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 (327509)	2/26/2007 8:15:49 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1588348

I understand the promise. I understand the huge political force behind it and also generated by it. I understand that many have come to depend on it. I understand that many would see it as a betrayal if the payment was canceled or sharply cut. None of that makes future benefits the personal property of the people likely to later receive them. Now I would argue that the US government is more liable for it's obligations than the company that holds your 401K. The asset is my asset, it isn't cash, it has risk involved. That risk doesn't make it something I don't own, any more than a homeowner without insurance could reasonably be said not to own his home because of the possibility that it may at some point burn down. Society is based on trust. Do I forget the promises made when I was a 15 years old kid and going to my first job, at 6 AM, scared of my own shadow, making two bus transfers through some of the worst 'hoods of Chicago, all summer long? Is that promise weaker than your 401K company that paid out multi-million dollar bonuses to their trading nerds this year? I'm not downplaying the importance of trust or property, but projected future earnings that you have come to trust, still aren't your property. PS Price supports are a really bad analogy. Its a good but limited analogy. There is less of a trust factor (although there still is some), probably less of a dependency factor (although again there is some), the programs are discretionary spending rather than an entitlement (which only means that the spending is authorized in each years budget, instead of being authorized by a law passed years ago, which only ends if it is cancelled). The part of the analogy that is very good is that the funds aren't the property of the future recipients, the funds aren't held in a personal account for you, and that the government could by a normal act of congress cancel the program at any time.