Well as some of my wonderful Republican friends have told me. Us liberals are so damn reactionary! Well for once you are right, I was way to reactionary. The wonderful AP story that I read and made last week's reaction on shrub's idea to lower social security benefits for more well to do people, left some important details out.

Such as is mentioned in this New York Times article, which I have since read.

Social Security: Help for the Poor or Help for All?

Here are some details.

"Under Mr. Bush's approach of "progressive indexation," a typical low-income worker who earns about $16,000 a year today would be entitled to retirement benefits equal to about 49 percent of his or her wages, the same amount that is promised today.

But those earning an average income, about $36,500 in today's dollars, would see big changes. Instead of replacing 36 percent of that person's working pay, as promised under today's system, benefits would cover only 26 percent of pay by 2075.

And people who earn $90,000 a year in today's dollars would continue to pay as much as ever in taxes but would receive benefits equal to only 12 percent of their pay."

When the wonderful AP said benefits would be decreased for the more well to do, I thought you know around oh I don't know $100,000, $150,000 a year?

The point is that people who make on average $36,500 a year for their lifetime are less likely to have saved enough money for retirement. And the point of the Social Security program was to prevent people, who did not, or were not ABLE to save enough money for retirement to avoid poverty.

So in summation, I jumped the gun. I knew it was too good to be true