![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
And it's been that way for some time. Strange the sudden fixation on Social Security when none is needed. The only reason to worry about making tomorrows payment was the ridiculous kabuki of "oh noes, don't borrow for the cash flow!" Fortunately for this country, Joey's "ostriches" had alot more than a pea-brain, and prevailed. When we need money, we sell some of those Treasuries off. You realize that's how Social Security earns additional interest money while sitting there, right? We will not put that money into a dangerous, volitile stock market market. It's against the law to risk it that way (good thing, as it would have lost 1/3 of it's value in the past decade!) It's safe in the safest bonds in the world. And you do realize, that if Social Security were indeed "cash" in a lockbox, it would be immediately loaned to us in bonds to earn that interest, right? It really wouldn't - could not - remain "cash" sitting in a safe somewheres? Social Security monies by law have to earn interest? I'm not saying it's right Congress raided it in the past, it was not. But it's certainly not a disaster or non-payment threat as you falsely imply. Quote:
We've been worse off before, and been able to financially do just fine. We'll do it again - if adults who can do math prevail. It's easy: 14% GDP income, 25% GDP spending: raise the first, lower the second, make them both about 20% I think it's prudent in the future to start funding SS with cash, yes. But remember that we do not have any trouble cashing in our bonds and paying ourselves back at all, and don't anticipate a problem for over 25 years.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|