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 : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MSI who wrote (17084)	11/21/2002 4:34:30 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

The point is that a growth oriented strategy takes the contribution and, one way or another, invests it to increase the yield, and reduce the strain on the budget to fill potential gaps. When I say "one way of another", I mean that it depends on the mix of contribution used for current obligations vs. percent invested, and it depends on whether the federal government create a pension fund, or allows the withholding of a portion of the contribution to invest in a menu of mutual funds.........

To: MSI who wrote (17084)	11/22/2002 1:02:18 PM
From: Thomas M.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

Regardless where the ficticious accounting assigns funds (to T-Bills rather than stocks/bonds), it makes no difference on the input side - those funds are still a demand on the treasury Which reminds me of the bigger picture situation in the 1990s. We essentially had a large transfer of debt from the government to the private sector. Since private sector debt is rarely mentioned (let alone analyzed) this created the illusion that America was getting healthier fiscally, when in fact America was getting unhealthier. Okay, I'm getting way off topic, since this ain't the CFZ. -g- Tom