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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: TimF who wrote (212617)12/4/2004 9:51:27 AM
From: Road Walker  Read Replies (2) of 1572941
 
re: To the extent that the fund has any meaning at all it was "raided" by every president since social security started.

Then you are in agreement that Bush lied.

re: If they mean that Bush's plan would require SS taxes go up 50% in order for the social security fund to be in the same situation in terms of solvency that it is now, than their statement doesn't make a lot of sense. The % of SS that would be "privatized" is a lot below 50%, and also the part that would be in individual accounts would reduce future payouts.

You would have to increase FICA by 50% to avoid a $1Trillion to $2Trillion deficit. Is that simple enough? As far as reducing future payouts, that begins in 40 years. And it doesn't reduce the transition cost; the lower benefits will just equal the lower revenue. I don't understand why a smart guy like you can't grasp this.

Our economy is based on borrowing from the rest of the world to buy their goods. The current accounts deficit. Can you imagine what would happen to the dollar and interest rates if we decided to add $1Trillion+ to the deficit? What if China (and others) start buying Euro bonds instead of treasuries?

We simply can't afford it. Get it through your think libertarian skull.

John
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext