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 (212547)	12/3/2004 7:14:08 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573018

I accept that Bush raided the SS fund, which he promised not to do prior to his '00 election. To the extent that the fund has any meaning at all it was "raided" by every president since social security started. You don't get it, do you? I thought you understood that we have been in a long period of SS surplus revenue over benefits, and we are entering a period when SS benefits are over revenue. It's not prudent to cut revenue at this point. You changed the subject. I would be willing to address that as well (to the extent that it has not been dealt with) after dealing with the specific subject at hand, the claim that "if you privatize a portion of SS you would have to raise SS taxes by 50%" Once again - If they mean that Bush's plan would require SS taxes go up 50% in order for the social security fund to be in the same situation in terms of solvency that it is now, than their statement doesn't make a lot of sense. The % of SS that would be "privatized" is a lot below 50%, and also the part that would be in individual accounts would reduce future payouts. Tim

To: Road Walker who wrote (212547)	12/4/2004 2:02:02 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573018

>> But the point is that SS is self sustaining if the adjustment is based on inflation not wages. You don't know what you're talking about. >> I thought you understood that we have been in a long period of SS surplus revenue over benefits, What YOU don't understand is that there is a small CASH surplus but the fund is technically insolvent. There is more to life than cash. A man who has $200,000 cash today has a "surplus" by your definition, even though he has $1,000,000 due tomorrow morning at 8am. I'm not sure why you can't understand this simple concept. I don't expect you to understand the analytical part of it, but just the concept ought not to be that difficult.