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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Pat W. who wrote (31549)	2/2/1999 7:23:00 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 67261

That's pretty good, if a little more worried than I think is warranted. But yes, there is the tendency to federalize everything, and to toss off "public policy initiatives" with little thought, because people demand action. The $1000 tax credit for catastrophic care is a good case in point--- too small to be of any help to anyone, but large enough to put another dent in the budget. And yes, the surpluses are much to dependent on rosy assumptions to start cooking up new spending initiatives.

To: Pat W. who wrote (31549)	2/2/1999 8:23:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Respond to of 67261

I have second a point that I very much concur with. One is the lie that Social Security needs saving. Well, only from politicians. The present tax brings in more than enough money to keep the Social Security Trust Fund solvent, but Congress and presidents use the surplus to offset deficits in other places in order to promulgate the second lie — that the budget has a surplus. Both Republicans and Democrats are co-conspirators in this con job. Yes. I don't endorse Clinton's "rescue" of Social Security, or anybody else's. The system is fine on a purely cash flow basis for 10+ from now at least. If you credit the Treasure securities in the trust fund with the same value as the rest of the mountain of federal debt out there, it's solvent for 30+ years. Leave it alone. Moynihan lead the '83 "rescue" that gave us huge trust fund "surpluses"; he tried to back out of it later but it was all too pleasant for the Reaganauts to fund part of their deficits with a regressive tax. Les Horowitz will explain again, I'm sure, why the securities in the SS trust fund really aren't worth anything, and how the deficits were all congress's fault. Whatever, if we're lucky, political gridlock will leave us with SS as it is now. If somebody wants to take on the political kamikaze act of trying to reduce benefits, they should at least be up front about it.