Old Folk(Cont)
Thom Stewart
Arthur Ritis shows up and stays the rest of the day. He doesn't like to
stay in one place very long, so we travel from joint to joint. After
such a busy day I'm really tired and glad to go to bed with Ben Gay.
What a life!
PS The Preacher came by the other day. He said at my age I should be
thinking about the hereafter. I told him, "Oh, I do. All the time." No
matter where I am, in the parlor, in the kitchen or down in the
basement, I ask myself, "What am I HEREAFTER?
The end of part two.
Ole Thom
Scott Vernon
SV
"Thom Stewart" <tas...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:7958-423...@storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net...
Thom Stewart
Us old Bastards are really from a different time, good or bad, who
knows? It is what makes us different and we know we are different. Can't
help it. We do appreciate the love shown us
We come from a time when cigarette smoking was OK. In our day we mowed
grass. It wasn't worth $100 / ounce. Aids were people that worked for
free.
Fast food meant fish on Friday. We didn't know about instant coffee.
TIME-SHARING meant moments together, like your Dad's Birthday Party.
Hardware meant stuff from a Hardware Store. Software was like flannel
PJ's and slippers.
Made in Japan meant junk.
Making Out meant you had a job that paid the bills. A nickel brought an
ice cream cone, a big bar of candy, a telephone call even a postage
stamp with change.
Your Dad and I are SURVIVORS from another time so celebrate his Birthday
and overlook the "Generation Gap" We can't help it any more than you!
Ole Thom
HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!
katysails
"Thom Stewart" <tas...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:25076-42...@storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net...
Maxprop
"katysails" <katy...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> Hey, if we didn't like you, we wouldn't keep paying your Social
> Security...
Like we have a choice . . .
Max
katysails
"Maxprop" <max...@propshaft.end> wrote in message
news:4y6%d.877$Vi3...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Flying Tadpole
bedamned if I'm _that_ old!
--
Flying Tadpole
-------------------------
http://music.download.com/timfatchen
http://music.download.com/internetopera
http://www.soundclick.com/flyingtadpolemusic.htm
katysails
"Flying Tadpole" <flying...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:423d67c3$1...@duster.adelaide.on.net...
Thom Stewart
I've lived long enough to get into the funds money.
I thank you all from the bottom of my "Stented Heart"
Ole Thom
Capt. Mooron
can remember when the Five&Dime only charged 5 cents to 10 cents for goods.
I can remember 50 cents for a pack of smokes and 10 cents for a coffee with
free refills.
I'm going to be 50 this year..... I don't even have one grey hair yet!
CM
.
"katysails" <katy...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:Z0g%d.423903$w62.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
katysails
"Capt. Mooron" <over...@emptybottle.com> wrote in message
news:14h%d.83201$fc4.22793@edtnps89...
Capt. Mooron
crown..... but nowhere near bald. It's been like that for years.
CM
"katysails" <katy...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:kah%d.424247$w62....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
JG
--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com
"Capt. Mooron" <over...@emptybottle.com> wrote in message
news:14h%d.83201$fc4.22793@edtnps89...
JG
wouldn't be applicable.
--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com
"Capt. Mooron" <over...@emptybottle.com> wrote in message
news:tDh%d.83217$fc4.81245@edtnps89...
Thom Stewart
Do you remember gasoline at 11 cents a gallon. Do you remember a new
Chevy or Ford for $6oo. Do you remember damn few people could afford to
by a new car.
We were born before Fm radio, television, frozen food, plastic,
polioshots, ball point pens,dishwashers, clothes driers, credit cards,
air conditioners, electric blankets, pantyhose, the PILL!
We could get 10 cent for a Saturday afternoon movie if we could find
enough empty soda bottle to take back to the grocery store for deposit.
( Made of glass)
ROCK Music was a Grandma's lullaby sung in a rocking chair
We knew gasoline, car tires, sugar, butter and meat rationing.
I remember unpaved road with three ruts in them. Two made by wagon
wheels and the middle one made by the horse
But WE SURVIVED!! If you remember life then you were born before WW2.
If you were TAD, then you are on our side of the GENERATION GAP!! You're
OLD
Ole Thom
Thom Stewart
That is a Blessing I'll miss. I'll never know Grandchildren. My line
ends with my Son and Daughter
Ole Thom
Thom Stewart
My IOU's have been more than "PAID IN FULL" many years ago. I've no
complaints, believe me and thank you.
Ole Thom
katysails
"Capt. Mooron" <over...@emptybottle.com> wrote in message
news:tDh%d.83217$fc4.81245@edtnps89...
