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 (218205)	2/8/2005 9:15:16 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1586877

re: When you consider SS in isolation the two statements are the same thing. If you have no assets and are cashflow negative you pretty much are "bust/bankrupt". At that point, by law, the benefits are reduced to reflect revenue. That's not "bust" or "bankrupt", and you know it. re: You have argued that Bush's social security estimates are pessimistic. No, I have argued that his estimates for SS are 1.8% economic growth to justify his bust/bankrupt conclusions. And his estimates to justify private accounts are 4.6% economic growth. re: Both arguments (esp. yours) could be applied against any "bust, bankrupt" statement Bush might have made about social security, but that wouldn't make his statements a lie. He's lying. SS by definition can't go "bust". And he's playing with the numbers... he's lying. John