OT: Political, "This is good"
 

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 12:50:47 -0700 (PDT), DaveS
wrote:

They came within a
hairsbreadth of the biggest fleecing in American history.

Horse caca. If I had invested my SS payments when I first started
paying them sixty six years ago, I would be a helluva lot better off
than I am now. No one loses in the stock market unless they panic or
make foolish investments.

I wish to hell I would have had the option to invest in the market
instead of SS when I first started to work/pay into the fund.

If you had bought stocks in 87 when the market "crashed", you would
be even richer today. Today is the time to buy, not worry about the
market losing everything.

Dave

OT: Political, "This is good"
 

On Oct 28, 1:27*pm, Dave LaCourse wrote:
SNIP Snip

Hooray for you. Of course you understand that the majority of working
people are so pressed that they cannot even see their way to max their
matched 401k accounts?

Dave
The stock market is a figment. Real investment is when a society and
an economy saves and builds needed physical, scientific and social
infrastructure, plant and equipment, soil fertility and a healthy,
educated, and safe working population, which can be engaged freely
in the production of needed goods, services and new technologies in a
sustainable way. That is why even Wall Street calls it the "REAL
ECONOMY" And that is why almost all really significant investment
involves government in some way.

We have just seen the effect of more and more money pursuing equities
that represent fewer and fewer real productive assets. Many companies
are just hollowed out shells, mere marketing and distribution arms of
Red Chinese conglomerates. You put your money into Commisar/General
One Hung Low's hands. I think I'll put my money on America.

For most people the best returns on their money come from 1. their own
education, 2. their health and the health of their family, 3. the
education of their children, 4 their own house and property, 5. Tools
and equipment for your own or a family business.

OT: Political, "This is good"
 

On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 18:53:18 -0700 (PDT), DaveS
wrote:

For most people the best returns on their money come from 1. their own
education, 2. their health and the health of their family, 3. the
education of their children, 4 their own house and property, 5. Tools
and equipment for your own or a family business.

Well, duh. That goes without saying, Dave. I started saving when I
got back from Japan in 1960. The market has been nothing but good to
me ever since. Dips, mini-crashes? Sure. But for the long term, you
can not do better.

This is good
 

On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 21:20:04 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


"rw" wrote in message
om...
wrote:
On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 15:39:21 -0700, rw
wrote:

The SSI "crisis" could be fixed by means testing. Wealthy people don't
need it.


And that's probably why the wealthy aren't getting any of it, and if
"means testing" would fix it, it wouldn't be "broken" as there already
is "means testing" for it.

You truly are a ****ing ignorant, dishonest piece of ****. And desperate.

There is NO means testing in SSI.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

SSI is separate from Social Security. Was originally for those like my
Grandmother who was never required to pay the SS tax. They were farmers and
exempt for the tax. Then it was expanded to cover poor. My brother's wife
brought her elderly parents here from England and they promptly got signed
up for SSI. I always thought it sucked, but they were instantly eligible.
SSI for your enlightenment is not Social Security, but is administered by
the SS Administration. And the money comes out of the SS taxes paid by the
working.

Ah, another innertube model, I see...your general premise - that SSI is
yet another "redistribution of wealth" from the working to the
non-working - is generally correct, but no, SSI funds do not come "out
of the SS taxes paid by the working," they come out of general funds,
the majority of which is taxes paid by individuals and corporate taxes.
Perhaps some monies _could_ indirectly arrive via FICA taxes through the
"surpluses" in the "Trust Fund" scheme/scam, but those monies aren't
targeted to any specific thing and I'm not sure the SSA can use those
"bonds" for its own programs, but ???

"Old age" payments, what most people mean when they think of "Social
Security" (and Medicare) comes from the "SS taxes paid by the working"
(Actually paid by "the working" and their employers - FICA,
Self-employment tax, etc.), but that is at least a "contribute to
collect" system. The acronym for that "Social Security" is OASDI. It's
a ****ed-up socialist mess with a scam added, too, but it isn't "a
freebie."

HTH,
R

This is good
 

On Oct 29, 3:57*am, wrote:

Other than the gratuitius comment ("...a ****ed-up socialist mess with
a scam added, too....") you are factually correct.

Con cuidado Richard, between this thread and the Uzi posts, the forces
of the Fascist Conspiracy might call you in for "questioning" as to
"emerging moderate tendencies of a reasoned nature."

Dave
Do they still use the rusty jumper cables?

OT: US Election: "This is good"
 

On Oct 29, 9:04*am, DaveS wrote:
On Oct 29, 3:57*am, wrote:

Other than the gratuitius comment ("...a ****ed-up socialist mess with
a scam added, too....") you are factually correct.

Con cuidado Richard, between this thread and the Uzi posts, the forces
of the Fascist Conspiracy might call you in for "questioning" as to
"emerging moderate tendencies of a reasoned nature."

Dave
Do they still use the rusty jumper cables?

