BoatBanter.com - Old Folk(Cont)

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)

- ASA (https://www.boatbanter.com/asa/)

- - Old Folk(Cont) (https://www.boatbanter.com/asa/29271-old-folk-cont.html)

Nothing to worry about Doug, Jazz players prefer herion.

Joe

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 14:54:46 -0500, DSK wrote
this crap:

It was legal up until the 1930s, and commonly used by women for
menstrual cramps. AFAIK they didn't use bongs though.

Growing hemp was also a defense industry... ropes for the Navy... in the
1800s there was a hemp plantation near New Bern. My my how times have
changed!

You are lying, again.

This post is 100% free of steroids

Horass,

I really don't believe you're capable of painting an image. Even a Stone
Age Image.

Post something believable and stop your damn bragging! I heard you never
got a passing grade in finger painting. (g)

Ole Thom

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 18:00:12 -0500, DSK said:

Dave wrote:

Doug, Nobody's holding any "excess funds."

Really?

... The money is collected from
workers and immediately goes out. Some pays benefits, and the rest is
"borrowed" by the outfit that's promising to pay future benefits in exchange
for its IOU, and is immediately spent.

And you're talking about accounting in another thread? Hoo boy.

Dave wrote:
While I'm not an accountant, I have not infrequently pointed out errors the
accountants make and have to correct in company filings for clients.

The term "excess funds" may apply to a different specific case, but here
it is not difficult to know what is meant.

You get things all backwards, and want to denigrate both the Treasury
(specifically) and the U.S. gov't (generally).

Nothing is "borrowed" from Social Security. Money collected from SS
taxes is either spent or invested in US treasury bonds... the most
secure investment possible. Maybe after I tell you this 15 times it will
begin to sink in.

A little basic finance here, Doug. In the corporate world, a "debenture" is
an unsecured promise to pay, and a "bond" is a promise to pay that's secured
by assets, often all the company's assets.

Never heard that before. And certainly not a company that issues stock,
either.

... In the US guvmint world (outside
revenue bonds and a few others, of course) a "bond" is an unsecured promise
to pay--the equivalent of a corporate debenture. No assets standing behind
the promise.

I hope you're not trying to claim that U.S. has no assets? In any event,
so far it hasn't issued stock, either ;)

... So when SS "buys" US treasuries, it's lending money

Yep, I said that. The excess from SS tax collections over benefits payouts.

.... (with its
SS trustee hat on) in exchange for an unsecured promise to pay back the
amount borrowed with interest, and the guvmint (without its SS trustee hat
on) is borrowing that money (and spending it).

Yep again. I guess it finally sunk in, and it didn't even take 15 reps!

That makes Social Security a lender, not a borrower.

Correct. See above.

One thing I meant is that this may be another item that President Bush
will shed some of his teflon coating.

The blame here goes, not to Bush, but to Sen. Javits and his cohorts who
decided the guvmint should underwrite the moral risk in unions and
managements' negotiating defined benefit pensions beyond the company's
ability to pay.

Agreed, with the added caveat that this is one of the things President
Bush promised during the campaign to straighten out.

... Of course they also take more market risk
in these accounts. Those kinds of plans are not covered by the guvmint
insurance.

You mean like individual 401Ks ;)

That's one type, though there are many others including pre-401K savings
plans, and straight money purchase pension plans. (I practiced in the
pension are for about 8 years, so have some familiarity with them.)

Yep.

With regard to Bush's SS plan, the simple & honest way to accomplish
what they claim is to increase the allowed deduction for retirement
contributions, be it IRA or 401K etc etc, and begin a schedule of
scaling back SS benefits to match projected income. If they start in 10
years it should be very easy & gradual. Might even be able to give the
average working stiff a tax break on his SS tax bite.

That fact that they want to bamboozle people and make false claims,
while making a number of misleading statements about Social Security
itself, makes me think there is something else under the table that they
really want to accomplish.

