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: Road Walker who wrote (226123)	3/25/2005 2:04:49 PM
From: Skywatcher	Respond to of 1571826

and the SNOW CLOWN can't explain how he got some incredible figure of an $11.5 TRILLION debt bomb out of social security.... let's see how he did it.... by ASSUMING INFINITY payouts for INFINITY..... and by some wierd math ASSUMES that people in the future will live to 150 YEARS OLD....and they will retire about 70~....so an 85 year payout for people gets you to some BOGUS figure the administrations stupidest apppointee can't really explain. after all it's not so bad.... figure $1 a year for 11 TRILLION years isn't so much because compared to INFINITY.....a trillion is NOTHING CC

To: Road Walker who wrote (226123)	3/25/2005 7:38:19 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571826

This year, the program is running a cash surplus of 0.71% of GDP. By 2020 it will run a very small cash deficit of 0.01% of GDP. By 2042 this shortfall will increase to 1.37% of GDP Other projections show it as having a greater deficit. Medicare will be even worse. Historically the trustees have underestimated the costs of social security. * Spending assumptions are based on Scenarios 2 and 5 in CBO (2003). ** Revenue assumptions are based on Scenario 5. In other words they pick the scenarios from the trustees' study that support their case. Allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire would eliminate budget deficits for the foreseeable future Even assuming that this tax increase wouldn't negatively effect the economy (not a safe assumption at all) you could just as well say "allowing the Bush spending increases to expire", or to be more specific and realalistic "limiting the growth of future spending increases so that per capita spending doesn't increase faster then inflation". Tim