OT: Political, "This is good"
 

"DaveS" wrote in message
...
As I recall the numbers, without any tax increase or changes, the
Trust Fund will not even be tapped till 2016 by which time it will
have grown to $4 trillion, then we will be paying out more that we
collect from payroll taxes. Then even with no increase in taxes or
changes, we would not spend out the Trust Fund paying full benefits
until 2038. After 2038, again even with NO tax increase or changes,
the payroll taxes collected will pay for 73% of the benefits promised.

snip

Dave

In practical terms, the size of the "Trust Fund" is irrelevant . There is no
fund of money out there earning interest. Congress has spent that money on
other things and depends on the excess between the inflow of social security
tax payments and outflow of SS payments to help fund government. The
concern is that that differential is shrinking, and will totally dissappear
and reverse at some point in the not too distant future (2016?). The money
for both SS payments and that used to run other government requirements will
need to come from somewhere, either increased debt, increased SS taxes, or
increased taxes of other sources. So while, in theory if in fact a real
trust fund existed, there may be no need to increase SS payroll taxes before
2038 to maintain SS payments, a source of funds to pay the entitlements will
need to be found well before then.

Bob Weinberger


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

OT: Political, "This is good"
 

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:31:36 -0700, "Bob Weinberger"
wrote:


"DaveS" wrote in message
...
As I recall the numbers, without any tax increase or changes, the
Trust Fund will not even be tapped till 2016 by which time it will
have grown to $4 trillion, then we will be paying out more that we
collect from payroll taxes. Then even with no increase in taxes or
changes, we would not spend out the Trust Fund paying full benefits
until 2038. After 2038, again even with NO tax increase or changes,
the payroll taxes collected will pay for 73% of the benefits promised.

snip

Dave

In practical terms, the size of the "Trust Fund" is irrelevant . There is no
fund of money out there earning interest. Congress has spent that money on
other things and depends on the excess between the inflow of social security
tax payments and outflow of SS payments to help fund government. The
concern is that that differential is shrinking, and will totally dissappear
and reverse at some point in the not too distant future (2016?). The money
for both SS payments and that used to run other government requirements will
need to come from somewhere, either increased debt, increased SS taxes, or
increased taxes of other sources. So while, in theory if in fact a real
trust fund existed, there may be no need to increase SS payroll taxes before
2038 to maintain SS payments, a source of funds to pay the entitlements will
need to be found well before then.

Geez, what were they doing, running a sale at Paris Hilton's Skool of
Innertube Modeling or something? The "Trust Fund" isn't a "fund," and
it's Uncle Sugar - there's sure no trust from a fiduciary standpoint
there. What happened, generally, is that Alan Greenspan, in yet another
of his monumental ****ups, recommended an increase in "Social Security"
taxes, supposedly to help create a surplus to fund the mess when
baby-boomers started hitting the roles and the outlay was going to
exceed input. So the tax was increased and sure enough, there was a
surplus - no surprise there. However, instead of actually setting up a
trust account - you know, like a business would be required by law to do
- Congress decided it would be just ducky to create an accounting system
by which the money could be spent. However, strictly on paper, it would
be (basically) managed by the, ahem, the US Dept of the Treasury - you
know, those guys who spend all the other money - who would, ahem,
"invest" it by "loaning" it out to other parts of the Fed in exchange
for cute little IOUs which say they owed, with interest, back to the
SSA. And naturally, they needed a name for this sca, er, scheme - "The
Social Security Trust Fund." The check may be in the mail, but it's
rubber and unfortunately, they already came in your mouth and this will
hurt you more than it does them...

So, let's recap - they took more of your money, lent it to themselves at
a sub-market rate, and called it an investment for your future. And the
deposit account or margin requirements? Pish-posh, it's all backed by
the full faith and credit of the US Government. And don't worry, if
they can't pay you back with your current tax dollars, they can always
increase your taxes to pay you back...and according to Obama, Wall
Street CEOs are the problem...

Sheesh,
R

Bob Weinberger


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

OT: Political, "This is good"
 

Richard I don't know if that was your intention, but the first sentance of
your post (which was a reply to my post)seems to be aimed at disparaging
what I said. Then you go and simply reinforce the points I made.
If I read your intention correctly, you might go back and re-read what I
said and tell me where what I said and what you said differ in fundamental
terms.

Bob weinberger


wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:31:36 -0700, "Bob Weinberger"
wrote:


"DaveS" wrote in message
...
As I recall the numbers, without any tax increase or changes, the
Trust Fund will not even be tapped till 2016 by which time it will
have grown to $4 trillion, then we will be paying out more that we
collect from payroll taxes. Then even with no increase in taxes or
changes, we would not spend out the Trust Fund paying full benefits
until 2038. After 2038, again even with NO tax increase or changes,
the payroll taxes collected will pay for 73% of the benefits promised.

snip

Dave

In practical terms, the size of the "Trust Fund" is irrelevant . There is
no
fund of money out there earning interest. Congress has spent that money on
other things and depends on the excess between the inflow of social
security
tax payments and outflow of SS payments to help fund government. The
concern is that that differential is shrinking, and will totally
dissappear
and reverse at some point in the not too distant future (2016?). The money
for both SS payments and that used to run other government requirements
will
need to come from somewhere, either increased debt, increased SS taxes, or
increased taxes of other sources. So while, in theory if in fact a real
trust fund existed, there may be no need to increase SS payroll taxes
before
2038 to maintain SS payments, a source of funds to pay the entitlements
will
need to be found well before then.

