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.

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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 **

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 **

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 **