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: Steve Dietrich who wrote (17139)	11/23/2002 5:56:17 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 93284

The "trust fund" is an orderly way of accounting for future obligations. However, it is merely an accounting trick, considering the political pressure to fund Social Security. The amount of debt held is not the primary consideration, it is the rate of redemption. I am not an expert, I am merely trying to note what the panels are asserting: that at a certain point, the baby boom will catch up with us, we will cease to be able to fund out of current revenues, and we will exhaust the "trust fund", in a spiralling demand on the general budget. In effect, Bush did call for a reduction in payroll taxes, by encouraging the development of a plan to allow 2% of contributions to be invested by the individual. That is the whole point of the argument, that diversified investment is desirable. No one has said that Social Security was "in trouble" as of 2016 or 2017. No one has said that the obligations under the "trust fund" would not be met. What has been said is that future obligations are not covered by the "trust fund" after about 2040, and that even if they were, the rising rate of redemption, relative to the number of workers paying into the system, would lead to undesirable results. Therefore, it would be prudent to put Social Security on a sounder basis, by examining growth strategies and considering which might be implemented.......