BTW as far as AARP goes, ever hear the saying "fool me once, shame on
you, fool me twice, shame on me"? President Bush fooled them badly on
the Medicare bill. And so of course that makes AARP the target of a Karl
Rove smear campaign... which you seem happy to parrot...

Whoever lent the Japanese government money, whether Japanese of not, would
suffer. In fact, just substitute the U.S. for Japan in the above and you see
just what I mean.

Yep. Except that Japan's economy is not as big as ours, and if Japan
defaulted it would not cause as much of a world wide crisis (more below).

Nor would it cause as much of a crisis for retirement arrangements holding
Japanese bonds, assuming reasonable geographic diversification.

How much is a crisis? Loss of ten percent? How many different countries
are you going to lend your retirement money to, and at what point does
the balancing act become a job in itself? Why not start your own mutual
fund?

Taxpayers are parting with money today in the form of SS taxes, and
expecting to get something back in the future. Labeling it as an investment
or something else doesn't advance the analysis.

It also can be misrepresented that the individual paying SS taxes is
making an investment... which is absolutely not the case. SS is more
like an insurance plan... and guess what, insurance companies invest in
all kinds of things, including US bonds...

If an insurance company's investments were limited to bonds of that
insurance company, how much faith would you have in its ability to pay on
policies and annuities in the event of a downturn in its fortunes?

That depends greatly on how it laddered it's bonds.

Fortunately, state insurance commissions don't let insurance companies do
anything so foolish.

So foolish as what, invest in bonds??? Maybe where you're from, that's
considered foolish. Here in NC insurance companies are darn well allowed
to invest in US treasury bonds (the most secure investment available...
is that sinking in yet?). Maybe you mean that insurance comapnies are
not allowed to invest *all* their funds in US bonds.

You keep harping on this as though it wasn't your team that's running
the deficit up like a rocket. If the US gov't defaults, which I (and
99.9% of the sane world) consider extremely unlikely, then it will be
largely because of Bush & Cheney's deficits.

Utterly extraneous to the discussion.

Really? You are the one harping about how the US is going to default,
omigawd the sky is falling, those bonds are just worthless IOUs! And
since the biggest risk of that default is due to actions taken by the
guy you've decided to trumpet, it's just completely beneath notice ain't it?

Funny, President Bush saying "you cain't trust the guv'mint" when he
*is* the guv'mint.

And (maybe after 15 times this will sink in too) if the US defaults,
then we will have a world crisis that will rival the Great Depression &
WW2 rolled into one.

Therefore we should hide our heads in the sand? I don't think so.

Instead you'd rather cry doom... a very very unlikely doom... so as to
promote a plan which does not fix the problem that is being cried about?

I don't think my attitude is "hiding head in sand" at all. If anything,
you began by claiming I was all wrong, now you've pretty much repeated
what I was saying from the start.

If you'd swapped for Euros about 6 months ago, you'd be doing great.
However, if you hold US bonds and we decide to print our way out of
debt, you get cash. If your holding somebody elses bonds and they decide
to, you probably get nothing since you have to return the bonds to the
central bank of the country that issued them.

Ah, but if we're printing money like crazy, and I hold the foreign bonds, I
get more cash when I collect and convert my Euros, yen etc.

But if the foreign gov't starts printing money like crazy, then you not
only have the risk of getting nothing (gotta cash youor bonds in person)
or getting a double whammy when you change your funny money at a US bank.

In any event, if you're now seriously suggesting that everybody must
become a full time arbitrager just to retire, then you need to start
over from scratch.

Bond history is interesting... at one point, a person I know acquired
some old Russian (by "old" I mean Tsarist) bonds... which he thought
were worthless. They were issued in face values of British pounds. But
the amount was large enough to be worth checking out, and glory be! He
got quite a nice payday because the Russian gov't at that time (just
after the Yeltsin takeover) was *very* interested in preserving it's
credit rating. Of course, not many years later, Russia played a con game
of forcing foreign holders of businesses in Russia to buy a new bond
issue, and then defaulted on them.

