"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
... You can't have it both ways.

I'm not the one trying to have it "both" ways. I am trying to familiarize
you (and a few others) with a few basic facts, & introduce some fairly
simple & straightforward logic.

You are insisting that
1- US treasury bonds are somehow "worthless" when the fact is that they
are the most secure investment available.

Jeff Rigby wrote:
Not that they are worthless.

Whoah, dude, you may have to stop here and start over. D'ya wanna get
kicked out of the fact-denying fascist whacko club?

... Just if they are redeamed then the government will have to pay them
off by issuing other treasury notes

Yep. Got a problem with that? We've been doing it for over 200 years now
and everything's been chugging along just fine, pretty much.


... So the statement that Bush will have to borrow the money is correct.
The money is not there in the treasury!


Nope... the statement would be correct that Bush has already borrowed the
money, *and* he's borrowed a HECK of a lot more than his predecessors
because he slashed income and jumped up spending astronomically, *AND* his
plan is to keep on borrowing astronomically.



2- If Bush can somehow make Social Security go bust all the sooner, that
the gov't will be forced to stop borrowing money.


That's a stupid statement.

I agree. So why are you supporting his efforts?

... The Bush plan is to cushion the eventual reorganization of SS by
having a small portion that can earn more than the treasury notes
currently being issued.

At higher risk, which is how other countries trying the same thing have
stubbed their toes. And additionally by bringing the date of outgo
income that much closer. Hence the increased deficit.

... Besides the talking points currently being considered (raising the
SS age to 67

They already did that

... reducing COLA

Already done that too, but I'm not sure how recently.

... eliminating many of the dependant benefits

I'm in favor of that.

... there are more draconian measures in the works for those who are
under 50.


Meanwhile, raising the income cut-off is one thing that would make SS
fiscally sound, and it's being harshly excluded. Why?

The Draconian measures are because the money to pay SS to those under 50
will have to come out of the US treasury

Starting some time long after 2040 AD... big big crisis here, whoop whoop
whoop sound the alarms!



The SS fund has a surplus, more money coming in than is being spent
on SS.

Correct.


This money can't be used for the Bush SS plan because it's being spent
to finance other areas of the Federal government.

Wrong.

This is like saying that you own your neighbor's house, because the money
the bank loaned him on his mortgage came out of your checking account.


???


OKay, think hard about this.

Social Security has it's own bank account. The dollars that get deposited
into this bank account can NOT be spent by any other branch of the Federal
gov't. Just like you cannot spend the money in your brother's checking
account.

Now, should the Social Security Administration let that money sit there,
earning no interest? No, of course not... especially when the Congress
needs to borrow because it cannot control it's bladder and ****es tax
money away on all sorts of stupid things (as well as a few worthwhile
ones). So they do what businesses & communities do... issue bonds, which
pay interest. These bonds are universally reckoned as the most secure
investment available in the world, which is nice because having a high
rating keeps the premium low.

Still with me? The money in the SS account is tallied against the overall
Federal budget, in the same way your brothers checking account balance
might be tallied against your family's net worth, but it is *spent* on
only two things.... spent only two things... spent on only two things...
(keep repeating that until it sinks in):
1- Social Security benefits payments
2- U.S. Treasury bonds

You could take the viewpoint that putting the SS money into Treasuries is
just a form of money-laundering, but the FACT remains that it is no more
"spent by the Federal gov't" than the money your brother spends comes out
of your bank account... or your neighbor's mortgage, even if it comes from
the same bank.

That's a lot for one day, so think it over. Class dismissed.

DSK

DSK, the difference in our viewpoints seem illogical. As far as foreign
"affairs" and our President you are a pessimist and distrust our motives but
where the US treasury is concerned you seem to be an optimist. I'm the
opposite, I trust the executive branch and distrust the Congress/Treasury

The following site explains better than I can my feelings on the ability of
the Federal government to repay the 1.7 trillion dollars to the SS account.
See: http://www.federalbudget.com/SSdebate.html