Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
Be fair. Depending on who wants to make the specific adjustments under discussion, both Repubs and Dems have been scare-mongering SS for decades. Each side takes its turn arguing that the system is just fine, or that the scare is, at least, overblown. Fact is, old farts scare easily, and they vote massively, so you can make virtually any systemic change you want if you can tie it in somehow to "saving SS." This isn't about saving SS - it's simply a way to make government less meaningful.
Having said that, I'm curious what new system is going to replace the safety net of SS for the twenty percent who lose their whole discretionary portion. We're obviously not going to let them starve, so are we simply making the investment portion risk-free?
|
Although it hasn't been addressed openly, yes. In order to get any sort of a majority you would have to guarantee some minimum level of return, or at least preservation of capital.
That 20 percent in effect will form an insurance pool. The hope will be that there will be enough people doing well and receiving reduced benefits (another thing they won't speak about publicly yet, mandatory reduction of benefits for the budding Warren Buffets among us) that it will more than offset the folks who tank and have to be bailed out.
