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: Sidney Reilly who wrote (111710)	9/29/2011 4:19:28 PM
From: TimF	4 Recommendations Respond to of 224748

They would rather cut future benefits and raise the retirement age Which is what they should do. The program isn't as fiscally problematic as Medicare, but with the baby boom, and with a generally ageing population and fewer young people, reigning it in again is rather important. They should have made a law that it was illegal to spend the trust fund and bought government bonds with it. They did buy government bonds with the temporarily excess Social Security money, that's why it was spent. If you don't want the government spending it, then it should have been invested elsewhere. But no...the baby boomers paid into SS and the politicians spent the money...now there's nothing left and no one to give the bill too. If you put the money in government bonds then there is going to be nothing left, since government bonds are a debt for the government. Its one part of the government giving money to another part, there isn't any real return on that since any interest received by the government has to be paid by the government. There isn't even a non-interest accruing asset, since the asset for one part of the government exactly equals the debt to another. A loan to yourself is not a real asset, whether you are an individual or the federal government.