And do you think it would have been prudent of him to invest every penny had
in those Tsarist bonds when he first had the opportunity? That's the
equivalent of what SS is doing.

Not really. The US Treasury bond is *the* *most* *secure* and *safe*
investment possible. That means your foreign bonds carry a *higher* risk
of default. Besides, they have to do something with the money, and Uncle
Sam has to borrow from somebody.

This is a special case IMHO.

"Special case" is the term one uses when he can't accept the proposition
that the rules governing all other cases suggest a different answer.

Except that I'm not the one trying to misrepresent Social Security, US
Treasury bonds, and the likelihood of US default.

I don't think I've made any representations about the likelihood of a US
default.

Other than suggesting foreign bonds as a safer alternative? Other than
advocating a vague plan that does not get the majority out of US
treasuries anyway, but the biggest reason for it is that US Treasuries
are "empty promises" and "worthless IOUs"?

... As to my description of the
relationship between SS and treasury bonds, I hope the above discussion my
provide a bit of enlightenment from someone who's been doing corporate
finance type stuff for 30 years.

Yeah, you repeated what I said earlier... then went back to crying doom
again.

DSK

OK Dave & Doug;

Enough!! Get it out of MY POST!!! Don't modify it!! If you want to
continue put it under you own heading. If not, END IT. NOW!!!!

We all know how you both feel. You both have made it clear. Leave the
died horse be or drag it somewhere else to beat it. We are no longer
interested. Period!

Ole Thom

http://community.webtv.net/tassail/ThomsPage

Thom,

This is the second time you've asked people to "get out" of your thread.
Umm... I don't think you have any say in the matter.

Personally, I'm finding it a fun read.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Thom Stewart" wrote in message
...
OK Dave & Doug;

Enough!! Get it out of MY POST!!! Don't modify it!! If you want to
continue put it under you own heading. If not, END IT. NOW!!!!

We all know how you both feel. You both have made it clear. Leave the
died horse be or drag it somewhere else to beat it. We are no longer
interested. Period!

Ole Thom

http://community.webtv.net/tassail/ThomsPage

Better watch it, Thom...when I tried to get people to post decently to my
post I was flamed from here to eternity about it...

"Thom Stewart" wrote in message
...
OK Dave & Doug;

Enough!! Get it out of MY POST!!! Don't modify it!! If you want to
continue put it under you own heading. If not, END IT. NOW!!!!

We all know how you both feel. You both have made it clear. Leave the
died horse be or drag it somewhere else to beat it. We are no longer
interested. Period!

Ole Thom

http://community.webtv.net/tassail/ThomsPage

"JG" wrote in message
...
Thom,

This is the second time you've asked people to "get out" of your
thread.

Well then, maybe you should listen!

OK Jon,

If I can't have control of MY TOPIC in MY POST, I guess that leave me no
other choice but to be a LURKER

It's all yours. Good luck!

Ole Thom

Bwahahahaa.... stop it Scoots, you're not smart enough to parse his
comments. I'm laughing so hard, it really hurts.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...

"JG" wrote in message
...
Thom,

This is the second time you've asked people to "get out" of your
thread.

Well then, maybe you should listen!

Isn't that sort of like cutting off your nose to spite your face?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Thom Stewart" wrote in message
...
OK Jon,

If I can't have control of MY TOPIC in MY POST, I guess that leave me no
other choice but to be a LURKER

It's all yours. Good luck!

Ole Thom

Thom Stewart wrote:
OK Dave & Doug;

Enough!! Get it out of MY POST!!! Don't modify it!! If you want to
continue put it under you own heading. If not, END IT. NOW!!!!

I apologize, Thom. I thought that adding "... SS plan" would be enough
to show it was taking a different tack than the main thread.

We all know how you both feel. You both have made it clear. Leave the
died horse be or drag it somewhere else to beat it. We are no longer
interested. Period!

I'm flattered that anybody was interested to start with.

