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: TimF who wrote (213200)	12/12/2004 10:42:00 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573413

re: 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. Yea, what's the break even point for the incremental $1Trillion, 2099? re: 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. That's not a long term trend, it's a temporary demographic blip. And it can be handled with minor adjustments. When the echo boomers hit their prime earning years, we will go back into surplus... as we have been, are, and will be for another ~15 years. S-U-R-P-L-U-S. What other government program has been EARNING MONEY for years. re: 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. Man, you guys love to attack SS. Everything that government does is an "off book" obligation. Talk about "off book" obligations... let's talk about Iraq.