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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Steve's Channelling Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: orkrious who wrote (7211)	11/5/2000 12:21:06 PM
From: Zeev Hed	Respond to of 30051

If we continue on the present course, I don't think that we will run into problems in 15 years with social security. There are two sources that we have and Japan does not. Yes, we will have an "aging" population, but unlike Japan, we are not xenophobic and we have a relatively lax immigration policy which can be changed relatively easy to keep growth going (iimigration is one of the engines of growth in both economic activity and population growth). Finally, if we continue with current policies of budget surpluses, we could even tap the "general funds" for a period of about 10 years (from 2015 to 2025 or so) at the rate of $20 to $50 B per year, as a loan to the SS funds to be repaid later once a new "balance" of demographic (post the baby boom bulge of the 1945 to 1955) is established. As for the reduction in military, I'll grant you that our defense expenditures could better deployed, but the fact remains, that even if you assign the whole reduction to defense (which factually is not the case), in the last 8 years the percentage of government spending as a percentage of GDP has gone down, and government's head count (outside the defense establishment) has been much slower than population growth. Achievements that neither the Reagan (for whom I voted) nor Bush Sr. administrations can take credit for. Reagan cost us a cool trillion dollars for having very good intentions but lousy execution (the saving and loan debacle was a direct result of an attempt to rationalize taxes and introduce the "at risk stipulation" in taxation of real estate deals). Bush's very "good intentions" will cost us $2 trillion in explosion of the national debt if he stays in place for two terms. It will also cut down over the next 8 years about 10% slow down of our GDP (an average of 1.25% per year over 8 years). That means that revenues will be a cool $200 B less in the last year of a Bush regime than it would have been if current policies of gradual changes were implemented. Zeev irrevolute.iuma.com

To: orkrious who wrote (7211)	11/5/2000 12:26:03 PM
From: Bosco	Respond to of 30051

<ot>Hi Jay - with regard to SS, probably Gov Bush is your man. I didn't have the exact quote, but he has decided SS is not a federal program [personally, I think he lucked out by having his DUI thing in the front page, and not this <VBG>!] I ve to had enough faith in the good people in Texas that their governor knew it was an entitlement. Thus, is it a freudian slip? Doing away with SS should eclipse the Reaganites wanting to do away with the Dept of Edu :) best, Bosco