Geez, what were they doing, running a sale at Paris Hilton's Skool of
Innertube Modeling or something? The "Trust Fund" isn't a "fund," and
it's Uncle Sugar - there's sure no trust from a fiduciary standpoint
there. What happened, generally, is that Alan Greenspan, in yet another
of his monumental ****ups, recommended an increase in "Social Security"
taxes, supposedly to help create a surplus to fund the mess when
baby-boomers started hitting the roles and the outlay was going to
exceed input. So the tax was increased and sure enough, there was a
surplus - no surprise there. However, instead of actually setting up a
trust account - you know, like a business would be required by law to do
- Congress decided it would be just ducky to create an accounting system
by which the money could be spent. However, strictly on paper, it would
be (basically) managed by the, ahem, the US Dept of the Treasury - you
know, those guys who spend all the other money - who would, ahem,
"invest" it by "loaning" it out to other parts of the Fed in exchange
for cute little IOUs which say they owed, with interest, back to the
SSA. And naturally, they needed a name for this sca, er, scheme - "The
Social Security Trust Fund." The check may be in the mail, but it's
rubber and unfortunately, they already came in your mouth and this will
hurt you more than it does them...

So, let's recap - they took more of your money, lent it to themselves at
a sub-market rate, and called it an investment for your future. And the
deposit account or margin requirements? Pish-posh, it's all backed by
the full faith and credit of the US Government. And don't worry, if
they can't pay you back with your current tax dollars, they can always
increase your taxes to pay you back...and according to Obama, Wall
Street CEOs are the problem...

Sheesh,
R

Bob Weinberger


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

OT: Political, "This is good"
 

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:36:41 -0700, "Bob Weinberger"
wrote:

Richard I don't know if that was your intention, but the first sentance of
your post (which was a reply to my post)seems to be aimed at disparaging
what I said.

I wouldn't go so far as to say "disparaging" it, but it is incorrect.
There is money out there earning interest and the size is very relevant.
The money via "SS tax" is flowing in all the time, but (essentially) it
immediately flows back out, "loaned" to other budget items/agencies/etc.
as an "investment," therefore, the size is VERY relevant. Some actually
flows back in when some new bureaucrat actually pays attention to this
kind of everyday business stuff and pays down "short-term non-capital
badcompany debt," but it is immediately "loaned" back out again.

Then you go and simply reinforce the points I made.
If I read your intention correctly, you might go back and re-read what I
said and tell me where what I said and what you said differ in fundamental
terms.

See above.

TC,
R

Bob weinberger


wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:31:36 -0700, "Bob Weinberger"
wrote:


"DaveS" wrote in message
...
As I recall the numbers, without any tax increase or changes, the
Trust Fund will not even be tapped till 2016 by which time it will
have grown to $4 trillion, then we will be paying out more that we
collect from payroll taxes. Then even with no increase in taxes or
changes, we would not spend out the Trust Fund paying full benefits
until 2038. After 2038, again even with NO tax increase or changes,
the payroll taxes collected will pay for 73% of the benefits promised.

snip

Dave

In practical terms, the size of the "Trust Fund" is irrelevant . There is
no
fund of money out there earning interest. Congress has spent that money on
other things and depends on the excess between the inflow of social
security
tax payments and outflow of SS payments to help fund government. The
concern is that that differential is shrinking, and will totally
dissappear
and reverse at some point in the not too distant future (2016?). The money
for both SS payments and that used to run other government requirements
will
need to come from somewhere, either increased debt, increased SS taxes, or
increased taxes of other sources. So while, in theory if in fact a real
trust fund existed, there may be no need to increase SS payroll taxes
before
2038 to maintain SS payments, a source of funds to pay the entitlements
will
need to be found well before then.

Geez, what were they doing, running a sale at Paris Hilton's Skool of
Innertube Modeling or something? The "Trust Fund" isn't a "fund," and
it's Uncle Sugar - there's sure no trust from a fiduciary standpoint
there. What happened, generally, is that Alan Greenspan, in yet another
of his monumental ****ups, recommended an increase in "Social Security"
taxes, supposedly to help create a surplus to fund the mess when
baby-boomers started hitting the roles and the outlay was going to
exceed input. So the tax was increased and sure enough, there was a
surplus - no surprise there. However, instead of actually setting up a
trust account - you know, like a business would be required by law to do
- Congress decided it would be just ducky to create an accounting system
by which the money could be spent. However, strictly on paper, it would
be (basically) managed by the, ahem, the US Dept of the Treasury - you
know, those guys who spend all the other money - who would, ahem,
"invest" it by "loaning" it out to other parts of the Fed in exchange
for cute little IOUs which say they owed, with interest, back to the
SSA. And naturally, they needed a name for this sca, er, scheme - "The
Social Security Trust Fund." The check may be in the mail, but it's
rubber and unfortunately, they already came in your mouth and this will
hurt you more than it does them...

So, let's recap - they took more of your money, lent it to themselves at
a sub-market rate, and called it an investment for your future. And the
deposit account or margin requirements? Pish-posh, it's all backed by
the full faith and credit of the US Government. And don't worry, if
they can't pay you back with your current tax dollars, they can always
increase your taxes to pay you back...and according to Obama, Wall
Street CEOs are the problem...

Sheesh,
R

Bob Weinberger


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

OT: Political, "This is good"
 

On Oct 29, 3:19*pm, wrote:

So when the R's were in power under Newt and Hastard and the Hammer
all those years you were on their case to pony up with a "real trust
fund" right? Like you called them and raised hell and all like that
right? You yelled at em and Bush right? You said now we are in
control, we will fix this thing right? You said "W we all jus got to
fix it." I guess I missed all that effort you put in on this issue the
last 8 years.

