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 (212814)	12/12/2004 3:58:53 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573377

At least you have quit the argument that the transitions costs would be recovered. ?? The tranisiton costs would be recovered by the fact that there would be less obligation to pay out to future retirees. I never abandoned any such argument. "re: I'm not so sure we will do better with the rest of the money because I expect benefits to be cut (at least after the baby boom and if they wait that long the cuts will have to be harsher). And what exactly makes you "expect" that? The long term trend in the decrease in the number of workers per retiree. If the retirement age was indexed to life expectancy that wouldn't be a problem but it isn't and I don't expect it will be. Are you not paying attention? Bush's plan INCREASES the obligation for generations. It increases one form of obligation (debt offically on the governments books), by decreasing another (obligation for future payouts). That is not an increase in obligation. Recognizing the fact that future SS payouts are an enormous off book obligation is neither nitpicking nor partisanship. Its the essential fact that any serious SS reform plan needs to recognize. Tim