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 : The Obama - Clinton Disaster -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wayners who wrote (54169)	7/27/2011 1:43:47 PM
From: John	6 Recommendations Respond to of 103300

The Tea Party wants a much more conservative-oriented approach... NOW! (...and I fully agree!) Tea Party Wants Boehner, Obama Fired usnews.com excerpt: If House Speaker John Boehner or his senior leadership team thought they had the support of the Tea Party movement, they better think again. An internal poll of the largest group in the movement, the Tea Party Patriots, found that they are dissatisfied with the House leaders, Boehner in particular, and simply can't stand President Obama. Co-Director Jenny Beth Martin told Whispers bluntly: "We're really not satisfied with any of them." --- We need Congress filled to capacity with senators and representatives with a blend of Ron and Rand Paul's fiscal conservatism and Sarah Palin's and Michele Bachmann's social conservatism, all rolled up into one, for a total conservative approach to the fiscal, social, cultural, national, and constitutional issues plaguing our nation. No more compromising ever again with Democrats, socialists, communists, egalitarians, fascists, liberals, and/or RINOs! They must be permanently voted out, replaced, and their ideas permanently ended and preventing from harming America ever again. -ng-

To: Wayners who wrote (54169)	7/27/2011 1:53:01 PM
From: John	1 Recommendation Respond to of 103300

...SS MC and MC are projected to outstrip revenues by $60 to $80T over the next 30 years. Exactly, Wayners. Where will that money come from? I'll wager that if the money is still there, it will be worth nanopennies on today's clownbuck. -ng-

To: Wayners who wrote (54169)	7/28/2011 1:16:17 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 103300

Re: "Oh the "official" debt is $14T. $14T minus your $3.6T is about $10T." Oh! So what you were referring to was the total amount of US national debt, (and the amount that would still be on the books if even the largest of the currently proposed deficit reduction plans, the so-called "Grand Bargain" were adopted and implemented. The amount that supposedly would be on the books still some ten years hence.) OK, well obviously the key to paying off the national debt (as we LEARNED the the nineteen nineties during the 'Clinton years' which was the LAST TIME we began to pay more debt off than we were still accumulating in new debts... although I can't help but point out that this was NOTHING NEW to supposedly "learn", and PRIOR to 1980 we had been mostly fairly steadily paying down the debt peak that we ran up during WW II....), is to: 1) Have strong GROWTH RATES in the economy. (Because a 'rising tide lifts all ships', and a strong economy increases revenues, which provides us money to both pay off debts and to cover current expenses). And, 2) STOP spending more than we have revenues to cover. It AIN'T rocket science. We gotta put one foot forward at a time. (Despite the bill of goods a whole lot of politicians would like to sell to you. :-) Re: "SS MC and MC are projected to outstrip revenues by $60 to $80T over the next 30 years." The fast rising costs of all medical care (and the bad value we get for it here) is the driver behind the problems with federal health care spending. And those problems ARE serious. In fact, they are most likely the most difficult problem we have to solve as far as 'contributing factors to the chronic deficit spending' that Washington does. On the other-hand, Social Security's problems are fairly EASILY FIXED by any number of possible minor tweaks. For example, even if we made no changes to the program at all, changes such as slowly raising retirement ages, or raising the cap on income levels subject to the tax, or means testing part of it, or whatever... even if we do nothing at all but manage to just get the economy growing by a slightly faster sustainable rate, say just 0.1% faster... then according to Social Security's actuaries the program's revenues and outlays are in balance for as far as seventy years into the future --- which is as far as they are able to project anything. And, don't forget please... we also have a demographic surge of young people, (soon to be young workers), coming along which 'mirrors' the baby boom and that will keep revenues for SS strong for decades.