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