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: Mike M2 who wrote (45045)	1/30/1999 12:45:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Hi Mike-and-Will, I was aware that Social Security money is being spent, and that it is being spent slower than it comes in so we don't notice it, at least not now. The surplus would otherwise be investing in Treasuries, as I understand it, which confuses the heck out of me. What would it do to the Treasury market if Social Security funds were used to buy T-bills and T-bonds? Maybe you can find a link that explains that.

To: Mike M2 who wrote (45045)	1/30/1999 5:28:00 PM
From: Knighty Tin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 132070

Mike, I usually agree with Crudele, but I think he has some bad info here. There are many kinds of debt. Debt used for daily operations should be zapped by a surplus. However, debt used to fund long term capital commitments is not a current liability of any one year's budget. To use an example, a toll bridge may be built with debt, but it will pay its cost over time with user fees. As far as the budget is concerned, the entire cost of the bridge is not a current liability. The interest on the loan is. Also, he seems to confuse deficits and debt. They are not the same thing. BTW, I agree with him that there is no real surplus and it is accounting gimmickry. I just think he got off on some bad definitions. MB