* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Exactly. The asset change per year is simple -- revenue in minus > costs and benefits out. The fact that the federal government has some > siphons attached to the cash flow spigot doesn't change the fact that > this number has been increasing. The latter is a political problem, > not a financial one.
Amazing how someone so ignorant on the subject can make these sorts of proclamations so confidently (I'ms still shaking my head over your proclamation that future social security payments do not increase faster than cost of living). If you would pull your head out of the clouds and get your feet on the ground in REALITY instead of silly airplane metaphors, you might actually realize that the number is meaningless financially. As David Wessel wrote in the Wall Street Journal, "The trust fund matters politically and legally. It does not matter economically." The problem is about money -- too much being paid to current generations and the bill being shoved down the throat of future generations. Playing around with numbers in a trust fund only confuses this simple financial problem. Which, in case you missed it just now, is too much money going to current generations and getting billed to future generations. The numbers are clear. I posted the percentage of GDP in and out a few weeks ago. To quote David Wessel again, "The trust fund does not change reality. The government has made health-care and retirement promises to today's workers that it cannot keep without very steep increases in future taxes." -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
