"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
... You can't have it both ways.

I'm not the one trying to have it "both" ways. I am trying to familiarize
you (and a few others) with a few basic facts, & introduce some fairly
simple & straightforward logic.

You are insisting that
1- US treasury bonds are somehow "worthless" when the fact is that they
are the most secure investment available.

Jeff Rigby wrote:
Not that they are worthless.

Whoah, dude, you may have to stop here and start over. D'ya wanna get
kicked out of the fact-denying fascist whacko club?

... Just if they are redeamed then the government will have to pay them
off by issuing other treasury notes

Yep. Got a problem with that? We've been doing it for over 200 years now
and everything's been chugging along just fine, pretty much.


... So the statement that Bush will have to borrow the money is correct.
The money is not there in the treasury!


Nope... the statement would be correct that Bush has already borrowed the
money, *and* he's borrowed a HECK of a lot more than his predecessors
because he slashed income and jumped up spending astronomically, *AND* his
plan is to keep on borrowing astronomically.



2- If Bush can somehow make Social Security go bust all the sooner, that
the gov't will be forced to stop borrowing money.


That's a stupid statement.

I agree. So why are you supporting his efforts?

... The Bush plan is to cushion the eventual reorganization of SS by
having a small portion that can earn more than the treasury notes
currently being issued.

At higher risk, which is how other countries trying the same thing have
stubbed their toes. And additionally by bringing the date of outgo
income that much closer. Hence the increased deficit.

... Besides the talking points currently being considered (raising the
SS age to 67

They already did that

... reducing COLA

Already done that too, but I'm not sure how recently.

... eliminating many of the dependant benefits

I'm in favor of that.

... there are more draconian measures in the works for those who are
under 50.


Meanwhile, raising the income cut-off is one thing that would make SS
fiscally sound, and it's being harshly excluded. Why?

The Draconian measures are because the money to pay SS to those under 50
will have to come out of the US treasury

Starting some time long after 2040 AD... big big crisis here, whoop whoop
whoop sound the alarms!



The SS fund has a surplus, more money coming in than is being spent
on SS.

Correct.


This money can't be used for the Bush SS plan because it's being spent
to finance other areas of the Federal government.

Wrong.

This is like saying that you own your neighbor's house, because the money
the bank loaned him on his mortgage came out of your checking account.


???


OKay, think hard about this.

Social Security has it's own bank account. The dollars that get deposited
into this bank account can NOT be spent by any other branch of the Federal
gov't. Just like you cannot spend the money in your brother's checking
account.

Now, should the Social Security Administration let that money sit there,
earning no interest? No, of course not... especially when the Congress
needs to borrow because it cannot control it's bladder and ****es tax
money away on all sorts of stupid things (as well as a few worthwhile
ones). So they do what businesses & communities do... issue bonds, which
pay interest. These bonds are universally reckoned as the most secure
investment available in the world, which is nice because having a high
rating keeps the premium low.

Still with me? The money in the SS account is tallied against the overall
Federal budget, in the same way your brothers checking account balance
might be tallied against your family's net worth, but it is *spent* on
only two things.... spent only two things... spent on only two things...
(keep repeating that until it sinks in):
1- Social Security benefits payments
2- U.S. Treasury bonds

You could take the viewpoint that putting the SS money into Treasuries is
just a form of money-laundering, but the FACT remains that it is no more
"spent by the Federal gov't" than the money your brother spends comes out
of your bank account... or your neighbor's mortgage, even if it comes from
the same bank.

That's a lot for one day, so think it over. Class dismissed.

DSK

DSK, the difference in our viewpoints seem illogical. As far as foreign
"affairs" and our President you are a pessimist and distrust our motives but
where the US treasury is concerned you seem to be an optimist. I'm the
opposite, I trust the executive branch and distrust the Congress/Treasury

The following site explains better than I can my feelings on the ability of
the Federal government to repay the 1.7 trillion dollars to the SS account.
See: http://www.federalbudget.com/SSdebate.html

Jeff Rigby wrote:
DSK, the difference in our viewpoints seem illogical.

Only because you reject fact & logic.

... As far as foreign
"affairs" and our President you are a pessimist and distrust our motives but
where the US treasury is concerned you seem to be an optimist. I'm the
opposite, I trust the executive branch and distrust the Congress/Treasury


That's because the Treasury is run by people with some sense, they have
kept the US money thing going for 200+ years now, without starting any
wars under false pretenses.


The following site explains better than I can my feelings on the ability of
the Federal government to repay the 1.7 trillion dollars to the SS account.
See: http://www.right-wing-whacko-bull****


Considering that their opening statements are nonsense & lies, no wonder
you have such an attitude. Notice however that they stop short of
claiming that U.S. Treasury bonds are worthless.

I suggest you look at FACTs not right-wing blather.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Jeff Rigby wrote:
DSK, the difference in our viewpoints seem illogical.

Only because you reject fact & logic.

... As far as foreign "affairs" and our President you are a pessimist
and distrust our motives but where the US treasury is concerned you seem
to be an optimist. I'm the opposite, I trust the executive branch and
distrust the Congress/Treasury


That's because the Treasury is run by people with some sense, they have
kept the US money thing going for 200+ years now, without starting any
wars under false pretenses.


The following site explains better than I can my feelings on the ability
of the Federal government to repay the 1.7 trillion dollars to the SS
account.
See: http://www.federalbudget.com/SSdebate.html


Considering that their opening statements are nonsense & lies, no wonder
you have such an attitude. Notice however that they stop short of claiming
that U.S. Treasury bonds are worthless.

I suggest you look at FACTs not right-wing blather.

DSK


Yes, the opening statement is a scare tactic to force you to read the rest
of the article. 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.

Jeff Rigby wrote:
Yes, the opening statement is a scare tactic to force you to read the rest
of the article.

???

What you're saying is, you trust & believe & agree with people whom you
*know* are lying to you. That includes President Bush & Vice President
Cheney?

... 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.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Jeff Rigby wrote:
Yes, the opening statement is a scare tactic to force you to read the
rest of the article.

???

What you're saying is, you trust & believe & agree with people whom you
*know* are lying to you. That includes President Bush & Vice President
Cheney?

... 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.

DSK

The "hoopla" is about money and the congress and it's ability to spend it.
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. Who does
Bush's proposal benefit, not the federal government because they (congress)
can't get their hands on it. 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%.

What private individual holds 100% of their retirement money in treasury
bonds? Since you feel that they are such a good investment, what percentage
of your retirement is in bonds? 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.

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. 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).

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.

... 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