DSK

I hope you're not trying to claim that U.S. has no assets? In any event,
so far it hasn't issued stock, either ;)

Dave wrote:
It has no assets that are specifically earmarked to pay its bonds.

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

... A US bond
holder is just another creditor. If the bonds were asset backed, bond
holders would be entitled to all of the proceeds of sale of the specific
assets ahead of other creditors.

Is that the way they work those loans to South American countries?

With regard to Bush's SS plan, the simple & honest way to accomplish
what they claim is to increase the allowed deduction for retirement
contributions, be it IRA or 401K etc etc, and begin a schedule of
scaling back SS benefits to match projected income. If they start in 10
years it should be very easy & gradual. Might even be able to give the
average working stiff a tax break on his SS tax bite.

Not that far different from what's being proposed. But forget about reducing
the SS tax bite. Ain't a gonna happen.

Why not? Isn't that one of President Bush's cardinal principles?

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.

To be fair, another key difference is that many people do not save any
money and would not take the benefit (although as a real conservative, I
believe that's their problem). Diverting their SS taxes is a way of
forcing them to save.... gee another great gov't program interfering
with people's lives...

BTW as far as AARP goes, ever hear the saying "fool me once, shame on
you, fool me twice, shame on me"? President Bush fooled them badly on
the Medicare bill. And so of course that makes AARP the target of a Karl
Rove smear campaign... which you seem happy to parrot...

I've long seen AARP for what it is--an interest group run by its managers,
for its' managers' benefit, and with its' managers' agendas, with access to
"members" being its principal "product."

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?"

If an insurance company's investments were limited to bonds of that
insurance company, how much faith would you have in its ability to pay on
policies and annuities in the event of a downturn in its fortunes?

That depends greatly on how it laddered it's bonds.

Nope. Makes no difference. If the insurance company can't repay the money it
borrowed when it issued the bonds, it's gonna be in hot water trying to pay
its policies and annuities.

You got it backwards again, Dave. If an insurance company *buys*
bonds... properly laddered... then they would have no trouble at all
with cash flow for payouts. They wouldn't get as high a return as with
other investments, though.

Fortunately, state insurance commissions don't let insurance companies do
anything so foolish.

So foolish as what, invest in bonds??? Maybe where you're from, that's
considered foolish. Here in NC insurance companies are darn well allowed
to invest in US treasury bonds (the most secure investment available...
is that sinking in yet?). Maybe you mean that insurance comapnies are
not allowed to invest *all* their funds in US bonds.

You're confused here, Doug. What the insurance commissioners prohibit is an
insurance company's investing in bonds issued by the insurance company.

So why did you try to say that they are forbidden to invest in US bonds?

But if the foreign gov't starts printing money like crazy, then you not
only have the risk of getting nothing (gotta cash youor bonds in person)
or getting a double whammy when you change your funny money at a US bank.

Wrong. I run the risk of getting nothing from that bond issuer.

That too... which I said...

Y'know, it's kinda funny. You go charging off toward the sunrise,
insisting at full throttle that I'm wrong... then a few posts later,
you're repeating what I said earlier as though it should be a great
revelation!

Not really. The US Treasury bond is *the* *most* *secure* and *safe*
investment possible. That means your foreign bonds carry a *higher* risk
of default. Besides, they have to do something with the money, and Uncle
Sam has to borrow from somebody.

Basic portfolio theory, Doug. While each particular country's bonds may have
a higher risk of default, the risk of losing the total investment is far
less than the risk for any single country, perhaps even including the
country whose bonds are (at present) "the most secure and safe investment
possible."

Key word "perhaps"

However, I'm not arguing against the wisdom of diversification, other
than to say (again) that this is a special case.

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

I don't think I've made any representations about the likelihood of a US
default.

Other than suggesting foreign bonds as a safer alternative? Other than
advocating a vague plan that does not get the majority out of US
treasuries anyway, but the biggest reason for it is that US Treasuries
are "empty promises" and "worthless IOUs"?