Wow. How come it isn't done? How come the deficit tripled?

Dave
Oh, you mean that its up to the Ds to fix it. Again.
Sheeeech. You guys need to spend less time spinning and more time
doing.

OT: Political, "This is good"
 

On Oct 29, 2:31*pm, "Bob Weinberger" wrote:

Well I agree, The inflow needs to be increased, rebalanced well before
2038. And, the current surpluses do need to be credited to the fund.
That will help a little. Or. . . benefits need to be cut to the
sustainable 73% at the current tax rate.

However I do know several friends (my circle of friends is
economically "diverse") who depend on small SS checks now, and from
what I can see in the 2 cohorts behind us, lots of these folks will
need SS also. Frankly the 401k thing has been a disaster for Joe 6Pac
if the studies are correct. I think one major place where money could
be found is in the drug bit (Part C ?), and some form of single payer
reform in medical coverage. The administration of medical insurance is
very flabby now. Ive done some systems and operations improvement work
over the years and it drives me nuts when i go to the hospital and
observe some of the backward way they do things. A lot of it comes
down to management I think..

If I can get a couple of things done here Im going to head over the
mountains to Dayton tomorrow. Finally. I put a camper on the place
and the pigs should be gone. Its early but I want to get things in
shape for later in the year. Any action on the DJ yet? I am bound and
determined to catch steelhead this year, or at least before I start to
drool. %+))

Dave

Dave

OT: Political, "This is good"
 

On Oct 29, 3:36*pm, "Bob Weinberger" wrote:
SNIP
He just likes to say words like "Geez" and "innertube" and "come in
your mouth." Its a Yalie thing I guess. It's not personal, just
obnoxious.

He is right about the in/out/fund movements/interest etc. But it
doesn't change the basic outline. ie that the demographic trends make
the present pay as you go system untenable at the current tax rates,
and wouldn't it be loverly if the surpluses over the years had not
been put into the general funds, where Congress and the Pres spent it.

Where each of us is more likely to part company is what should be
done. I do believe the next admin and Congress should and will make
some changes.

Dave

This is good
 

On Oct 27, 5:21*pm, DaveS wrote:
On Oct 25, 3:07*pm, "



wrote:

The SSI system is and always has been an entitlement/welfare system
masquerading as a retirement system. *It is probably by far the
largest accounting gimmick of all time, with the social left and
right, each for its own reasons, pretending that payments represent
some sort of investment with some sort of future return, while
presidents and congresses from Nixon's time on have used the payments
to hide the true extent of their spending deficits. *Anyone counting
on, or assuming that they are "owed," any sort of decent future SSI
payments upon retirement 10-15 years out is likely to be sorely
disappointed. *Eventually people will catch on, maybe, forcing a
dialogue about the fundamental issue of entitlement for the elderly,
but until then we'll continue to have these surreal whatifs tossed at
us. * Personally I believe that we should provide a base income to the
elderly, inversely indexed to other retirement income, but I don't
assume or expect to receive much of it, if any.- Hide quoted text -

Well before you get to expound you ought to know that SSI stands for
SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME. It is NOT the Social Security payments
that people invest in for their retirement. Like lots of folks,
(mostly men because the truth is that most men know **** about
schools, medical insurance or Social Security)who talk of what they
THINK they know about the basic social support infrastructure in this
country, your assumptions are not based on the realities of the fund.

Even if NOTHING were done to increase money flowing INTO the fund, OR
cut benefits OUT of the fund, folks paying into the fund now would get
at least 70% of the promised benefit.
Your "assumptions" cost the brokerage industry something like $400
million in propaganda to plant that false perception in American
minds. It is bull****.

Remember that the majority of working Americans 24 months ago
supported the idea of privatizing Social Security. And the majority of
Americans would have seen the value of their individual accounts fall
thru the floor the first day of privatization because the SUPPLY of
equities would have been the same as the day before, AND . . .

. . . they would have lost as mush as half of what remained in their
"privatized individual account" in the last month. The Social Security
fund would have been privatized all right. . . right into the
collapsed stock market. There is no free lunch.

Dave
We were required to stay awake in econ classes at both BYU and the U
of Utah.

Sorry, Dave, I meant to type "SS" instead of "SSI"

I DID NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT "PRIVATIZING" SS.

I'm sure you stayed awake in your econ courses, but while you were
doing that, our congressmen & presidents were staying awake spending
our SS contributions on other things. THERE IS NO FUND, David, it's
an accounting gimmick.

OT: Political, "This is good"
 

On Oct 28, 3:50*pm, DaveS wrote:
As I recall the numbers, without any tax increase or changes, the
Trust Fund will not even be tapped till 2016 by which time it will
have grown to $4 trillion, then we will be paying out more that we
collect from payroll taxes. ....


So what does this $4 trillion "Trust Fund" consist of, Dave?

OT: Political, "This is good"
 

On Oct 30, 12:33*am, DaveS wrote:
On Oct 29, 2:31*pm, "Bob Weinberger" wrote:

Well I agree, The inflow needs to be increased, rebalanced well before
2038. And, the current surpluses do need to be credited to the fund.
That will help a little. Or. . . benefits need to be cut to the
sustainable 73% at the current tax rate.
.....

