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: combjelly who wrote (215207)	1/17/2005 12:53:29 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573421

CJ, re: I think there is a strong argument to be made to allow SS to invest in something other than solely T bills. Outside of that, I don't think much else needs to be done. Nobody seems to talk about the idea of invensting, say, 10-20% of the SS trust fund in an S&P tracking fund. It would certainly be more cost efficient than starting and continually adjusting 40 million individual accounts. And then there is the cost of the whole new bureaucracy behind this whole new system. Just the mailing of statements along would be expensive. re: Not that I think it would stop Bushco from lying about the issue. They will let nothing stand in their way... and the first casualty is the truth. John

To: combjelly who wrote (215207)	1/17/2005 7:07:03 PM
From: RetiredNow	Respond to of 1573421

Hi combjelly, careful with your conclusions. You said not much else needs to be done. Even John, will tell you something needs to be done. However, that something doesn't need to be privatization or wholesale reform. All that needs to be done to "fix" social security is raise taxes a percentage or two, or reduce benefits a small bit, and that will make the system avoid the 2018 net outflows date and the 2042 depletion of reserves date. So most of the informed posters all agree that social security DOES need to be fixed. This portion of the deal is not a huge crisis. The other part of the debate is privatization. That is a restructuring of the fundamentals of the program. I like it because it gives intelligent investors the option to increase their returns. But it depends on how they structure it. With Bush, he has a history of great vision and botched execution. For example, I was all for the tax cuts, because I knew that the best way to pull us out of an impending depression from the 90's hangover was a twin jolt of lower taxes and lower rates. So Bush had good vision on that one, but his execution of the tax cuts ended up being a bonanza for the rich. So I'm afraid Bush may end up performing similarly on social security. Great vision of privatization, but botching it by letting people have too much freedom to invest in stock and options or letting people withdraw from the personal accounts like they can their 401(k)s, which will have the net effect of ensuring that privatization will end up being a failure in hindsight. Anyway, everyone on this thread has really just posted their opening salvos on this debate. The real debate will only begin after we know the details of the Bush proposal, such as how much will they let us divert, how much will they reduce our future benefits, how much will they increase taxes, etc.