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 : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (1841)	8/19/2008 8:31:27 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

Into liquid bonds that are similar to cash. I almost told you to switch to that argument. Say they're as good as cash and it doesn't matter where the cash goes. It's a cash in, cash out transaction. Its only a cash out transaction. Its not part of the excise taxes at the pump. Not a net negative for the industry. It looks more like insurance than a tax. It doesn't guarantee the liability of individual companies. Its for the liabilities of companies that go bankrupt or something.

To: Road Walker who wrote (1841)	8/19/2008 10:15:14 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

Into liquid bonds that are similar to cash. WHAT!! that SSTF surplus goes into "liquid bonds" actually drawing interest? ROFL!! Sounds like you actually believe there's a "lock box" for SS surpluses.. Don't drink the kool-aid.. Those funds go DIRECTLY into the government budget, and the SSTF is left with IOUs and a promise from one government agency (the Treasury) to pay back interest to the SSTF at some point in the future (using tax revenues from our children). That's why there should NEVER be a social security surplus. All it does is actually increase the national debt and prevents the taxpayer from using those funds for private retirement, or other investment activities. SS should be pay as you go.. Hawk