Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
I think the opposition is purely ideological - the DEMs don't want to see an undoing of one of the pillars of the New Deal.
|
Oh, piff. Dems don't want to see SS undone because it has worked extraordinarily well. Identify a Republican program that has achieved its desired goal for 60 years and is projected to achieve it for another 30.... and achieve 75% of its goal thereafter. SDI?
When the undoing of the program will cost 4 trillion dollars (yes, I know -- Bush only wants to borrow 2 trillion or so, but what will the cost of that debt be?), and will not address the problems of the program, and may well give rise to new and worse problems.... well, I suppose that's merely an ideological response, right?
Quote:
|
It seems to me that there is a lot of room to strike a deal here. Would you object to some combination of raising the minimum age and allowing self directed investment accounts for a portion of an individual' SS account?
|
Why does the former require the latter? The minimum age should be raised to reflect reality -- the reality of longer lifespans, longer working lives, etc.
The gov't has already provided numerous options to allow for self directed, tax-advantaged retirement funds. 401(k)s, Keogh, SEP-IRA, IRA, Roth IRA, cash balance accounts, term life insurance, 529 plans (technically not retirement but covering an expense that itself interferes with retirement saving), etc. SS is supposed to be a safety net -- how does it function as one when exposed to the stock market?
Threaded Mode