Text 6496, 48 rader
Skriven 2004-12-23 09:20:36 av BOB KLAHN (1:135/382)
     Kommentar till en text av ALAN HESS
Ärende: Charge-and spend?
=========================
 ...

 AH> This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the
 AH> article which follows. To view this item online, visit
 AH> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=420
 AH> 14

 AH> Monday, December 20, 2004
 AH> Charge-and-spend Republicans
 AH> Posted: December 20, 2004
 AH> 1:00 a.m. Eastern

 AH> By Ellen Ratner
 AH> + 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

...

 AH> After spending a day with the White House "Social Security
 AH> 101" class last week, it became obvious that no matter how
 AH> you spin it, the taxpayers are still going to have to
 AH> shoulder the "transitional debt" for the new "personal
 AH> savings accounts." Transitional debt is the
 AH> administration's euphemism for "kiting" a giant check (as
...
 AH> Aside from creating massive debt and driving up interest
 AH> rates, there are many other problems with privatizing
 AH> Social Security. Since most of us act out of
...

 I am still trying to figure out the answer to one simple
 question.

 According to the Social Security Trustee's report, (Snow, Chao,
 Thompson and four Bush appointed trustees.) to pay the benefits
 schedualed from 2030 to 2080 would require an increase in the
 income of the Social Security fund equal to about 2% of the GDP.
 Note that I don't say a tax increase, since this could be a
 shift of taxes from some other area to social security.

 However, even if it is a tax increase, I would like to know, why
 would 2% of the GDP be allowed to bankrupt social security?


BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... Bush supports one tax increase...the deficit is a tax on our children.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)