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 : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: geode00 who wrote (26758)	1/16/2005 4:32:36 PM
From: fresc	Respond to of 90947

LOL! R.D, I think King GEO is becoming quite fond of you :) Should be at any moment that he asks you to join his clan of left wing super heroes. Warning! Watch out for those hidden expense fees :)

To: geode00 who wrote (26758)	1/16/2005 4:58:40 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

"Reagan raised SS taxes 6 times." Deferring, but not solving the impending insolvency of SS. "There is a baby boom through the early 50s followed by a baby bust through the mnid 80s followed by yet another baby boom. This stuff happens, we're not robots when it comes to babies." So what? "SOCIAL SECURITY surplus: $154 Billion/year now. 1984/85 - under Reagan SOCIAL SECURITY taxes increased and the system has been in surplus ever since. 1984 - 2018: system in surplus" Wrong. SS has had more cash coming in than going out, but it's unfunded liabilities continue to grow. An enterprise with ever growing debts and no means to pay them is not running a surplus. It's a giant ponzi scheme. "Afterwards: 90-75% funded for years WITH NO CHANGES" In other words, it can't meet its obligations - i.e. it's bankrupt. Thanks for the confirmation. "Clinton: Left some $600 B surplus..." LOL. What surplus? There was no surplus. "Get rid of the cap on income for contributions to the system, increase the age of beneficiaries, do means testing for beneficiaries" No. Benefits are tied to contributions and everyone who contributes is entitled to benefits. As long as there's a cap on benefits, there needs to be a cap on contributions and as long as any given person is required to contribute, they should be accumulating future benefits. But perhaps we've hit on your real desire - forget trust funds and paygo - just confiscate wealth from middle and upper class workers and put everyone on socialist-style, unfunded, state pension. An excuse, in other words, for raising taxes across the board and making people more dependent on the government. BTW, that you so often throw out accusations of fascism in place of meaningful argument only serves to as further evidence of your "collectivist", anti-capitalist and anti-democratic views. But in any case, what do you propose to do about the fact that the federal budget will be able to hide ever shrinking amounts of spending behind the so-called SS "surplus" starting in 2008 and won't be able to hide ANY come 2018? In fact, it will have to borrow ever increasing amounts from private investors as the "surplus" shrinks and, after 2018, becomes a shortfall? Do you think the IOUs that we've been treating as if they weren't real debt don't require real cash for repayment as SS draws down the "trust fund"? Where is that money going to come from? PS: Krugman is a partisan hack.