« A silly claim from the Center for American Progress | Main | The fake memo meme »

April 07, 2005

Comments

"It's just as easy or hard as cutting the traditional benefit. This argument makes no sense to me." -- well it shows you're politically clueless. Cutting collective benefit politically is a different thing than cutting what is perceived by the voters as PRIVATE SAFE. Any politician trying to break into a private safe is in big trouble. Any politician tweaking with collective system has it relatively easy. It's illogical/irrational of people maybe, but that's the way things are.

Of course, this private safe is not impenetrable, but it's much stronger than traditional s.s. benefit.

If you mean it's legally the same, it doesn't matter. It may be, but essentially that's irrelevant. Legality doesn't really matter. What matters is what you can get through and it's politics, not law, that is decisive in this regard.

well if Brad DeLong is linking to you, you must be a big shot Brendan. And I'm with you, it's nonsense. How do these accounts "save Social Security money"?

b,
If I understanc correctly, Bush's 'plan' only allow you to partially privatize your social security. Say the proportion of funds that goes into your private accounts is a third. Obviously you still get some money from traditional benefits too since 2/3 of your money went into the general pool. But what you get is less than the 2/3 of traditional benefits. This discrepancy is the clawback.

Confusing, no? Well I have a feeling the more confusing it is the easier it is going to be to take away people's money.

Battlepanda

The comments to this entry are closed.