SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Castle
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: MSI who wrote (181)11/9/2002 1:51:28 PM
From: i-node  Read Replies (2) of 7936
 
Privatization has the attraction of the illusion of "keeping" the money.

Privatization is the only hope for salvaging a program that is, instrinsically, actuarily unsound. Only if some technique is developed under which SS funds can grow at market rates, is there any possibility of being able to maintain the kinds of benefit payout ratios that are projected to be required. Privatization is the only idea I've heard that offers that possibility.

The time value of money begins to be substantial when you look out more than 30 years. But this is a knife that cuts both ways: Compounded earnings over 30-40 years can be great, but discounted somes for the same period are nothing. If something is done to get even a small portion of SS funds growing at a higher rate, it is possible that over a 50 or 60 year period the program could start to dig out. This can't happen under the current scenario because benefit payouts are going to grow at a faster rate than the invested assets.

Unfortunately, this administration has zero financial credibility, and it's unlikely those funds will be protected in any way. The past 25 years the Democrats have been the party of fiscal responsibility in government, odd as that seems, and the Bushes in particular have spent into oblivion.

Perhaps you don't realize that ALL spending is done by Congress and that the president has no authority to spend a nickel without congress first appropriating the funds.

Presidents don't spend money. Congress does. Who has controlled Congress for the last 25 years? The only time any progress was made on controlling spending was when Congress was under Republican control.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News