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: Tenchusatsu who wrote (217048)	2/3/2005 1:19:25 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572159

Z, Because the conservatives don't want SS at all! You make no sense. If SS revenues and expenditures are being included as part of the federal budget, and the budget is "technically insolvent," doesn't that make SS "technically insolvent" as well? That would mean that defense is technically insolvent as well. Why don't we hear about reforming the defense budget since the outlays are huge and the current revenue levels are not nearly enough to cover the big Iraqi war bills, provide tax cuts and run the rest of the country? Maybe we could take a portion of budget money intended for missiles, and invest it in the stock market. If we hit a major rally, think of how many missiles and bombs we could buy! Yea! ted

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (217048)	2/3/2005 4:38:38 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1572159

By the way, continuing to claim that conservatives don't want SS at all is just as meaningful as saying that liberals don't want a military at all. The proposal is not coming from conservatives. It is coming from Neocons. They don't want social security. Their philosophy of rule by the elite requires that the masses be dependant upon the nobles oblige of the philosopher kings. If the elderly were really secure then they wouldn't need the neocons. TP

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (217048)	2/3/2005 6:53:49 PM
From: SilentZ	Respond to of 1572159

>You make no sense. If SS revenues and expenditures are being included as part of the federal budget, and the budget is "technically insolvent," doesn't that make SS "technically insolvent" as well? This has nothing to do with my argument, it was someone else's, so I'll stay out. >By the way, continuing to claim that conservatives don't want SS at all is just as meaningful as saying that liberals don't want a military at all I disagree, and I'd bet that plenty of conservatives do too. -Z