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: Road Walker who wrote (211872)	11/16/2004 8:51:25 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1584964

JF, Do you not get this? They will have to pay the benefits without the offsetting revenue. For a generation. I thought all we had to do was simply roll back 1/3 of Bush's tax cut, and Social Security will be saved. It's as if you want to contribute to your IRA with your credit card every year. If only Social Security were equivalent to an IRA. The truth is that SS wasn't set up to be that way in the first place. By the way, does our $7.5T federal debt include loans taken out of the SS trust fund? Tenchusatsu

To: Road Walker who wrote (211872)	11/17/2004 7:10:25 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1584964

Wake up man, WE JUST CAN'T FREAKING AFFORD IT!!! There is no expense to not afford. We would just be recognizing part of an obligation that we already have. It's as if you want to contribute to your IRA with your credit card every year. What we are doing now is contributing to other people's IRA's with IOUs. If the IOUs don't actually get paid than we are saying that social security is a sham. If we do intend to pay them and do eventually pay them (with interest) than the only difference between using a credit card instead of an IRA is that if we use a credit card the debt shows up on our credit report when the IOU debt does not. If if the cost was a real cost, if your figure is accurate it is $2tril over a generation, which is affordable. The government already spends more than that per year. Of course with the level of debt and spending that we have we would be illadvised to throw $2tril down a hole even over a generation but the payments would reduce the future obligations, it would not be wasted money. Tim

To: Road Walker who wrote (211872)	11/25/2004 5:45:12 AM
From: Joe NYC	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1584964

John, Or the reduction in future revenue. Or are they going to tax more and give less? You are truly confused. Nobody is talking about cutting SS taxes. The question is about where the money should go: Building up assets, or just delaying the crush of the Pyramid scheme. Do you not get this? They will have to pay the benefits without the offsetting revenue. We are paying benefits for the unfounded liabilities of the past. The offsetting revenue is the revenue that FDR did not collect because he created an unfunded system. Bush wants to fix a flawed system by transitioning to a funded system. Joe