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 (361125)	12/2/2007 7:15:47 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1588368

Huckabee seemed sane on "This Week" today. If I had to, I think I could not hate him for the next four years. Did you see him?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (361125)	12/2/2007 8:30:09 PM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1588368

a) Social Security is "not a problem," both morally and accounting wise: When i write in general terms I am assuming you have read as most have, the details of what has been discussed about SS. Fixing the projected cross over of social security solvency requires relatively minor adjustments. Compared to interest paid on the increased national debt, the SS security shortfall is but a minor problem. Several proposals have been made to fix this issue, among which are an extension of the upper income limit beyond the $90K present cap, extending retirement full benefits by two years, reducing the benefit. A 25% reduction extends SS solvency beyond 2070...SS is NOT "bankrupt" as bush and the republicans would have you believe. b) Clinton separated SS tax revenue from general revenue: As I showed in the graph I posted, in the year 2000, a year in which the US was under Clinton administration, the budget surplus was greater than the sum of the SS and Medicare surpluses. I don't believe that SS surpluses can be put away or invested, and I remember reading that legally this is how the SS trust fund was setup, so, I believe that the surplus was used to pay down national debt...but I am not sure. Regardless, this was not the point I was making. The main point is that immediately after bush took over, he enacted tax cuts, which 1) overwhelmingly favored upper income brackets and 2) plunged the nation into deficit once again. Today, after 7 years of bush administration, the national debt has more than doubled. The interest paid on such debt exceeds $420B dollars...YEARLY. So on the basis of bush+gop senate+gop congress I say, ABB my ASS. Al

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (361125)	12/2/2007 8:32:09 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1588368

There is only one explanation that fits your debating tactics ... ABB. It's really hard to imagine anyone doing more harm to the country in the last 7 years. 'Anybody but Bush' is a rational reaction to negative stimulus. That said, most of the time you don't listen to, or respond to serious debate. You claim nuance or ABB or whatever, and hide.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (361125)	12/2/2007 8:42:38 PM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1588368

a) Social Security is "not a problem," both morally and accounting wise: aspe.hhs.gov To simplify the trustees’ assessment, if the combined Social Security and Medicare tax rate on workers’ earnings were raised immediately by 5.01 percentage points — from 15.3 percent to 20.31 percent — and kept at that level for the next 75 years, the combined 75-year trust fund deficits of the two programs would be deemed eliminated — this would amount to a relative increase in payroll taxes of 33 percent.(6) The same would occur if benefits were immediately cut by 22 percent. Al