BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

Harryk

Canuck57 wrote:
On 10/04/2011 5:14 AM, Harryk wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 00:47:12 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In ,
says...
On Sat, 9 Apr 2011 13:11:28 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

Last projection I saw for SS fund zero balance was 2037.
That all assumes the US has the money to redeem those treasuries.
Some tens of billions were redeemed last year.
Looks like "having the money" is a good assumption.
Pretty neat. The world hasn't ended.
Let's see who tries to cut off or reduce SS checks.
Get the popcorn ready.

Absolutely ZERO were redeemed in any "net" way, we simply refinanced
the debt.
That is going to get ugly when we have to refinance at even a meager
2%. That is about 10 times what our short terms notes go for now.

Only the government can call a debt they have no way of paying, an
asset.
Never heard the SS fund called an asset.
Never heard the government can't pay its debt.
You just make all that up? Sell it to a dope, not me.
Sadly, that kind of talk reminds me of right wing ideologues talking
about "scary future SS obligations" without counting the SS revenue
stream in their total.
They do it all the time.

The revenue is not covering the obligation, for the first time in
history but that is the destiny for the future. We are totally in
virgin territory here.
Like I said, SS isn't a difficult problem - except for right wing
ideologues.
The SS fund has accumulated a bit over over $2 trillion in government
debt. It will take about $80 billion a year in other tax revenues to
pay that off in 26 years.

The problem is that debt is rising, not falling. We are running a
deficit of 1.5 trillion and you are talking about an 80 billion
surplus. We have NEVER run a surplus more than a couple years in a
row. It was also never that big.

That's assuming there's no upturn in the economy and SS revenues, which
would boost the fund or reduce fund redemption.
Far less yearly than Iraq and Afghanistan are currently costing.
And probably less in total.

I agree we should get out of Iraq and Afghanistan but I also
understand it is just a drop in the deficit bucket.
That would be a loss of jobs for one thing. Plume was just saying that
if we cut the DoD budget, a lot of workers would have to get laid off
and that would be bad.

Even that dope Paul Ryan didn't address SS.
I think you're smarter than him, but you have to prove it.
Adults will come to the fore to extend the SS trust fund.
Mostly on the revenue side I expect.
In the meantime checks will keep coming as the government pays off the
debt to SS recipients.

I agree they will pay until it becomes such a huge problem that the
kids throw momma from the train. They just have to learn to vote and
to understand SS and Medicare is a massive wealth transfer from the
young to the old.

All that needs to be done is to substantially raise social security
taxes on the wealthy, as part of the price they have to pay for
accumulating wealth. Federal taxes generally in this country are frar
too low on the wealthy.

Socialism is a great idea as long as someone else pays for it. When no
one is left to pay for it they can all share having nothing.

What are you going to do if the rich lease USA?

Can't tax me SS where I am at. I don't even pay CPP any more. But
eligible for both.

Sorry harryk, your dreaming. Bottom line is your government is hosing
you. Not the rich. They might find once they move outside of the US that
setting up business in Brazil, Mexico or elsewhere with their money s
more profitable -- oh wait -- that is happening!

You are a economic idiot. Just loaded with greed and envy, no sense and
beholding to a government check.

Please. My monthly social security check, for which I have not applied,
is worth more than your monthly investment income. You're just another
right-wing gasbag, a product of clips from the FT, Faux News, and CNBC.