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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alighieri who wrote (180916)	1/18/2004 9:17:25 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574732

>> SS has been running a surplus for years. No, it hasn't -- not if you apply any reasonable accounting standards to SS -- the SS deficit is HUGE if we required it, as we do private pension funds, to accrue the unfunded liability for benefits actuarily required to be paid to current employees. The "surplus" is a "cash basis" surplus -- a method of accounting we tolerate for only the smallest of businesses. Even your local mom-and-pop grocery store is prohibited from using cash basis accounting as it does not "clearly reflect" income and expense. Yet, SS conveniently runs a "surplus" using cash basis accounting. A dictionary definition of "pyramid scheme" is as follows: "A fraudulent money-making scheme in which people are recruited to make payments to others above them in a hierarchy while expecting to receive payments from people recruited below them. Eventually the number of new recruits fails to sustain the payment structure, and the scheme collapses with most people losing the money they paid in. " This is as precise a definition of Social Security as can be made in two sentences.

To: Alighieri who wrote (180916)	1/18/2004 9:18:38 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1574732

The real courage that is needed is to make cuts in spending. How have we done over the last three republican administrations? So the "administration" spends the money? Last time I checked, all spending bills originate in and voted up or down by the Congress.

To: Alighieri who wrote (180916)	1/19/2004 1:15:14 AM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574732

Hi Alighieri, "The Pentagon (news - web sites) is continuing to withhold documents on Cold War chemical and biological weapons tests that used unsuspecting sailors as "human samplers" after telling Congress it had released all medically relevant information. " More openness from our gov't. Regards, Amy J story.news.yahoo.com

To: Alighieri who wrote (180916)	1/22/2004 6:18:24 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1574732

But even if we had a surplus its important to keep spending down. How are we doing lately? Not well. I wasn't making an argument for Bush's spending habits. There never was a real SS fund to gut. Do your homework Tim...SS has been running a surplus for years. Do yours. SS is part of the government. The SS "surplus" is in government bonds. When someone or something buys government bonds they are giving a loan to the government. So in this case the government is loaning itself money. If I take $100 from my right pocket and put it in my left and then spend it it makes little sense to talk about the surplus my right pocket has even if I can pull an IOU from myself out of my right pocket. The top 1% benefit the most because they pay the most taxes. There's wealth redistribution for you. In ten years, you and your kids will be making up the difference for the money they are receiving today. Yes wealth redistribution from the wealthy. Since they still pay the most taxes even after the tax cut wealth is being redistributed away from them. The second part of your sentence is again incorrect. A democratic administration showed the way for fiscal correctness by managing the nation to a substantial surplus and very strong economy....both at the same time. Bush seems unable to do either. A large part of the strong economy has little to do with either the actions of Clinton or Bush. Clinton was mostly lucky on the economy. Bush inherited an economy that was slowing down then came 9/11 on top of that but still the economy is turning around. As for spending Clinton did restrain spending better then Bush but the circumstances where different. Still even with the different circumstances I would give him credit if he restrained spending but he did not. Spending went up under Clinton, particuarly before there was a Republican congress. The Republican congress managed to restrain spending for a time until it hurt them politically and they lost interest in the idea. Also much of Clinton's "restraint" was due to the fact that he benefited from being able to draw down the military after the end of the Cold War. Some of the rest was due to passing more new laws and regulations forcing other people to do things without making it a government program where the government would have to pay. If you add the cost of the increase in the regulatory burden under Clinton then he doesn't look like someone who had such good control over the growth of government. Even if Clinton was a paragon of restrain on spending (and he was no such thing) it would not make the "2nd part" of my sentence incorrect because even if Clinton was an exception (and he was not) it is still true that "most politicians care more about being re-elected then they do about restraining spending." How have we done over the last three republican administrations? Just about none under the current administration. And not enough under Bush Sr, or Reagan, but then also not enough under Clinton, Carter, Ford, Nixon or Johnson. No president in my lifetime did a good job of restraining the growth of government. Tim