JG
Bwahahahaaaaaaa
--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com
"katysails" <katy...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:X4m%d.156636$Th1....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Capt. Mooron
Maybe an aspirin once or twice a year. I rarely get headaches, maybe once
every five years.... I don't take meds for that either. If the hair wants
to go.. let it.
Anyway... I shave myself bald twice a year as it is.
CM
"katysails" <katy...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:X4m%d.156636$Th1....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
DSK
>>I've lived long enough to get into the funds money.
>
Dave wrote:
> What funds money? It's already been spent. You're just collecting on IOUs.
Yep.
The IOUs happen to be Treasury bonds, the most secure investment in the
world; also the financial instrument that makes defeicit spending possible.
So- there are two good reasons to drop this particular line of malarkey.
DSK
DSK
>>
>>Yep.
>>
>>The IOUs happen to be Treasury bonds, the most secure investment in the
>>world; also the financial instrument that makes defeicit spending possible.
>
Dave wrote:
> Not quite. He's collecting on the IOUs represented by the guvmint's promise
> to pay SS benefits.
???
Since when is that an IOU? It seems pretty straightforward to me... Thom
is qualified for SS benefits, they give him the money. No IOUs involved,
unless you think President Bush is deliberately lying when he says he's
not going to cut current benefits due.
> ..... Since we're paying more in in SS taxes than the
> amount going out, the guvmint is spending the rest of the money
Whoa right there. "The guv'mint" isn't "spending the money." It is
paying out SS benefits... which covers a lot more than just retirees,
BTW. While the SS excess has been used for decades to mask the true size
of the deficit, the gov'mint is NOT spending SS money on other things
and it never has.
> ... and giving
> IOUs for it in the form of bonds.
Yep... as I said, Treasury bonds, the most secure investment available
*and* the means for Bush's deficit financing.
> ... Once the money being paid by us working
> stiffs isn't enough to pay out the current benefits, the guvmint will (it is
> hoped) start paying off the bond IOUs from some combination of income taxes
> on working stiffs and the proceeds of issuing more bond IOUs, so it can use
> that money to pay the SS IOUs.
>
What a tangled web you try to weave. Why are you worried about the U.S.
government defaulting on it's debt obligations? If that does happen 1-
it will largely be because of extremely irresponsible fiscal policy by
the Bush/Cheney crowd and 2- we'll all have much worse problems, as US
default is likely to bring on a world wide economic crisis.
> It's a scheme worthy of Enron.
>
I thought you claimed Ken Lay wasn't guilty of anything?
DSK
katysails
"Capt. Mooron" <over...@emptybottle.com> wrote in message
news:qOn%d.80155$i6.40582@edtnps90...
Flying Tadpole
wrong half of the 20th Century. SO:
Thom Stewart wrote:
> Tad,
>
> Do you remember gasoline at 11 cents a gallon.
No, but I remember it at 25 cents: plus 5c for the oil to run my
2-stroke DKW.
Do you remember a new
> Chevy or Ford for $6oo. Do you remember damn few people could afford to
> by a new car.
I have vague memories of a RUgby, and a 30's Vauxhall, but the
first car we had was second-hand, when I was 14...
>
> We were born before Fm radio,
Yep
>television
That arrived when I was 11/12
>, frozen food, plastic,
Yep
> polioshots,
My brother had polio. Kids my age in calipers were common. Most
of them died young.
>ball point pens,
Steel nibs and inkwells at school
dishwashers, clothes driers, credit cards,
26 y.o., 40y.o. 32 y.o.
> air conditioners,
Still don't have one of those (other than in the car)
>electric blankets,
No, they were around for all I can remember
pantyhose, the PILL!
They weren't around when I first became interested in females;
they were once I was able to do something about my
interests...one was great but the other was a real nuisance; do
you think that was intentional?
>
> We could get 10 cent for a Saturday afternoon movie if we could find
> enough empty soda bottle to take back to the grocery store for deposit.
> ( Made of glass)
Still was that in the 50's. Hey, 1/3 (=12 cents) bought: a pie
or pastie for lunch, with a buttered fruit bun, and a bottle of
Coke, and a couple of biscuits for morning recess.
>
> ROCK Music was a Grandma's lullaby sung in a rocking chair
Heh: I didn't find out about rock music till I was 13...
>
> We knew gasoline, car tires, sugar, butter and meat rationing.
