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: ecommerceman who wrote (51142)	10/23/2000 10:03:57 PM
From: phyxter	Respond to of 769670

Nice article. It's pretty clear that Bush is a few fries short of a happy meal. A small man trying to buy a big job.

To: ecommerceman who wrote (51142)	10/23/2000 10:59:12 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

the stupidity issue. From some conversations, it appears that there is still a hard core group looking for the end of the world at the end of the millenium. They have decided to go with the first year == 1 premise which means the millenium ends a month or so after the elections. This core group of strange fanatics are voting Bush because he is stupid. The twisted logic seems to be that Bush will more likely set off the ultimate world war which will result with them either going to heaven (or the hidden spaceship behind the comet). I'm not sure if they go to heaven before the war, or get to fry with the rest of us. Bush has certainly got the insane vote locked up. TP

To: ecommerceman who wrote (51142)	10/24/2000 7:50:25 AM
From: Knight	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Re: Stupidity Issue From Kinsley article: "On Social Security, he continues to say he'll get the trillion dollars needed for his partial privatization "out of the surplus." Does he not understand that the current surplus is committed to future benefits, which will have to be cut to make the numbers work? Or does he understand and not care? When he compares the "paltry 2 percent" return on Social Security with an alleged 6 percent return on private investments, does he know he's leaving out that trillion dollars in one case and including it in the other? Or has this fact failed to penetrate despite repeated exposures?" I think it's Kinsley that doesn't understand. We have a current budget surplus. Allowing folks to redirect part of their Social Security benefits into private investment will, of course, reduce the amount of taxes collected at present; hence, the surplus will be reduced by that amount. What Kinsley and others who criticize the plan never seem to point out (or just don't understand) is that those who opt to redirect part of their Social Security to private investments give up part of their future Social Security benefit in exchange. This reduces the long-term required payout from the so called Social Security "trust fund" and thus compensates for the loss of immediate revenue. Does anyone really believe what Gore says about putting money in a "lock box"? Fact: there is no Social Security "trust fund". Money collected today is what's used to pay current benefits; hence, if Social Security taxes are redirected to fund the private investment option, they will, of necessity, come from the current budget surplus. It's that simple and that's exactly what Bush has said (nothing disengenuous there at all). However, the second part of the arrangement (which Gore conveniently leaves out) is the part about reducing SS obligations in the future for those who choose the private investment option. Gore is critizing Bush's plan but he's only including half of the arrangement in his numbers. Actually, Bush's plan is the one that really provides a "lock box" because it would allow individuals to set aside a designated amount of money that's actually invested and growing (a real "trust fund"). In a sense, it's similar to paying down the debt because it reduces future obligations. The whole issue really boils down to a simple question: Will we be better off long-term if the government allows us to take some of our Social Security tax and invest it ourselves in exchange for a reduced Social Security benefit in the future?