Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (42774)	10/4/2000 10:35:08 PM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Have you noticed that Gore's spending plans will sop up all this theoretical excess liquidity - and then some?

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (42774)	10/5/2000 12:08:29 AM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

If this theory is so sound, then why not have ALL private sector capital flow to the treasury in order to buy bonds? Buying bonds doesn't make America grow and prosper as much as funding new business enterprises via the stock market. Your economic assumption seems to be the 100 billion dollars would be tossed in the toilet unless bonds are purchased by the government. I would much rather see the 100 billion dollars made available to American companies in need of capital, instead of given to the government (under the assumption) bonds will be purchased cleanly. Besides, who says a large portion of the 100 billion dollars won't be put into bond funds? We all know how difficult it is for politicians of all stripes to limit spending. Therefore, it's likely the 100 billion dollars would be spent on some new government program (just like it has in the past), such as free prescription drugs for millionaire's who happen to turn 65. This whole nonsense of "locked boxes" is political double speak. Democrats, such as Gore, have fought for years to keep social security on budget, as a way of deferring the red ink they've spilled. And Gore has already proposed over 2 TRILLION dollars of additional spending. The bottom line is we have four choices in regard to the social security mess we're in. 1. We're either going to raise taxes (even higher) in order to support social security entitlements. 2. Cut the entitlements. 3. Raise the age of eligibility. 4. Raise the rate of return on the investment, while simultaneously raising the eligibility requirements. It makes a lot more sense to me if we allow younger Americans to invest a portion of social security in the market, then raise the eligibility down the road. People are living longer and longer. And it's likely, in the next 30 years, that our average life expectancy will go to 85 or 90. If you're 35 today, and you invest 2% in the market for 30 years. Would you care much if you had to wait for the government stipend to kick in at 70? I doubt it. Younger Americans could tap into their own 2% savings at 62 or 65, then wait for the rest of social security to kick in later. Given the power of compounding interest, it's likely many of these 30 year investors would be millionaires, instead of monthly insecure social security recipients. It empowers the individual over the state. It helps our organizations in need of capital. And it helps us see the light at the end of the tunnel in regard to higher and higher taxes, to support more and more elderly Americans. Michael