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 : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (59895)	2/23/2009 1:08:53 PM
From: JakeStraw	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224749

Dow trading at an 11 year low thanks to our current administration...

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (59895)	2/23/2009 1:21:02 PM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224749

It doesn't matter if its run a surplus from the big bang, and will run one to the end of the universe. The cost of SS spending is the cost of SS spending, having a tax that's (currently) bigger than SS spending, doesn't make the problem of the spending any smaller. The surplus is mostly meaningless. The trust fund is even less meaningful. The "trust fund" is money the government owes to itself. There is no real fund there. A bond, loan, or IOU owed to you by someone else, represents a real asset (at least if they are going to pay it back). But a bond, loan, or IOU to yourself does not. If I were a boomer (and I'm not) and they tried to cut my SS after I had been paying in for 40 years, I would really be PO'd. If you where a boomer, and you didn't die relatively shortly after retirement you would have paid in less then your going to get out. That would still be the case if they increased the retirement age or slightly reduced the periodic upward adjustment for SS payments. If they don't adjust the spending downwards, the working population will be paying a greater and greater portion of their income to pay for Social Security. The Boomers didn't pay for their own SS retirement payments, they are relying on having wealth transferred to them. If adjusting that downwards makes them PO'd then they are mostly in the wrong.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (59895)	4/1/2009 9:27:41 PM
From: TimF	2 Recommendations Respond to of 224749

Social Security Is Running a Surplus…Oops Posted by Michael D. Tanner For years, opponents of Social Security reform have told us that there is no need to rush into changing the program because, after all, Social Security is running a surplus today. Well, according to a new report by the Congressional Budget Office, not so much. CBO reports that the Social Security surplus, originally expected to be $80-90 billion this year and next will shrink to $16 billion this year and just $3 billion next year (essentially a rounding error) as a result of the recession and rising unemployment. And those estimates may be far too optimistic. In February of this year, for example, Social Security actually ran a deficit—spending more than it took in through taxes and interest combined. And, while CBO expects a return to modest surpluses after 2010, as the recession ends and unemployment falls, that is betting on the success of the unproven Obama economic program. If unemployment stays at current levels, Social Security will begin running permanent cash flow deficits in 2011 (eight years earlier than previously predicted). Opponents of personal accounts have pointed out recent declines in the stock market as a reason why private investment should no longer be considered an option for Social Security reform. The evidence suggests that, even with recent market declines, private investment would still produce higher returns than Social Security. The new surplus numbers provide yet another lesson: if the economy is in such a mess that it hurts private investment, traditional Social Security isn’t going to be in any better shape. The case for personal accounts remains as strong as ever. cato-at-liberty.org