The last thing we need is for congress and the prez to "save" SS
again.... but I'll bet it will happen in the next few years, it's a
great way to increase general taxes while pretending that they're not.

OT: Political, Social Security etc..
 

On Oct 30, 2:38*am, "
wrote:


Look Greg, I will cut to the chase because I want to get my ass on the
road and Ive got a ways to go.

1. You believe what you believe. I am not going to change what you
believe.
2. Your initial post had more than the initials SSI wrong with it.
3. Do some of the reading, and I will discuss it with you. Although I
hope others do so first.
4. You apparently do not understand the basics. No offense but even
Dean who is not in love with the system apparently on ideological
grounds at least understands how it works. I suggest you go to this
site. . .
www.ssa.gov
then search on "Trust Fund" . Then if you want you can argue with
whoever you want about the non-existence of the Trust Fund(s). But not
me.

I also suggest you check out the CNN/Money , (then retirement) site
for a decent roll up of the real scope of the problem and what it and
OASD means for people in this country.

Good luck and I hope Ive left no hard feelings. Like I said before,
the anti social security propaganda and attempts to paint a crisis
picture have got in the way of a rational people taking a rational
approach to making needed adjustments in the most successful
sustainable retirement system in the Western world.

Dave

OT: Political, "This is good"
 

wrote in message
...
I wouldn't go so far as to say "disparaging" it, but it is incorrect.
There is money out there earning interest and the size is very relevant.
The money via "SS tax" is flowing in all the time, but (essentially) it
immediately flows back out, "loaned" to other budget items/agencies/etc.
as an "investment," therefore, the size is VERY relevant. Some actually
flows back in when some new bureaucrat actually pays attention to this
kind of everyday business stuff and pays down "short-term non-capital
badcompany debt," but it is immediately "loaned" back out again.

Richard, you make a distinction without substance. The size of the Trust
Fund is only relevant in bookeeping terms, i.e. which *government account*
the money is tied to. It still represents a government obligation no matter
which pocket it comes out of. As the current SS obligations grow, there is
less money for Congress to "borrow" to spend on other things. They really
worry about the time when there is no SS surplus and they not only have none
to "borrow", but are obligated to pay money owed to the fund in order to
meet current obligations. That money will need to come from somewhere - e.g.
either reduce SS benefits, increase SS or other (e.g.income) taxes, reduce
other government programs, or increase debt.

Bob Weinberger

* As a side note: During tours at the Pentagon in the Navy Budget Office, I
was constantly amused and appalled at how much time was spent ensuring that
funds were spent from the "proper" accounts relative to the time spent
ensuring that the funds were productively spent on worthwhile projects.


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

OT: Political, "This is good"
 

On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 20:09:58 -0700, "Bob Weinberger"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
I wouldn't go so far as to say "disparaging" it, but it is incorrect.
There is money out there earning interest and the size is very relevant.
The money via "SS tax" is flowing in all the time, but (essentially) it
immediately flows back out, "loaned" to other budget items/agencies/etc.
as an "investment," therefore, the size is VERY relevant. Some actually
flows back in when some new bureaucrat actually pays attention to this
kind of everyday business stuff and pays down "short-term non-capital
badcompany debt," but it is immediately "loaned" back out again.

Richard, you make a distinction without substance. The size of the Trust
Fund is only relevant in bookeeping terms, i.e. which *government account*
the money is tied to.

Er, no. As the tax receipts' input and "investment" occurs constantly,
and the "bonds"/IOUs are at a variety of interest rates and maturity
dates, the size and, generally, scope does matter. Moreover, the money
is out there and earning interest. You may be confusing the money
(principal) _earning_ interest with the interest earned actually being
paid - the interest is being earned daily and bonds are maturing and
interest is being paid to the SSA constantly. The problem is that they
continually lend it back out again to the same and only borrower. Look
at it like this - let's say you own a bank and Bill Gates and Warren
Buffett, your only customers, each deposit 1 million US with your bank.
They then come in and say, "Banker Bob, loan us each a mil at 6%." Sure,
you say. You know they are good for a measly mil so you loan them the
money. And sure enough, in a year they come in and pay you back with
interest. However, they immediately say, "Bob, now loan us 1,060,000 at
6%," and you say, "Um, well, how about letting me keep my interest, but
I'll happily loan you another mil?" "Sorry, nope, we want the
1,060,000," they say and you reluctantly agree, thinking the next year
will be your year. The next year, they pay right on time and clean you
right back out. So, you say, OK, I'll just sell this paper to another
investor, but the guys tell you to read the contracts - you can't
because the IOUs you accepted are "special" and can't be sold, bartered,
or otherwise negotiated.

OK, at what point do you begin to say, "hey, wait a damned minute,
here..." They are still, as of this point, "performing loans," earning
interest and all, but Bob's Bank has jack **** to show for it all.

