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: greenspirit who wrote (42800)	10/5/2000 1:38:02 AM
From: Mr. Whist	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Cummings: Your logic is fuzzy on Social Security. Your whole scenario fails to include one monkey wrench: the possibility of a sustained market crash. You also ask the question: "Would you care much if you had to wait for the government stipend to kick in at 70?" The answer to your question is yes. You don't change the rules for the working men and working women of America in mid-stream unless there's a bonafide crisis, and there ain't one. We've got money to burn.

To: greenspirit who wrote (42800)	10/5/2000 8:45:32 AM
From: Zeev Hed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Michael, I think that you overlook one economic point. If $100 B per year is allocated to buying securities (federal or state as someone suggested here), this is $100 Billion that does not come from the private sector, thus the private sector will have an additional $100 B per year to invest wisely in economic enterprises. Right now, we are going to have contraction in liquidity due to assets eradication (all these huge amounts that went into IPO which may not survive). A source of excess liquidity to balance this out will do a lot to keep stability in the financial markets. Zeev