Replies

But Tricky Ricky is proposing that we guarantee socialist insecurity to all born before 1950, WITHOUT a concommitant, equal and off-setting guarantee of personal accounts to those born after 1950. Is that fair? It's election year pandering to the grey vote....nothing more.

And how is he going to guarantee payments from a system that is insolvent by any standard or creative definition of the word? Simple.....by taxing the productive sector into oblivion. I've absolutely had it with his leftist slide and election year pandering.

Goddess, if the government had invested our money instead of spending it this would be a moot point. If we had been able to invest our money instead of giving it to the governement, it would be a moot point. You have to do both, guarantee people near or at retirement age and change the system to make it more viable.

If 'we' allow people to invest this money our economy should soar with all the money that would finally be socked away (American's have a woeful savings rate) and interest rates would benefit, too...

If you think Casey wouldn't fall into the raise taxes to balance SS fold, you are sadly mistaken. Dims -- none -- have never met a tax increase they didn't love, they think all of our money belongs to them and we should keep enough to just get by... the dim party today is a lot more like Jimmy Carter in thinking and they are all on such a short leash that they will not dare go against Dingy Harry, Kerry, Kennedy, etc... so, no matter how ticked off I get at any of our GOP guys, the worst one is better than 99.9% of any Dim.