NOW you're making me feel younger. None of the above
>
> I remember unpaved road with three ruts in them. Two made by wagon
> wheels and the middle one made by the horse
Unpaved roads stretching for hundreds of miles are still a big
part of my life. Re the horses: no, no ruts, but horses used for
inner-city milk and bread deliveries, yes.
>
> But WE SURVIVED!! If you remember life then you were born before WW2.
> If you were TAD, then you are on our side of the GENERATION GAP!! You're
> OLD
NO I'm not! All the above just demonstrates how much longer the
same sort of existence continued.
Some things to add:
GOing to school a few miles down the line by steam train, usually
pulled out by a 4-6-0, sometimes tender first, occasionally by
bigger steam (depending on what was on the roster) and the return
trip in a Brill car.
Riding the four-wheeler streetcars on holidays in Ballaarat.
Watching as a kid the coaster ketches Stormbird and Hawk (the
former lost--in a typhoon in the SOuth CHina Sea, from
memory--the latter still going strong as a gentleman's yacht,
back to her original rig of a Revenooer Schooner) being loaded
with bagged wheat at Edithburgh, the wharfies riding the brakes
of the little fourwheel rail trucks as they went down the slope
to the jetty (and a horse to pull empty trucks back up to the
wheat stacks on the low clifftop).
As a teenager fishing on the Port Adelaide breakwater, watching
one of the last trading 3-masted schooners sailing in: no
topmasts but still with a jib and forestaysail set. And that last
was mid 1960s.
Thom Stewart
Sorry, 50 cents a packet makes you a kid. Go back to when they were 15c
& 20c and there weren't any vending machines.
Damn Kids don't "Remember When" I bet you don't even remember when
"Lucky Strike Green Went to War!" Do you know that Lucky Strikes use to
come in a green pack? They were one of the 20c packs
Ole Thom.
Vito
> IOUs for it in the form of bonds. Once the money being paid by us working
> stiffs isn't enough to pay out the current benefits, the guvmint will (it
is
> hoped) start paying off the bond IOUs from some combination of income
taxes
> on working stiffs and the proceeds of issuing more bond IOUs, so it can
use
> that money to pay the SS IOUs.
Yup. Good old RR, king of the neocons, ran up huge deficites and threw a
party, just like GWB is doing right now. They call it prosperity.
Conservatives call it madness. Democrats under Clinton tried to fix the mess
but he got a BJ and that's alot worse than putting us $trillions in debt. So
when your SS taxes no longer pay benefits, then there will have to be a big
tax increase to pay the bills from RR's party - and it won't be on the rich.
Later on your kids will get to pay for GWB's fun. But the people of Iraq
will have been made free to elect an Iranian style democracy. Enjoy the
party ....
DSK
>>paying out SS benefits... which covers a lot more than just retirees,
>>BTW. While the SS excess has been used for decades to mask the true size
>>of the deficit, the gov'mint is NOT spending SS money on other things
>>and it never has.
>
Dave wrote:
> Let me get this straight. The guvmint takes more in in SS taxes than it pays
> out in SS benefits. It exchanges the extra money it takes in for bonds. Now
> it has the money and the SS trustees have IOUs called bonds. So what do you
> say it's doing with the money it exchanges for bonds? Putting it under the
> Treasury Secretary's mattress until the bonds come due? I don't think so. It
> uses the money to pay salaries, buy goods and services, etc.--things we
> generally call "spending."
>
So it's a legal money-laundering scheme. It's still not the same as
spending the SS money, any more than I can claim I paid for my
neighbor's house because his mortgage is held by a bank in which I'm a
depositor.
You should be glad that the SS Trust Fund is buying Uncle Sam's IOUs (ie
Treasury bonds, the most secure investment possible). Otherwise Bush &
Cheney's deficit spending would have to be entirely financed by the
Japanese, Chinese, French, etc etc.
DSK
DSK
>
Dave wrote:
> A few months ago I was more conversant with the ins and the outs of the
> Enron fraud than I am now. Not sure I ever addressed Lay's culpability.
> Certainly Andy Fastow was responsible for some accounting fraud, however.
Seems likely to me that the previous CFO was in on the gag too; if Lay
is guilty of nothing else he's is certainly guilty of fraud & conspiracy
to fraud.
I certainly don't know all the convoultions of SEC rules, but advising
other people to buy Enron stock when he himself was borrowing money from
Enron to buy optioned stock and immediately selling it, strikes me as
extremely fraudulent.
