote his privatization plan are based on an extremely optimistic scenario of economic growth; if that scenario were to play out -- and Bush will have you believe that it will -- then there is absolutely no reason to change social security because the corresponding increase in federal tax revenues will erase the shortfall.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
That sword cuts both ways -- opponents of reform assume that absolutely everyone lives exactly to the forecast life expectancy. Live longer -- yippee; live shorter -- tough sh*t. Die the week before you turn 65 -- oh well, thanks for playing.
And people like Krugman and Reid dare call private accounts a "gamble"? Pot.Kettle.Black.
My goodness, but you still don't get the basic idea of the program.
The point is not to get back what you put in.
The point is that it's socially responsible to make sure that our senior citizens have at least this bare minimum monthly amount they can rely on in their retirement. The people who are currently working pay to take care of them.
And when we retire, the people who are working will take care of us. The rationale is, it's just the right thing to do. Are you so selfish that if you died at 64 years and 363 days of age that you would feel gypped out of money that you spent to take care of America's senior citizens? Does being generous with your money so that no one in America is left out in their twilight years bother you THAT much?
Post a Comment