<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: How would you fix Social Security?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.consumptionrules.com/how-would-you-fix-social-security/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.consumptionrules.com/how-would-you-fix-social-security/</link>
	<description>business, economics, consumer information, current events, politics</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:42:16 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Brad</title>
		<link>http://www.consumptionrules.com/how-would-you-fix-social-security/#comment-18090</link>
		<dc:creator>Brad</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Nov 2007 16:55:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.consumptionrules.com/how-would-you-fix-social-security/#comment-18090</guid>
		<description>Option 1 may increase benefits, but would do nothing to cover the shortfall unless you gave everyone &lt;i&gt;less&lt;/i&gt; and hoped the market made up the difference.  You'd probably still have to raise taxes, though to accomplish this one, because privatized accounts are owned by the individual - when death comes knocking the beneficiary is no longer the federal government.  

Option 2 sounds like a great idea on paper - borrow money from useless government programs to cover the difference - practically speaking, though, I can't envision a president or congress that's powerful and disciplined enough to do that to a measurable extent.  It would be great if it happened, but I can't imagine it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Option 1 may increase benefits, but would do nothing to cover the shortfall unless you gave everyone <i>less</i> and hoped the market made up the difference.  You&#8217;d probably still have to raise taxes, though to accomplish this one, because privatized accounts are owned by the individual - when death comes knocking the beneficiary is no longer the federal government.  </p>
<p>Option 2 sounds like a great idea on paper - borrow money from useless government programs to cover the difference - practically speaking, though, I can&#8217;t envision a president or congress that&#8217;s powerful and disciplined enough to do that to a measurable extent.  It would be great if it happened, but I can&#8217;t imagine it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: doug</title>
		<link>http://www.consumptionrules.com/how-would-you-fix-social-security/#comment-18044</link>
		<dc:creator>doug</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Nov 2007 02:45:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.consumptionrules.com/how-would-you-fix-social-security/#comment-18044</guid>
		<description>Or, let younger folks invest some of their money and cut spending elsewhere in the budget to cover any shortfall in social security.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Or, let younger folks invest some of their money and cut spending elsewhere in the budget to cover any shortfall in social security.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
