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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gerard mangiardi who wrote (672391)	2/16/2005 11:41:33 AM
From: CYBERKEN	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Adding the "Social Security is not bankrupt" fraud to the Great Fraud itself accomplishes nothing but bringing us closer to the day when the kids you people are ripping off will show up and toss you-starving and freezing-into the streets, or behind barbed wire (which you deserve.) Ignorance such as yours eventually brings justice-and better LATE than NEVER. We are BEYOND "reform". This is WAR...

To: gerard mangiardi who wrote (672391)	2/16/2005 1:00:49 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 769667

"What I don't get is that if investment accounts were better than what is currently being done with the SS surplus" What I find particularly interesting is that the Social Security Administration's actuaries actually issued a range of estimates for projected future growth rates (high estimate, low estimate, and middle estimate). The administration is only talking up 'private accounts' by referring to the HIGH estimate for GNP growth... but if we ASSUME the high growth estimate then the traditional Social Security payment program has NO FUNDING GAP AT ALL, because the high growth rates eliminate the deficits, return much more tax revenue to the government, etc. If, on the other-hand, we assume one of the two lower growth estimates... then 'privatized' accounts are projected to return LESS to their owners then the unchanged traditional accounts... because of inflation and the administration's plans to 'claw-back' 3% annually off of each of these accounts. I find it fascinating that they use ONE growth estimate (the lowest of the three) to project the 'failure' of the traditional SS system... while using a totally different estimate of growth (the highest one) to convince people that they would receive more money from 'privatized' accounts! "why doesn't the trust fund invest in some things other than US debt?" Hell of a good idea! I guess the reason they DON'T is that they are more interested in using the SS taxes to disguise the true extent of US budget deficits, (thus to enable further deficit spending), then they are interested in increasing absolute returns and the stability of those returns to the program participants. "Geez what do we need about .75% greater annual return. Hire Bill gross and Peter lynch to manage the fund.." I'm with you on Bill Gross (think Peter is retired, though). Don't forget the Harvard Foundation Investments, or TIAA-CREF... they seem to be doing some of the most innovative and productive MPT investing nowadays. Of course, they would ALL utilize foreign equity and debt investments, a variety of commodity investments, investments non-correlated or negatively correlated to the US equity markets to lower volitility and raise absolute returns in their portfolios --- ALL things that threaten the government's desire to retain a hammerlock on the program's cash flows, to enable their deficits. Thus, you see that NONE of these investments would be allowed in the administration's proposed system....