DSK
DSK
>>Treasury bonds, the most secure investment possible). Otherwise Bush &
>>Cheney's deficit spending would have to be entirely financed by the
>>Japanese, Chinese, French, etc etc.
>
Dave wrote:
> You have it just backwards, Doug.
I disagree.
> ... Think about it for a minute.
I have, for more than that, even.
> ... If you have a
> pension from GM, and you're concerned about whether GM will have the money
> to pay it, would you rather your pension fund be invested in GM promissory
> notes, or promissory notes of a bunch of other solid companies which are
> extremely unlikely to all fail at the same time?
>
Multiple companies, of course... but how is this relevant? For one
thing, no private company can print it's own money; for another, if
Uncle Sam defaults on our debt we will have a full-blown world-wide
economic crisis to worry about; for a third, Uncle Sam is already the
guarantor of all companies private pension plans already... in fact this
is another impending blow-up...
> Congress already answered that question for private pension funds. Their
> ability to hold employer securities is extremely limited. If we wanted a
> secure investment for the SS money to be sure the money would be there,
> rather than a smoke and mirrors system, we'd be lending the excess SS
> payments to the Japanese, Chinese, French, Swiss, etc., not to the outfit
> that owes the SS benefits anyway.
>
IMHO you're the one who has it backwards... why would the Japanese,
Chinese, French, Swiss, etc etc pay private US citizens retirement
benefits when they could default at no risk?
The way the current system is set up, default is *very* risky to the
borrower. This should give a great deal of reassurance to those
dependent on the proceeds of that debt.
DSK
Scott Vernon
"Dave" <Da...@nothere.com> wrote
>
> But I
> do remember seeing a tool in the basement for rolling your own that
dated
> from WWII--I presume because the store-bought cigs were rationed.
that wasn't for tobacco, Dave.
Scotty
Thom Stewart
Here goes "Old Remember When" again.
I do believe that Roll Your Own was called a Target. They became popular
during WW2 when we were in the Armed Services. We could buy a pack of
Cig. for 5c. The tobacco companies weren't ready for that. The Civilian
supply became real short.
The story we got, when they upped production they couldn't get the
green paper because of all the "olive drab the military was using. We
all believed it was a cost cutting move to use white paper. Anyway, they
came out with a slogan; "Lucky Strike Green has gone to War" How could
we call them cheap after that?
Ah yes, I remember.
Ole Thom
Vito
news:9fst315a1r07asg08...@news-east.newscene.com...
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 08:14:41 -0500, "Vito" <vi...@crosslink.net> said:
>
> >Yup. Good old RR, king of the neocons, ran up huge deficites and threw a
> >party, just like GWB is doing right now. They call it prosperity.
> >Conservatives call it madness. Democrats under Clinton tried to fix the
mess
>
> inherent in the system's Ponzi scheme structure. Last time the Dems "tried
> to fix the mess" was 1983, when they applied the usual Dem remedy of
raising
> taxes.
>
I'm addressing deficit problems not SS problems, Dave. The SS Trust is just
one place RR and now Bush borrowed trillions. In about 10 years, the SS
Admin will have to begin recalling those bonds and taxpayers will have to
begin repaying those deficits. I'll prolly be dead. So I'll say thanks to
all you younger taxpayers who must now finance RR's "prosperity" - it was
quite a party! The Iraqis should thank you for financing their Iran-style
"democracy" too, but they prolly send suicide bombers instead.
DSK
>>other people to buy Enron stock when he himself was borrowing money from
>>Enron to buy optioned stock and immediately selling it, strikes me as
>>extremely fraudulent.
>
Dave wrote:
> Depends entirely on how much he knew of the fraudulent accounting.
>
Well, by the letter of the law, you're right, but golly gee didn't he
ever scan a statement of cash flows? Here he was borrowing money from a
company that was sinking... no, plummeting... so he could buy
underpriced stock to sell... while requiring his employees to buy it...
and publicly urging everyone else to buy also.
It may be that my "fraud-o-meter" is a bit too sensitive, but if I were
fool enough to have been burned by his shenanigans, I'd be thinking
about vigilante justice.
> Some fault lies also in the U.S. accounting system that relies on rigid
> rules to determine who is "at risk" for an asset, and the way those rules
> are applied, rather than relying on the auditors to step back make some
> judgment calls.
Sure, but that's why a lot of audit companies also have management
consulting contracts (a conflict of interest in many cases).
> ... Many of the problems would have occurred even if Enron's
> partnership transactions had complied fully with the rules, because Enron's
> "investment" in the Enron partnerships consisted entirely of Enron's own
> stock.
