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: RetiredNow who wrote (218865)	2/11/2005 5:47:12 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574263

Mindmeld, Nope. I was talking about SS. I know alot of you on this thread, liberals and conservatives both, like to mix up SS with the U.S. deficit and overall debt, but I think that is silly in my opinion. It's getting mixed up because Congress is mixing it up. First step: separate SS revenues and expenses from the general revenues and expenses. Simple ... except that the deficit figure will jump to $550B, and the SS "trust fund" will be exposed for the scam it really is. Tenchusatsu

To: RetiredNow who wrote (218865)	2/11/2005 7:48:08 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574263

Nope. I was talking about SS. I know alot of you on this thread, liberals and conservatives both, like to mix up SS with the U.S. deficit and overall debt, but I think that is silly in my opinion. SS is not some separate entity orbiting in space.....its part of the Federal Budget. Therefore, to hell with this battle over definitions.........when the US goes belly up, then and only then do you have bankruptcy, and not before. And no, its not some silly premise. The right is trying to make like SS is some separate function of the gov't unlike any other and should be treated differently. That's a crock! If Defense were short money, the right would be all over it! They would be funding it with minimal questions and without the current SS histrionics. It should be the same with SS. For example, if I work for G.E. and am evaluating one subsidiary, I isolate the financials of that subsidiary in order to analyze its viability. I don't look at G.E.'s financials as a whole to determine how to fix the subsidiary. Yes, but if the subsidiary has more liabilities than assets the subsidiary doesn't file bankruptcy nor does GE.....except when the entire company is insolvent. Instead, a solution to the problem is found.....that's it. So by the same token, lumping SS in with all of the U.S.'s finanical issues is a good way to lose the tree for the forest. Separating it and analyzing it on its own merits is a good way to figure out how to fix it. And on its own merits, over a 70 year period, it's liabilities already exceed the market value of it's assets, but that will become even more irrefutable as we get closer to 2042 and actuarial estimates get transformed into actual fact. Its liabilities don't exceed its assets. According to Snow, more money is coming in than going out. That will change in 2042 and not before. With defense, money is always going out and never coming in. What do you all plan to do about that dilemma? ted