And then, it really gets good - they come in after several years and
say, "Bob, we've always paid our debts and now, we'd like to borrow 100
mil, but don't worry, we know it's a bigger loan, so we're prepared to
make it worth your while - we'll pay 7%..." And then, it gets even
better. One day, they come in and say, "You know, Bob, we're going to
die eventually, and we'd sure hate to see you stuck, so we're going to
pay you off in full and we're not going to borrow another dime..."
Halle-****in-lu-yahoo, you think! "We've set up 'Trust Funds' and
they'll do all the borrowing, just like us, but better - they'll borrow
5 time as much as we ever did personally" WHAT!?! "Oh, don't worry,
they'll NEVER die - they'll go on being good little borrowers long after
we're all dead...you, too, Bob...and Bob, you really ought to go see our
tailor - it won't do for a prosperous banker like you to be in that same
shiny suit day after day...Bob...you seem to be crying, Bob...why are
you crying, Bob...?"

It still represents a government obligation no matter
which pocket it comes out of. As the current SS obligations grow, there is
less money for Congress to "borrow" to spend on other things.

Er, again, not exactly - it's worse than that, because the borrowing is
in fact earning interest and so, again, the size does matter a great
deal.

They really
worry about the time when there is no SS surplus and they not only have none
to "borrow",

Um, that's not when anyone needs to start worrying...

but are obligated to pay money owed to the fund in order to
meet current obligations.

AHA! _THAT'S_ when the poo is gonna hit the whirler...

That money will need to come from somewhere - e.g.
either reduce SS benefits, increase SS or other (e.g.income) taxes, reduce
other government programs, or increase debt.

Lessee here...**** off AARP and a passel of old folks, **** off welfare
recipients, **** off any number of Government tit-for-tat titsucklers,
or start yelling about taxing "Big Business" and "the rich"...what will
they do, what will they do....I wonder...I wonder...

HTH,
R

Bob Weinberger

* As a side note: During tours at the Pentagon in the Navy Budget Office, I
was constantly amused and appalled at how much time was spent ensuring that
funds were spent from the "proper" accounts relative to the time spent
ensuring that the funds were productively spent on worthwhile projects.


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

OT: Political, "This is good"
 

wrote in message
...
Er, no. As the tax receipts' input and "investment" occurs constantly,
and the "bonds"/IOUs are at a variety of interest rates and maturity
dates, the size and, generally, scope does matter. Moreover, the money
is out there and earning interest. You may be confusing the money
(principal) _earning_ interest with the interest earned actually being
paid - the interest is being earned daily and bonds are maturing and
interest is being paid to the SSA constantly. The problem is that they
continually lend it back out again to the same and only borrower. Look
at it like this - let's say you own a bank and Bill Gates and Warren
Buffett, your only customers, each deposit 1 million US with your bank.
They then come in and say, "Banker Bob, loan us each a mil at 6%." Sure,
you say. You know they are good for a measly mil so you loan them the
money. And sure enough, in a year they come in and pay you back with
interest. However, they immediately say, "Bob, now loan us 1,060,000 at
6%," and you say, "Um, well, how about letting me keep my interest, but
I'll happily loan you another mil?" "Sorry, nope, we want the
1,060,000," they say and you reluctantly agree, thinking the next year
will be your year. The next year, they pay right on time and clean you
right back out. So, you say, OK, I'll just sell this paper to another
investor, but the guys tell you to read the contracts - you can't
because the IOUs you accepted are "special" and can't be sold, bartered,
or otherwise negotiated.

OK, at what point do you begin to say, "hey, wait a damned minute,
here..." They are still, as of this point, "performing loans," earning
interest and all, but Bob's Bank has jack **** to show for it all.

And then, it really gets good - they come in after several years and
say, "Bob, we've always paid our debts and now, we'd like to borrow 100
mil, but don't worry, we know it's a bigger loan, so we're prepared to
make it worth your while - we'll pay 7%..." And then, it gets even
better. One day, they come in and say, "You know, Bob, we're going to
die eventually, and we'd sure hate to see you stuck, so we're going to
pay you off in full and we're not going to borrow another dime..."
Halle-****in-lu-yahoo, you think! "We've set up 'Trust Funds' and
they'll do all the borrowing, just like us, but better - they'll borrow
5 time as much as we ever did personally" WHAT!?! "Oh, don't worry,
they'll NEVER die - they'll go on being good little borrowers long after
we're all dead...you, too, Bob...and Bob, you really ought to go see our
tailor - it won't do for a prosperous banker like you to be in that same
shiny suit day after day...Bob...you seem to be crying, Bob...why are
you crying, Bob...?"

Your analogy has two fatal flaws.

1. Gates' and Buffet's sources of money come from a different source than my
bank's funds, while SS and the rest of government get their income primarily
from one source - the american taxpayer.

2. Gates and Buffet didn't sign a contract with my deposters that obligates
the bank (and in a sense would also obligate Gates and Buffet) to pay some
of the bank's depositers amounts that are mandated by Gates and Buffet (and
over which I have no real independant control), regardless of whether or not
I have enough new depositers to cover the mandated payouts.

