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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Scumbria who wrote (128931)	3/3/2001 10:19:09 AM
From: pgerassi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Dear Scumbria: You seem to forget many things about the 70's and 80's. You forget to take into account such things as interest rates, inflation, unrealized debts, etc. If someone puts a program in that will cost $128 billion after 8 years but, only $1 billion the first year doubling each year with a tax increase of $2 billion a year in the last year of his term, The budget will have an extra $1 billion in surplus that last year and $2 billion the second. For every year afterwards, it goes into deficit. You would blame the one whose term is after, and I would blame the one who put the bill in place and those that keep it from being terminated or changed. The true cause of the deficit is what it has always been, monies promised but without sufficient revenue to pay for. The biggest culprits, SS and MC. Pay as you go is easy to enact when the payments to covered people are small. It is especially to increase promised payouts when, a virtual trust fund has large virtual reserves (and large virtual debts largely unseen (hey, they were 30 to 40 years out)). So the dumb Democrats created it, and expanded benefits without corresponding tax increases. When the chikens came home to roost about 20 years later, they increased taxes but not enough because they failed to take into account changing lifetimes, demographics, and possible detrimental economics from those tax increases as well as other possible shocks. This became evident in the 80's and some changes in benefits occured (later retirement age among others) but, still the easiest still was to increase taxes. Going to a true accural program (as it was sold to the people) was resisted by Democrats throughout the 80's and 90's. Now we are finally beginning to take seriously that the underlying structure needs to be changed by both parties. The Republicans willingly and the Democrats are being dragged to it. Once this is fixed as well as MC and MA, the deficit will be reduced to the irreducible debt, state debt (foreign reserve banks and domestic states), very long term savings bonds, and unmatured individual debt held for safety (call premiums just will be too high). This level has been estimated to be somewhere around $500 and $900 billion by 2011 by various parties (AG, CBO, WHBO, and others). As we get to 2030 and beyond, it could go to $0. Pete

To: Scumbria who wrote (128931)	3/5/2001 5:16:09 AM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Scumbria, pete: Carter left Reagan with double digit CPI increases. Scumbria: You are confused. Nixon/Ford left Carter with double digit CPI increases. Remember Nixon's price/wage controls? You never cease to amaze me with your faulty logic based on faulty facts. This is about the 10th time that I myself went to verify your wild claim that generally turn out to be false. Here we go. CPI Dec to DEC: 1979: 13.3 1980: 12.5 BTW, Scumbria functions here on SI as a mouthpiece for the Democratic party. The idiotic claims that are part of the Democratic platform are intended for consumption of Democrat voters, generally not the sharpest knives in the drawer. They are not intended for discussion on an investor forums. Joe