A 100% switchover is impossible, and
possibly could be considered immoral. It would have to be a phased
proposition.
Take an arbitrary age. For discussion
we will use 40. The age will have to be arrived at by some formula, but
will have to be firm. Some people will get the shaft.
Those over 40 will get their benefits
and must continue to pay into SS. Those under 40 may pay into a private account
(401k, 403b, etc) instead of SS. Those under 40 foriet all the money they
have already paid into the system.
The current SS fund will have to be locked
tight and not used for anything other than SS payouts. When that money is
gone, the remaining people still receiving or eligible to receive paid out of
the general budget. That means other projects like welfare programs, free
this free that will have to be cut to pay for the obligations of social
security.
Those other programs need to be disbanded in
the first place.
2/3 of the government beuarcracy is
unnecessary. Trimming that with an axe will help pay the obligations of
those still on SS.
Several departments are unconstitutional and
should be disbanded. Fed Dept of Ed, FDA, IRS, DEA, BIA...all of these can
be cut completely off and their functions returned to the states as the
constitution demands. That would save literally billions of dollars a
year.
Charles Mims
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Harder
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 9:43 AM
To: The Sandbox Discussion List
Subject: Re: [Sndbox] Social Security Gamble
How would such a plan account for the millions of seasoned citizens
that currently rely on SS? Where would the money come from to
keep writing their checks?
I do agree that in the long run, in order to make SS solvent, that we
will need to privatize, but to propose a total switch over would be
political suicide.
On Saturday, January 17, 2004, at 08:54 PM, Charles wrote:
If he were a man he'd not only go there, but announce the privatization of Social Security. At least he'd show some spine. It's time the gvt got out of the retirement business. If my 403b can have an average return of 35% over the past decade then there is no reason for SS to have a return of 2%. Let me take the amount of money I give to the fools in DC and put it in my 403b.<image.tiff>
Charles Mims
http://www.the-sandbox.org
Tim Harder
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Harder
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2004 8:12 PM
To: The Sandbox Discussion List
Subject: Re: [Sndbox] Social Security Gamble
If I was Bush.... I would not go there...
On Saturday, January 17, 2004, at 06:44 PM, Charles wrote:
Social Security Gamble
Robert Novak (archive)
January 17, 2004 | <image.tiff> Print | <image.tiff> Send
<image.tiff>
WASHINGTON -- A daring proposal that would make Social Security reform an election-year gamble is contained in a late draft of President Bush's State of the Union address to be delivered Tuesday night.
As he did last year with Medicare, Bush would take a thematic approach to Social Security rather than spell out specific legislation. In this case, the president would not attempt passing a bill this year authorizing individual personal contributions. Bush wants the issue debated in the 2004 campaign, prior to going before Congress in 2005.
Key House Republicans, headed by Speaker Dennis Hastert, have urged the White House not to touch Social Security. Nevertheless, presidential aides say Bush is determined to go ahead.
_______________________________________________
Sndbox mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://a8.mewebdns-a8.com/mailman/listinfo/sndbox_sandboxmail.net
_______________________________________________ Sndbox mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://a8.mewebdns-a8.com/mailman/listinfo/sndbox_sandboxmail.net
