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 (218867)	2/11/2005 6:27:05 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574267

re: 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. No, and the rest of the government budgeting process will be "exposed for the scam..." SS is a beacon of light in a dark forest. It's far better funded than the rest of government. John

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (218867)	2/11/2005 8:52:14 PM
From: RetiredNow	Respond to of 1574267

That's not true. To fix the problem, it's easy enough to isolate the cash inflows and outflows, as well as the Trust Fund assets. Who cares if the way they account for general funds includes SS inflows? That is irrelevant for solving the problem of SS. I think everyone on this thread is demonstrating why Congress is like a blind man leading another blind man. No one can sort out the information they need to solve the problem. It silly to me, because it really is so simple. This is a straight NPV calculation. All SS has to do is calculate NPV every 5 or so years. If NPV starts to trend negative, then taxes should be raised or benefits cut. That would keep it fixed forever. And this is one version of John's suggestion. I would prefer another type of fix, where we move away from a tax and spend system to a contribute and save system with personal accounts. That also would fix it forever and has a good chance to provide better benefits for a good portion of the recipients.