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 : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (43944)	1/19/1999 4:43:00 PM
From: RealMuLan	Respond to of 132070

Here is the link: biz.yahoo.com Clinton seeks private management of stock funds WASHINGTON, Jan 19 (Reuters) - President Bill Clinton intends that the private sector would manage the $650 billion to $700 billion Social Security trust fund assets that would be invested in the stock market under a retirement proposal he will make on Tuesday, White House officials said. Clinton economic adviser Gene Sperling told reporters the president intended that the money be placed in ''broad-based, neutral forms of investments.'' Sperling told reporters the job of managing the money could be awarded through competitive bidding and be allocated among several managers. He said the funds would be structured with a goal of minimizing volatility. Officials also said Clinton's plan to devote 60-62 percent of future budget surpluses over the next 15 years, or $2.7 trillion to $2.8 trillion, would drive federal government borrowing down to about 10 percent of the total size of the U.S. economy from about 44 percent currently. This would be the lowest level as a share of the economy since 1916. They said proposed government subsidized ''Universal Savings Accounts,'' intended for retirement use only, would allow holders some flexibility in investment. The issue of how gains would be treated for tax purposes has not been decided, officials said. Government subsidies to the account would be progressive in nature, meaning lower-income people would receive a higher relative subsidy than higher-income people.