Yep. I spotted that even before the crash, a friend of mine was riding
that train and thanks to my advice he didn't get burned as badly as he
might have.
> ... If the auditors had taken a big picture look at the entire structure
> instead of focusing on technical rules, they should have concluded that the
> structure was unsound.
>
Of course not... instead they were busy helping Enron flout the rules,
up to & including shredding documents after the crash finally came.
IMHO the accounting profession has to tighten things up quite a lot,
preferably within the context of professional behavior rather than laws.
DSK
DSK
>>thing, no private company can print it's own money; for another, if
>>Uncle Sam defaults on our debt we will have a full-blown world-wide
>>economic crisis to worry about; for a third, Uncle Sam is already the
>>guarantor of all companies private pension plans already... in fact this
>>is another impending blow-up...
>
Dave wrote:
> Very basic principle called diversification.
Sure... if we were talking about something other than a gov't program
holding excess funds in anticipation of disbursement, I'd agree. It
would even make sense to hold some percent in equities... if we were
talking about something else...
> ... One country can default. (Some
> Latin American countries seem to do it regularly.) Chances of several
> defaulting is much less.
>
> As to the private pension situation, I'm not sure Javits got it right with
> ERISA in setting up the guvmint insurance scheme, encouraging unions to
> negotiate unsustainable defined benefit pension levels. Long-term, however,
> it seems to be moving in the right direction by shrinking the defined
> benefit universe and increasing the defined contribution universe.
>
Yep, but the bail-out... and the crash of some pension programs... is
going to hurt a lot of people. The political fall-out could be huge...
of course it could amount to nothing, also.
>
>>IMHO you're the one who has it backwards... why would the Japanese,
>>Chinese, French, Swiss, etc etc pay private US citizens retirement
>>benefits when they could default at no risk?
>
>
> If our SS fund were holding their bonds, they would pay those bonds for the
> same reason any country pays its bonds. If they don't, their borrowing
> ability going forward is severely limited, whether that borrowing is from
> our SS trustees or somebody else..
Except that we don't live in Japan. If Japan defaults, the Japanese
nation as a whole would suffer economic reverses. If Japan defaults
owing you or me money, we also suffer a loss.
It may be stated that holding solely US bonds in the SS Trust Fund is a
lack of diversification... but this ignores the point that SS is *not*
an investment. Advocates of President Bush's plan often overlook this
point... IMHO deliberately, in the same way they use derogatory phrases
like "empty promises" and "IOUs".
It also could be said that since US Treasuries are the safest & most
secure investment available, why would you want anything else in the SS
Trust Fund? The name is "security" not Social High Risk / High Return.
In fact (to repeat a point) Social Security doesn't *have* any "return."
And unlike Japan, Switzerland, etc etc, the US can always print money
and hand it out to beneficiaries if default looms. You'd look very cute
asking retirees to take part of their income in francs, part in yen, etc
etc.
>
>
>>The way the current system is set up, default is *very* risky to the
>>borrower. This should give a great deal of reassurance to those
>>dependent on the proceeds of that debt.
>
>
> The question, of course, is whether you want to have one borrower that could
> default, or several, none of whom represents the whole ball of wax.
>
We agree that diversification... as a general principle... is a very
good idea. This is a special case IMHO. A corollary BTW is that one
should always invest in the stock of a monopoly one is forced to do
business with.
DSK
DSK
>>that wasn't for tobacco, Dave.
>
Dave wrote:
> Back then it was, Scotty.
Gee Dave, you think nobody smoked marijuana before 1965?
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!
DSK
DSK
>
Dave wrote:
> I'm pretty damn sure it was extremely rare in the rural Midwest in 1940-45.
>
Rare? Yes. Nonexistent? No. Extremely rare? I guess that depends.
DSK
DSK
> 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.
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.
That makes Social Security a lender, not a borrower.
This kind of repetitive & misleading crapola is why I am extremely
dubious about Bush's SS plan. Anything that relies on deceit & ignorance
to gain approval is *not* likely to be a good fiscal policy.
It doesn't matter to me personally, I am very unlikely to rely on Social
Security for more than a miniscule portion of my retirement income. But
it's reassuring to see the poll numbers for Bush's plan dropping...
maybe this is the one time he won't be able to fool a slim majority.
>>Yep, but the bail-out... and the crash of some pension programs... is
>>going to hurt a lot of people. The political fall-out could be huge...
>>of course it could amount to nothing, also.
>
>
> To some extent it may.
