Dave wrote:
Doug, I'm trying to strip away your BS, but you insist on heaping it back
on.

Funny, I would have said that you are obfuscating & scaremongering at
full throttle.

... I think you'll find that my version accords with the facts.

What, that the sky is falling and Uncle Sam is about to default?

... The SS Act
promises that if you pay in money for the required time, the guvmint will
pay you money if you reach a certain age.

Interesting how you word that. You migh also say that NO gov't agency
does any more than promise to attempt whatever service it might (or
might not) deliver.

You might also look at the requirements for paying into the Social
Security system and compare with private insurance/investment.


... And yes, it is a Ponzi scheme as
I've noted before.


Actually I think Vito is the one who plays that tune the most. But what
matter? It's the gov't. The gov't can sieze land, run a pyramid scheme,
extort money by threat of violence, print their own money, run
increasing budget deficits for decades if not centuries, drop bombs on
foreign cities, all sorts of things that private citizens cannot do.



... A bond is a promise to pay--nothing more.

A bond is a contract. I suppose you could consider a contract "a
promise" but that is either a gross oversimplification, or simply a
misleading phrase. But hey, you're a lawyer....


Ok, it falls within that group of promises that are enforceable. That is,
you can get a court to order payment if it's not paid. Just like SS.


Yep. And this is a bad thing, according to you?

How would you suggest making it more secure? If your answer includes
"geographic diversification" then please explain how you'd establish
policy on a US gov't agency buying foreign gov't bonds... probably both
the Treasury and State Departments would like to have a few words before
taking any such action... also how you'd safeguard your system from
graft at both ends, without making the cost higher than the potential
gain...



... When you
add one to the other, the only difference is in the question: Is it "will
you break your promise?" or "will you break both of your promises?"


So you insist that the real problem here is that you don't trust
President Bush to keep the US gov't running smoothly enouth to avoid
default?


No, Doug. I simply trying to strip away the obfuscation that surrounds the
topic.


Really? To me it looks like you're trying to help President Bush sell
his Wall St scheme.

And you're implying that you think Bush & Cheney will break at least one
of the promises Social Security makes.

DSK