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 : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (3578)	10/24/2000 11:28:16 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10042

I believe in paying off the debt before we stick our noses in the public trough. AS... The government will never pay off the debt. The very fact that ALL Social Security "surpluses" are ONLY invested in public debt (US Treasuries), GUARANTEES that the future liabilities of the SS system will be SOLELY born by the workers and taxpayers of that future day. Either that or benefits will have to be cut. And since the only reason the government issues debt is for the purpose of making more money available in their annual budgets, each entitlement program that the government creates will ONLY ADD TO THAT INDEBTEDNESS. Government debt is NOT considered a hard asset. It is a future obligation AGAINST FUTURE TAX REVENUES. Now.. before you go any further, I want you to review and understand what I said above. It's important to understand the example I will provide. . . . . Now imagine if you will will that the government has been running a surplus of $200 billion per year for 10 years. The sum total of that surplus is $2 Trillion. But since that $2 Trillion can only be held in public debt (US Treasuries), that means the public debt has increased by $2 Trillion as well. And since the $2 Trillion dollars that was "saved" generated $2 Trillion in public debt obligations, it means that the US government budget has increased by $2 Trillion, or $200 Billion PER ANNUM, as well. And if that $200 Billion in additional ANNUAL government spending was doled out as entitlement programs that can never be cut (hence the name entitlement), that means that when the baby boomers start looking for that monthly check, the government will have to issue MORE DEBT to cover its obligations since it CAN'T CUT THE $200 BILLION IN EXISTING ENTITLEMENTS!!! Now... WERE THIS MONEY INVESTED IN INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS, or invested in new technology that would increase the ability of the economy to finance social security obligations for the baby boomers 10 years from now, I WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH TAKING ON THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC DEBT. But since the surplus is NOT BEING INVESTED, but ONLY DOLED OUT AS PERMANENT ENTITLEMENTS, when the day comes that this government has to "pay the piper", WE'RE ALL GOING TO BE RUDELY AWAKENED. And THAT IS WHY Bush is advocating privatization of PART of the Social Security system. Social Security, as it now exists, is nothing more than a ponzi scheme. Now about that "lock box" that Gore is discussing. How does the government "lock up" public debt? Where will it be put, if not in the general Federal budget and spent? SS SURPLUSES HAVE TO BE SPENT OR INVESTED IN HARD ASSETS THAT DO NOT CONSIST OF GOVERNMENT DEBT INSTRUMENTS. Now before you respond AS... go back and re-read this post several times again... Make sure you FULLY UNDERSTAND what I'm telling you. And then MAYBE the light will finally go on...