For most of our history, the US has very definitely had "assets
specifically earmarked" to pay all public debts.... ever heard of Fort Knox?


Dave wrote:
Doug, the US has been off the gold standard for years. Why don't you try
redeeming your US bonds for gold and see how far it gets you?


I think I've found the problem. It seems like by the time you've reached
the end of a sentence, you've forgotten the beginning part.

Does the above words "for most of our history" convey any meaning to you?

BTW I'm not advocating a return to the gold standard.


Just trying to explain the basics to you, Doug.


Really? Considering that most of what you've said that's correct has
been repeats of what I've already said, that's kind of funny.


And one KEY difference between increasing the IRA deduction and Bush's
SS plan is that Bush & Cheney would not control who gets to pocket the
fees & loads from increasing everybody's IRA.


That's a total red herring.


Hmm.. maybe you're one of the guys planning to profit by it?

Let's see... a simple fix that would both increase people's ownership of
their retirement plans, encourage savings, fix Social Security while
simultaneously reducing dependence on it... all good things and among
the *publicly stated* goals of Bush's plan.

Then we have Bush's plan, which sort of accomplishes most of the above
except fixing Social Security, but at the cost of increasing the deficit
and increasing both gov't intrusion into private citizens financial
dealings and increase the complexity of our retirement system... and one
little detail that might explain this deviation from his *publicly
stated* goals is a "red herring."

You're pretty smart Dave, but you have 'way flexible ethics.


And up until the SS plan hit the fan, they were quite supportive of
President Bush... but of course, it's always "what have you done for me
lately?"


Nonsense. It was quite a shock to see them backing him on one single piece
of legislation.


Where have you been? AARP was one of the rational and sane groups
pushing for Bush & Cheney this last election. It's likely that they
heavily swung the number of seniors who voted for them.

Doesn't it ever seem funny to you, the way the Bush Administration ends
up denouncing former allies?


Doug, note that I'm talking about an insurance company's buying bonds issued
by that insurance company. What part of "bonds of that insurance company"
and "when it issued the bonds" don't you understand?

I don't understand why you claimed that insurance companies can't buy US
Treasury bonds.


Besides, do you *really* want a US gov't agency investing it's surplus
money in the bonds of foreign countries?


If the alternative is "investing" in its own promises to pay? Absolutely.

You seem completely oblivious to the FACT than US Treasury bonds are the
safest and most secure investment possible. How many times must I repeat
this to sink in?

Don't you think it's kind of anti-American to assume that the US is at
imminent risk of defaulting? Or maybe you feel that Bush & Cheney are
such poor fiscal managers, or possibly just plain deadbeats, that the
risk is going up dramatically in the near future?



Nope, it is entirely a question of the reliability of the gov't. Since
President Bush is claiming that the risk of US default is high, maybe I
should take him seriously... that may be the new Republican plan. Maybe
you are worried about default because you know how sneaky & unreliable
Bush & Cheney are.


No, Doug.

Yes Dave.

... What they're saying is that at one point payments into the system
won't cover payments out

That has zero affect whatever on the likelihood of US default.


.... and at a later point payments in plus promised
repayment of the IOUs won't cover all payments out

And even by Bush's figures, that comes in about 30 years.

... so SS taxes would have
to increase a lot, other taxes would have to increase a lot to cover the
shortfall or benefits would have to be reduced.

Benefits have already been reduced. They'll be reduced yet more on a
gradual schedule. But as you note, that isn't enough to "fix" the future
imbalance.

Of course, Bush's plan to divert SS taxes won't do a darn thing to fix
the imbalance either, in fact it will push it further out of whack.

Oh wait, that's another red herring!


... Even the administration
hasn't owned up to the fact that the so-called "trust fund" is all smoke and
mirrors.

Because it's not, unless you're a raving paranoid who is convinced that
the gummint is going to default... AND THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS
FALLING!!!!

DSK