Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

dkf

(37,305 posts)

8. Since there isn't a connection between SS and the Federal Budget or so they say, why would

Reply to unblock (Reply #7)

Fri Apr 5, 2013, 12:57 PM

Apr 2013

they subsidize SS? Wouldn't that blow the entire argument regarding the deficit to smithereens? I still don't see how that works.

Maybe it's the rhetoric on "unjust" 401ks that makes me suspicious.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

11 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Is this proposing confiscation of individual 401ks to fund social security? [View all] dkf Apr 2013 OP

I don't know- I have a 401k - I'm not really affluent - Comfortable I guess. el_bryanto Apr 2013 #1

no, it's a good article on the issue of retirement finances n/t Enrique Apr 2013 #2

no. why on earth would you think that??? unblock Apr 2013 #3

So how do you expand SS by changing 401ks? dkf Apr 2013 #4

i think the idea is simply unblock Apr 2013 #7

Since there isn't a connection between SS and the Federal Budget or so they say, why would dkf Apr 2013 #8

Personal experience with affording a 401k Benton D Struckcheon Apr 2013 #9

Yes, it is a bit indirect. unblock Apr 2013 #11

They will never abolish the 401Ks because it is a perfect scheme for Wall Street liberal N proud Apr 2013 #5

Did you even read the article? Because it says no such thing, not even close. Bluenorthwest Apr 2013 #6

Not a well thought-out article, but ... dawg Apr 2013 #10