The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Investing/Strategies / Retirement Investing


Subject:  Re: Attitude Question - SS Date:  3/16/2016  8:52 AM
Author:  Hawkwin Number:  79376 of 97361

I took you at your word that you wanted to assure that everyone "gets back at least what they put in".

Why is it a slippery slope to assume that you mean what you wrote and would apply in generally?

You stated camel nose under the tent in an attempt to abolish SS.

As I have stated I think three times now, my opinion of SS is multifaceted. My desire to have no one harmed by SS does not equate to abolishing SS. Your "nose under the tent" is exactly what a slippery slope fallacy illustrates.

Here, let me try another way.

There are many things I would change about SS but none of the would necessarily lead to abolishing it and not all of them are interrelated.

Lets say I really didn't want to have fish for dinner. My #1 desire is not to eat fish tonight. If it was unlikely that I could avoid that scenario, I still might have other preferences. If I must eat fish, then I want to make sure it is cooked and not raw. Perhaps I prefer salmon and not smelt. Perhaps if I must eat fish, I want to be assured that everyone else in my household must also eat fish and that no one gets steak (hey, I can be selfish too). Maybe I really don't want corn with fish where as otherwise I would prefer corn. My dinner preference is multifaceted - but none of that means that I don't want to eat dinner. SS is dinner.

My opinion of SS is similar. I don't want it abolished but I do want it revised - but then it has to be revised and it has always been revised. Obama and Congress just revised it again last year when they took away file and suspend. Did you accuse them of trying to put the camel nose under the tent? It is not actuarially possible for it to last and not be revised.
Copyright 1996-2020 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us