Bob Weinberger


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

OT: Political, "This is good"
 

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:31:36 -0700, "Bob Weinberger"
wrote:


"DaveS" wrote in message
...
As I recall the numbers, without any tax increase or changes, the
Trust Fund will not even be tapped till 2016 by which time it will
have grown to $4 trillion, then we will be paying out more that we
collect from payroll taxes. Then even with no increase in taxes or
changes, we would not spend out the Trust Fund paying full benefits
until 2038. After 2038, again even with NO tax increase or changes,
the payroll taxes collected will pay for 73% of the benefits promised.

snip

Dave

In practical terms, the size of the "Trust Fund" is irrelevant . There is
no
fund of money out there earning interest. Congress has spent that money on
other things and depends on the excess between the inflow of social
security
tax payments and outflow of SS payments to help fund government. The
concern is that that differential is shrinking, and will totally
dissappear
and reverse at some point in the not too distant future (2016?). The money
for both SS payments and that used to run other government requirements
will
need to come from somewhere, either increased debt, increased SS taxes, or
increased taxes of other sources. So while, in theory if in fact a real
trust fund existed, there may be no need to increase SS payroll taxes
before
2038 to maintain SS payments, a source of funds to pay the entitlements
will
need to be found well before then.

Geez, what were they doing, running a sale at Paris Hilton's Skool of
Innertube Modeling or something? The "Trust Fund" isn't a "fund," and
it's Uncle Sugar - there's sure no trust from a fiduciary standpoint
there. What happened, generally, is that Alan Greenspan, in yet another
of his monumental ****ups, recommended an increase in "Social Security"
taxes, supposedly to help create a surplus to fund the mess when
baby-boomers started hitting the roles and the outlay was going to
exceed input. So the tax was increased and sure enough, there was a
surplus - no surprise there. However, instead of actually setting up a
trust account - you know, like a business would be required by law to do
- Congress decided it would be just ducky to create an accounting system
by which the money could be spent. However, strictly on paper, it would
be (basically) managed by the, ahem, the US Dept of the Treasury - you
know, those guys who spend all the other money - who would, ahem,
"invest" it by "loaning" it out to other parts of the Fed in exchange
for cute little IOUs which say they owed, with interest, back to the
SSA. And naturally, they needed a name for this sca, er, scheme - "The
Social Security Trust Fund." The check may be in the mail, but it's
rubber and unfortunately, they already came in your mouth and this will
hurt you more than it does them...

So, let's recap - they took more of your money, lent it to themselves at
a sub-market rate, and called it an investment for your future. And the
deposit account or margin requirements? Pish-posh, it's all backed by
the full faith and credit of the US Government. And don't worry, if
they can't pay you back with your current tax dollars, they can always
increase your taxes to pay you back...and according to Obama, Wall
Street CEOs are the problem...

Sheesh,
R


Actually Greenspan was just continuing tradition. LBJ was the first to
decide that you could promote SS as a retirement system and raised the rates
to get more money for the Federal Government. And I think the Chairman of
the Fed then was William McChesney Martin Jr.

OT: Political, "This is good"
 

On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 23:21:47 -0700, "Bob Weinberger"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
Er, no. As the tax receipts' input and "investment" occurs constantly,
and the "bonds"/IOUs are at a variety of interest rates and maturity
dates, the size and, generally, scope does matter. Moreover, the money
is out there and earning interest. You may be confusing the money
(principal) _earning_ interest with the interest earned actually being
paid - the interest is being earned daily and bonds are maturing and
interest is being paid to the SSA constantly. The problem is that they
continually lend it back out again to the same and only borrower. Look
at it like this - let's say you own a bank and Bill Gates and Warren
Buffett, your only customers, each deposit 1 million US with your bank.
They then come in and say, "Banker Bob, loan us each a mil at 6%." Sure,
you say. You know they are good for a measly mil so you loan them the
money. And sure enough, in a year they come in and pay you back with
interest. However, they immediately say, "Bob, now loan us 1,060,000 at
6%," and you say, "Um, well, how about letting me keep my interest, but
I'll happily loan you another mil?" "Sorry, nope, we want the
1,060,000," they say and you reluctantly agree, thinking the next year
will be your year. The next year, they pay right on time and clean you
right back out. So, you say, OK, I'll just sell this paper to another
investor, but the guys tell you to read the contracts - you can't
because the IOUs you accepted are "special" and can't be sold, bartered,
or otherwise negotiated.

OK, at what point do you begin to say, "hey, wait a damned minute,
here..." They are still, as of this point, "performing loans," earning
interest and all, but Bob's Bank has jack **** to show for it all.

And then, it really gets good - they come in after several years and
say, "Bob, we've always paid our debts and now, we'd like to borrow 100
mil, but don't worry, we know it's a bigger loan, so we're prepared to
make it worth your while - we'll pay 7%..." And then, it gets even
better. One day, they come in and say, "You know, Bob, we're going to
die eventually, and we'd sure hate to see you stuck, so we're going to
pay you off in full and we're not going to borrow another dime..."
Halle-****in-lu-yahoo, you think! "We've set up 'Trust Funds' and
they'll do all the borrowing, just like us, but better - they'll borrow
5 time as much as we ever did personally" WHAT!?! "Oh, don't worry,
they'll NEVER die - they'll go on being good little borrowers long after
we're all dead...you, too, Bob...and Bob, you really ought to go see our
tailor - it won't do for a prosperous banker like you to be in that same
shiny suit day after day...Bob...you seem to be crying, Bob...why are
you crying, Bob...?"

Your analogy has two fatal flaws.

Sorry, no.

1. Gates' and Buffet's sources of money come from a different source than my
bank's funds, while SS and the rest of government get their income primarily
from one source - the american taxpayer.