One thing I meant is that this may be another item that President Bush
will shed some of his teflon coating.
> ... Most people don't understand that the full amount of
> their accrued pension is not covered by the insurance. The problem is
> declining, however, as more and more companies go to plans in which
> employees have their own accounts.
Yep. If the problem holds off long enough, it will go away. But right
now it appears we haven't seen the peak yet.
> ... 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 ;)
>>... If Japan defaults, the Japanese
>>nation as a whole would suffer economic reverses. If Japan defaults
>>owing you or me money, we also suffer a loss.
>
>
> 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).
>
>>It may be stated that holding solely US bonds in the SS Trust Fund is a
>>lack of diversification... but this ignores the point that SS is *not*
>>an investment. Advocates of President Bush's plan often overlook this
>>point... IMHO deliberately, in the same way they use derogatory phrases
>>like "empty promises" and "IOUs".
>
>
> 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...
>
>>It also could be said that since US Treasuries are the safest & most
>>secure investment available, why would you want anything else in the SS
>>Trust Fund?
>
>
> Ever hear of German gold bonds? I know where you can get a bunch of them.
>
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.
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.
>
>>And unlike Japan, Switzerland, etc etc, the US can always print money
>>and hand it out to beneficiaries if default looms. You'd look very cute
>>asking retirees to take part of their income in francs, part in yen, etc
>>etc.
>
>
> If the US tries to solve the problem by simply printing money, I'd prefer
> the francs, yen, etc.
>
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.
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.
>
>>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.
DSK
Horvath
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.
Hor...@Horvath.net
This post is 100% free of steroids
Horvath
wrote this crap:
>Dave,
>
>Here goes "Old Remember When" again.
>
>I do believe that Roll Your Own was called a Target. They became popular
>during WW2 when we were in the Armed Services. We could buy a pack of
>Cig. for 5c. The tobacco companies weren't ready for that. The Civilian
>supply became real short.
I remember making my own spears before combat, and looking for stones
for my sling. I made my own shield, and painted it with the legions
symbols.
Thom Stewart
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
DSK
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 18:00:12 -0500, DSK <d...@dontbotherme.com> 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
Thom Stewart
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
katysails
"Horvath" <Te...@Fartingmor.com> wrote in message
news:jklu311pskq4sdfa9...@4ax.com...
JG
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" <tas...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:23344-423...@storefull-3258.bay.webtv.net...
katysails
post I was flamed from here to eternity about it...
"Thom Stewart" <tas...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:23344-423...@storefull-3258.bay.webtv.net...
Scott Vernon
"JG" <jg...@sailnow.invalid> wrote in message
news:113v07c...@corp.supernews.com...
> Thom,
>
> This is the second time you've asked people to "get out" of your
thread.
Well then, maybe you should listen!
Thom Stewart
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
JG
--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com
"Thom Stewart" <tas...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:23343-423...@storefull-3258.bay.webtv.net...
JG
comments. I'm laughing so hard, it really hurts.
--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com
"Scott Vernon" <Sco...@Seidelmann.com> wrote in message
news:3a9ekrF...@individual.net...
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!!!!
>
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
DSK
>>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
JG
--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com
"Scott Vernon" <Sco...@Seidelmann.com> wrote in message
news:3aads3F...@individual.net...
> Grow up Ganz!
>
>
> "JG" <jg...@sailnow.invalid> wrote in message
> news:113vfsl...@corp.supernews.com...
Vito
"DSK" <d...@dontbotherme.com> 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.
DSK
>>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
JG
--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com
"Dave" <Da...@nothere.com> wrote in message
news:82a141d6gt3ap2gme...@news-east.newscene.com...
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 16:54:47 -0500, DSK <d...@dontbotherme.com> 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.
>
>
Scott Vernon
"JG" <jg...@sailnow.invalid> wrote in message
news:113vfsl...@corp.supernews.com...
DSK
> 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
Scout
>> [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
DSK
>>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
JG
commentary, but I suppose useful if you're an attorney.
--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com
"Scout" <scout...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1ud0e.2$cg...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
DSK
> 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
Vito
> ..... 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!
Vito
> 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 $$$ into the market I'd have a bigger
yield" is wholly meaningless. If I'd chosen billionaire parents .... but
nobody gets a choice on parents or taxes.
DSK
Vito wrote:
> I refer to it as a ponzi scheme only to distinguish it from an investment
> scheme, which it is not and never was.
Right, I think we're in agreement on this.
> ... Hence comparing it to investment
> schemes as in "If I'd have put my $$$ 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