Simply trying to inject a note of realism, Doug.

Really? How realistic is the expectation that the US is going to default?

You'd be better off worrying about meteor impacts.

... The SS Act is a promise to
pay. Bonds are promises to pay--nothing more. Backing the promise to pay SS
benefits with a promise to pay on bonds is no more than saying the guvmint
is less likely to break the one promise than it is to break the other
promise. Largely smoke and mirrors.

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.

DSK

Grow up Ganz!

"JG" wrote in message
...
Bwahahahaa.... stop it Scoots, you're not smart enough to parse his
comments. I'm laughing so hard, it really hurts.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...

"JG" wrote in message
...
Thom,

This is the second time you've asked people to "get out" of your
thread.

Well then, maybe you should listen!

"DSK" wrote
Dave wrote:

... Of course they also take more market risk
in these accounts. Those kinds of plans are not covered by the guvmint
insurance.

You mean like individual 401Ks ;)

I bought $1000 worth of AT&T stock back in the early '60s when it was the
blue chip of blue chips and you could buy a new Chevy or Ford for under
$2500. After 40+ years of splits and spinoffs, and some bad management, I
sold the various companies it had become realising about $3000. Did I
triple my money? Some'd say so. But the equivalent new car costs $25,000 so
allowing for inflation I lost about $7000 compared to what that $1000 would
have bought back in 1960.

I changed jobs circa 1985 when my 401k worth some $30,000. During the next
15 years (same fund) it rose to about $52,000. Then along came Bush and it
dropped to $37,000. Now its up to almost $50 again but, factoring in
inflation it's worth about half that, or a tad less than it was worth in
1985.
I had another little $15,000 401K in 1999. I moved it to a bank account when
it lost $7000 during Bush's first year.

Point isn't "beware of Bush" but that investments all have ups and downs.
If there is another decade of big inflation, as some forsee, and one has to
retire during a "down" one might be glad to have SS. If I'd had to cash
these 401ks right after Bush took over I'd have lost alot more. As it is
I'll just have to wait a few years longer to retire.

Been there, done that. You're turn.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...
Grow up Ganz!

"JG" wrote in message
...
Bwahahahaa.... stop it Scoots, you're not smart enough to parse his
comments. I'm laughing so hard, it really hurts.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...

"JG" wrote in message
...
Thom,

This is the second time you've asked people to "get out" of your
thread.

Well then, maybe you should listen!

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

Here it comes Doug... Davey is about to get frustrated.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 16:54:47 -0500, DSK said:

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.

Please identify the message in which you claim I said any such thing.

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?

You keep mouthing the same words over and over, as if it came out of some
kind of talking points memo. But you clearly have no understanding of what
a
bond is. Doug, I create corporate bonds, debentures and stocks for a
living.
I've done revenue bonds, and I've securitized other assets to create
asset-backed bonds.

I've tried to educate you on what bonds are about, but it's hopeless.

Dave wrote:
You keep mouthing the same words over and over, as if it came out of some
kind of talking points memo.

It happens to be the truth.

I guess the facts don't matter to you.

... But you clearly have no understanding of what a
bond is.

Clearly not. I merely know enough to not fall for your scare tactics,
which seems to bother you.

... Doug, I create corporate bonds, debentures and stocks for a living.
I've done revenue bonds, and I've securitized other assets to create
asset-backed bonds.

Wow.

I've tried to educate you on what bonds are about, but it's hopeless.

Since most of what you've said is repeating things that I already
stated, it's funny that you think you're "trying to educate" me. It's
also funny that you think screeching about the almost existent risk of
default (unless President Bush drives the US into complete bankruptcy)
is "educational."

DSK

Dave wrote:
[snip]
I've tried to educate you on what bonds are about, but it's hopeless.

"DSK" wrote Since most of what you've said is repeating things that I
already stated, it's funny that you think you're "trying to educate" me.
It's also funny that you think screeching about the almost existent risk of
default (unless President Bush drives the US into complete bankruptcy) is
"educational."

