Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KMA-628
I have been wondering when this would be mentioned here.
Before I spend time on a lengthy post, I have two questions for the thread starter:
#1 - What are the details of the SS plan the White House has given to Congress for approval?
Oh wait, there are none, because there is no plan yet. We are looking at options. There is no proposal, there is no specific agenda.....how do you target something that is merely being discussed? Especially when the floor for discussion has been opened up to everyone, regardless of the letter after their name. So, we are going after a guy who sees something that has problems and wants to come up with a way to fix it.
I love this, it is almost too funny to believe. "Bush is gonna [insert favorite catch-phrase] to [insert favorite group of people]" How can any say that something specific is going to happen when there isn't even a formal plan proposed? i.e. people are going to lose benefits Based on what information? This tired out crap is getting so old.
#2 - You cannot try and further the argument from your link until you offer one little piece of information: ROI. What is the expected ROI of the Bush plan? What is the current ROI for a person in their 20's or 30's under the current plan (hint: it is a really depressing number).
How can we discuss ROI if we are offered absolutely no facts whatsoever from the person starting this thread?
Along with the ROI discussion regarding SS, another little important tidbit kepts getting left out: Ratios.
Forget about ROI
Forget about the amount of money SS has or will have
Look at the freakin' history of the ratios. Looking at the ratios alone gives us more than enough reason to consider some type of major change to the SS system. I am not 100% set on the type of change, but when I look at the payee/payor ratios and where they are heading, I am scared and willing to look at almost any proposal for change.
Another note: That link is nothing but fearmongering. The information "offered" up in the link completely contradicts the factual minimum requirements already set in place for any proposed change to SS.
|
Why should we even spend a moment of time offering a solution?
The first step is to demonstrate that there is a problem or "crisis". Bush has failed to do that and there certainly is no agreement on the matter. So instead of Bush attempting to prove the necessity of significant change, he is pushing some kind, any kind, of significant change. He skipped the validation portion of the process. So instead of receiving plans for change, he is being attacked.
Makes perfect sense to me. Until it is demonstrated that significant change is required, all talk of significant change is nothing more than a scam.