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 Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (69510)	5/2/2018 6:02:13 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 356081

A and B are the same here, they are both part of the federal government. No they are not, they are separate funds both "owned" by the same owner. You don't seem to grasp the difference. Suppose you owned two corporations A and B. If A needed to borrow some money and B had spare available, do you have the foggiest idea what could happen, despite you being the owner of both? Do you think that you could just reach into your "right pocket" and hand it to the "left pocket" or do you think that in fact quite a bit of detailed accounting including reporting to the IRS would occur, and that the difference to A of borrowing from B would be zero vs borrowing from some unrelated C assuming the terms offered by B and C were in fact identical?

To: TimF who wrote (69510)	5/2/2018 6:10:17 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 356081

I am curious about something else. Are you aware that most financial advisors would advise individuals to both have savings and also debt, simultaneously, through most stages of their lives? Are you aware that many corporations do the same? Apple comes to mind with > $100B in both cash and debt. Why would the same entity have both cash and debt simultaneously? Your rants about the SS Trust Fund make me think you can't comprehend having separate funds, some of which might have surpluses and some of which might be indebted. In fact you seem almost to be arguing that employment tax should really 100% be considered part of the Federal Gov's annual taxation income, and that payments out to SS beneficiaries should just be considered part of the annual spending bill, and that there should be no accounting for it as an independent fund. That makes sense I guess from your POV which is to call everything an entitlement and lets you have a nice rant against them. But that is not reality...