Now now Doug, we must make peace with the notion that we are uneducable by
Dave's figuring. Perhaps we are trying too hard to break down complex issues
into simple truths. Dave seems to thrive on doing the opposite.
Scout

Scout, once Dave forms an opinion, he can't rethink it. It's a sad
commentary, but I suppose useful if you're an attorney.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Scout" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:
[snip]
I've tried to educate you on what bonds are about, but it's hopeless.

"DSK" wrote Since most of what you've said is repeating things that I
already stated, it's funny that you think you're "trying to educate" me.
It's also funny that you think screeching about the almost existent risk
of default (unless President Bush drives the US into complete bankruptcy)
is "educational."

Now now Doug, we must make peace with the notion that we are uneducable by
Dave's figuring. Perhaps we are trying too hard to break down complex
issues into simple truths. Dave seems to thrive on doing the opposite.
Scout

"Scout" said:
Perhaps we are trying too hard to break down complex issues
into simple truths. Dave seems to thrive on doing the opposite.

Dave wrote:
Quite the contrary, Scout. Let me put it even more simply.

SS is a promise to pay.

No it isn't. Social Security is complex gov't program combining
insurance & pension benefits... plus other goodies... paid for by a
regressive tax. It is not comparable to a private for-profit investment
or insurance company despite attempts to describe it as such.

It could with some fairness be described as a pyramid (or Ponzi) scam,
but then 1- it's the gov't and 2- that part of the "security."

... 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....

... 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?

I don't like him either but IMHO he's not *that* bad.

Is that truth simple enough for you?

Considering that what you've stated is not the truth, no.

DSK

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

"Dave" wrote
..... A bond is a promise to pay--

Yes but treasury bonds held by the SS admin are the same as those held by
other institutions and foreign governments. I do not believe the US
Government can decide not to honor just those held by SSA. They would have
to default on the others too, which would cause a global economic crisis.
Possible but unlikely.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Social Security trust fund will exhaust its
assets in 2041 instead of 2042 as forecast last year, while the Medicare
trust fund will be depleted in 2020, rather than 2019, the funds' trustees
said on Wednesday. In addition, the trustees projected Social Security
outlays would outstrip tax income in 2017 instead of 2018 as previously
forecast. . ..When the program's trust fund is exhausted in 2041, tax
revenues would still be sufficient to fund 74 percent of the benefits,...

So, if we do nothing,TWELVE years from now the gummymint will have to BEGIN
redeeming the bonds held by the SSA either by selling bonds to someone else
(borrowing), raising taxes or cutting other programs. Thirty six years from
now it will have to reduce benefits.

Alternately, if we embrace private accounts and start diverting part of SS
taxes into them, we can get in trouble alot sooner.

What a plan!

"DSK" wrote
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.

I refer to it as a ponzi scheme only to distinguish it from an investment
scheme, which it is not and never was. Hence comparing it to investment
schemes as in "If I'd have put my $$$ into the market I'd have a bigger
yield" is wholly meaningless. If I'd chosen billionaire parents .... but
nobody gets a choice on parents or taxes.

Actually I think Vito is the one who plays that tune the most.

Vito wrote:
I refer to it as a ponzi scheme only to distinguish it from an investment
scheme, which it is not and never was.

Right, I think we're in agreement on this.

... Hence comparing it to investment
schemes as in "If I'd have put my $$$ into the market I'd have a bigger
yield" is wholly meaningless. If I'd chosen billionaire parents .... but
nobody gets a choice on parents or taxes.

In theory, we are supposed to be able to choose our taxes... democracy,
right? ;)

Meaningless comparisons between Social Security, and all the things it's
not, is one of the ways that the pro-Bush faction is trying to sell this
"SS plan."

It's really just a lurid scheme to harvest bigger campaign contributions
from Wall St. A friend of mine who lives in Chicago says they should
consult with Daly on how to disguise it better!

DSK