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.