Nope. I didn't state where their money came from, so you can't state
that it is a different source, but it doesn't matter anyway, but the
biggie is that you didn't read very closely: your bank has no other
funds. They are your only customers, hence the use of the phrase, "your
only customers." And while "the american taxpayer" is the primary
source of the revenue in the general fund, he is not the primary source
of the SSA's funds - remember that employers pay the same rate in FICA,
etc., plus there is income from the Trust Fund workings, etc. (and that
which is paid by individuals as SE Tax doesn't "tip the scales" for a
variety of reasons).

2. Gates and Buffet didn't sign a contract with my deposters that obligates
the bank (and in a sense would also obligate Gates and Buffet) to pay some
of the bank's depositers amounts that are mandated by Gates and Buffet (and
over which I have no real independant control), regardless of whether or not
I have enough new depositers to cover the mandated payouts.

No, they didn't sign your example contract, but it non sequitur because
you have no other depositors to whom you must or in fact could pay
anything, and you do not have "new depositors" - again, see above
your only customers. And while I think you are alluding to an implied
contract with the current and future recipients of contributory "Social
Security," you might wish to refer to your copy of that contract. Don't
have a copy? Well, shoot, that's OK, it really isn't all that much of a
contract...well, unless you're the, um, party of the first part...

And since it was merely an example, I'll let you in on something - if
you wanna be technically correct, it has one REALLY big fatal flaw - you
don't own a bank with Warren and Bill as its only customers...

HTH,
R

Bob Weinberger


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

OT: Political, "This is good"
 

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 23:21:47 -0700, "Bob Weinberger"
wrote:

Your analogy has two fatal flaws.

Sorry, no.

1. Gates' and Buffet's sources of money come from a different source than
my
bank's funds, while SS and the rest of government get their income
primarily
from one source - the american taxpayer.

Nope. I didn't state where their money came from, so you can't state
that it is a different source, but it doesn't matter anyway, but the
biggie is that you didn't read very closely: your bank has no other
funds. They are your only customers, hence the use of the phrase, "your
only customers." And while "the american taxpayer" is the primary
source of the revenue in the general fund, he is not the primary source
of the SSA's funds - remember that employers pay the same rate in FICA,
etc., plus there is income from the Trust Fund workings, etc. (and that
which is paid by individuals as SE Tax doesn't "tip the scales" for a
variety of reasons).

2. Gates and Buffet didn't sign a contract with my deposters that
obligates
the bank (and in a sense would also obligate Gates and Buffet) to pay some
of the bank's depositers amounts that are mandated by Gates and Buffet
(and
over which I have no real independant control), regardless of whether or
not
I have enough new depositers to cover the mandated payouts.

No, they didn't sign your example contract, but it non sequitur because
you have no other depositors to whom you must or in fact could pay
anything, and you do not have "new depositors" - again, see above
your only customers. And while I think you are alluding to an implied
contract with the current and future recipients of contributory "Social
Security," you might wish to refer to your copy of that contract. Don't
have a copy? Well, shoot, that's OK, it really isn't all that much of a
contract...well, unless you're the, um, party of the first part...

And since it was merely an example, I'll let you in on something - if
you wanna be technically correct, it has one REALLY big fatal flaw - you
don't own a bank with Warren and Bill as its only customers...

HTH,
R

Bob Weinberger

Yes I was wrong. Your anagogy doesn't have just two fatal flaws, it has at
least five that make it a very poor analogy of the SS system. Thank you for
doing such a good job of pointing out the other flaws.

Your analogy is only good for pointing out the bookeeping aspects of the
system. The monies we are talking about are all government funds that all
come primarily from the same source (via different mechanisms and vehicles,
but from basically the same source). I was trying to make a point (that you
obviously missed) in my side note in a previous post - when you become
almost solely focused on the accounting/bookeeping of a project/program such
that that aspect becomes the driver of decisions, actual productive
management and decision making of the program/project suffer greatly.

And BTW speaking of not reading carefully, I wrote "the american taxpayer"
not "individual american taxpayers". Any american entity - individuals,
corporations, sole proprietorships, LLC's, etc.- that pays income or social
security taxes, or other taxes disguised as fees or assessments is an
"american taxpayer".

Bob Weinberger


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

OT: Political, Social Security etc..
 

On Oct 30, 1:44*pm, DaveS wrote:
On Oct 30, 2:38*am, "

wrote:

Look Greg, I will cut to the chase because I want to get my ass on the
road and Ive got a ways to go.

1. You believe what you believe. I am not going to change what you
believe.
2. Your initial post had more than the initials SSI wrong with it.
3. Do some of the reading, and I will discuss it with you. Although I
hope others do so first.
4. You apparently do not understand the basics. No offense but even
Dean who is not in love with the system apparently on ideological
grounds at least understands how it works. I suggest you go to this
site. . .
*www.ssa.gov
then search on "Trust Fund" . Then if you want you can argue with
whoever you want about the non-existence of the Trust Fund(s). But not
me.

I also suggest you check out the CNN/Money , (then retirement) site
for a decent roll up of the real scope of the problem and what it and
OASD means for people in this country.

Good luck and I hope Ive left no hard feelings. Like I said before,
the anti social security propaganda and *attempts to paint a crisis
picture have got in the way of a rational people taking a rational
approach to making needed adjustments in the most successful
sustainable retirement system in the Western world.

Dave

So where are these Trust Funds and what do they consist of, Dave? Oil
leases? Real estate? Mutual funds? Gov't bonds???