* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Those are the two choices, eh? Nothing or cut to 73 percent when?
If we make no changes, SS trustee's best estimate is that there will only be money to pay 73% of scheduled benefits in 2042. Surely you knew this? It is printed on the SS statement they mail you each year. > And I'm really confused by the fact that you said earlier that a > reduction to 73 percent in 2042 wouldn't affect me, but now you're > saying that I agree to taking that cut. Your stated choice is to do nothing now because it is only a "future crisis". But that is equivalent to choosing to take 100% of benefits for yourself and your cohorts (sticking the bill to the next generation) while giving the next generation a choice of either taking 73% of scheduled benefits or sticking it to the next generation. If you wait to fix the problem, then the cost falls to the next generation, while you get to reap the benefits. Look, my point was simple. If a 27% cut from scheduled benefits is no big deal, then why are the current over-50's so opposed to any benefit reductions? And if it IS a big deal, then why are you arguing that there is no serious problem that we need to fix now? > Who are my cohorts? Statistical cohorts? People in your age group. Loosely, your generation. > And now, a bit of sarcasm. Interesting how you keep turning fundamental arguments into something about Bush. If you said that you had X opinion on reforming SS, but you don't trust Bush to implement it, then that would be one thing. But you appear to be saying that all SS reform is bad because Bush supports changing SS. Of course that is not what you meant. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
