... But I think you agree with the thrust of the arguments on that link.
Which is that the federal government needs to balance the budget.


Sure. That would be true in almost all cases no matter who was President.
But it has very little to do with the current hoopla about Social
Security.


Jeff Rigby wrote:
The "hoopla" is about money and the congress and it's ability to spend it.

And about a plan to change Social Security so that it goes bust sooner,
increases the deficit, and increases risk for those depending on SS
benefits. And the gain is... what, exactly? I have my theories, but I'd
like to hear a little more from the pro-Bush/Cheney camp on the subject.


Take 50 billion out of an already over inflated budget and there will be
SOME pressure to not spend some of that on other pet projects.

Not really. You're presuming that Congress has some degree of shame &
culpability, whereas the political lessons of the last decade have been
the opposite.

... Who does
Bush's proposal benefit

1- Wall St firms with whom the money is invested
2- political campaigns who will receive increased donation from #1 above
3- *some* (but certainly not all, and possibly very few) SS recipients
who gain increased benefits, years down the road.

Please note that #3 above could be achieved more simply & directly by a
lot of different methods. Therefor I conclude the real goal is #1 &
#2... as stated by Vice President Cheney's office months and months ago,
before they got their spin hats on straight.




... So what if it's designed to provide a hedge
for those of us that are going to have their SS benefits cut by 27%.

Where did you get that number?
It is inevitable that SS benefits will be cut. "Kubez" despite being
hobbled by dogma, hit the nail on the head... subsequent generations of
lesser numbers cannot support the Baby Boomers in retirement.


What private individual holds 100% of their retirement money in treasury
bonds?

Very few if any.

... Since you feel that they are such a good investment

I never said they were "such a good investment," I said (with 100% truth
and accuracy) that they are THE MOST **SECURE** investment. Secure
secure secure, rhymes with "security." Somebody give me a bigger hammer,
I think I can almost hammer this point home.


... what percentage
of your retirement is in bonds?

Corporate bonds, tax-free munis, or Treasuries? They're not all the same
thing, you know.

... Since I know from your responses that you
are a smart guy, I'd suspect that less than 20% and then only when you have
achieved most of your retirement goals.

I'm a rather conservative investor, having gone through the 1970s bear
market, the 1987 crash, and the Dot-Bomb bust. I've kept approximately
25% of my portfolio in bonds, mostly hi-yield corporate (rated BBB or
better) and tax-frees.


Maybe I'm naive but I do believe in spreading my investments around in
different areas of the economy. If I had enough I'd be investing outside
the US as well.

Are you trying to say you'd like to diversify? It's a good idea. And it
doesn't take much money, look into one of the many no-load foreign
exchange index funds.

... AND hiding some of my money so that in the eventuality that
the government gets greedy they can't find it (typically hidden money never
grows).

Better hide it from the black helicopters too.


The point we should have been making is that only a fool or someone with a
hidden agenda would insist that ALL the funds were in T bills.


Or someone who is mandated to provide the most security possible,
without showing any political favoritism, while providing a
higher-than-savings-account return on custodial funds.

DSK