SI
SI
discoversearch

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 (215383)1/19/2005 11:11:08 AM
From: neolib  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1573433
 

Such hyperbolic claims aside, there is a serious issue at the heart of what worries critics. It isn't that the trust fund is broken; it's that the existence of the fund is seducing the government to spend more than it otherwise would, thus brooking larger deficits in the future. Since Social Security lends its surplus to the Treasury (that's what it means to be investing in Treasuries), it is parking its surplus cash with the government. And just as lending money to a child outside a candy store may impose an impossible temptation, so the government may feel tempted while it holds onto Social Security's purse.

Neither Tim nor Ten on this thread can understand this rudimentary point either!



To: Road Walker who wrote (215383)2/2/2005 8:08:16 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1573433
 
Social Security does not own junk bonds or third-world debt; it invests in U.S. Treasuries, considered the safest investment on the planet.

Social Security has an asset. That asset is also an equal debt to the general fund. The net asset value to the government is $0.00. As you said, its Enron accounting.

Tim


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News