I didn't say always worse, but a corporation owing the government isn't the same as one government account owing another. A corporation might actually make something and sell it at a profit. The government just taxes for its "profit".
[right][snapback]57786[/snapback][/right]

As somebody who's been complaining about IOUs I can easily agree that too many bonds coming due is a problem, and government bonds are our own IOUs. When government issues a bond to it's own account it isn't backed up by anything. There's no claim against anyone but the government. So the Treasury owes the trust fund, it'll all come out of the taxpayers pocket. So  there's interest? It's still just more IOUs.

The reason I'm for moving toward real accounts is exactly because all this  IOU business is mostly smoke and mirrors. Investing in future tax increases rather than economic growth.
[right][snapback]57763[/snapback][/right]

It's not smoke and mirrors that the politicos have robbed the fund of about 1 1/2 trillion put the farqing money back, real money, like they give Haliburton...fork, bank it ! FICA was taken for SS it was real eff'en money when we sent it in.  The private account nonsense is a grifters game that red inks the country more, does nothing for the SS problem but make it worse, and enriches on the fattest cats on Wall Street.
[right][snapback]57823[/snapback][/right]

There is no SS problem. 
[right][snapback]57824[/snapback][/right]

It's not smoke and mirrors that the politicos have robbed the fund of about 1 1/2 trillion put the farqing money back, real money, like they give Haliburton...fork, bank it ! FICA was taken for SS it was real eff'en money when we sent it in.  The private account nonsense is a grifters game that red inks the country more, does nothing for the SS problem but make it worse, and enriches on the fattest cats on Wall Street.
[right][snapback]57823[/snapback][/right]

It's not smoke and mirrors that the politicos have robbed the fund of about 1 1/2 trillion put the farqing money back, real money, like they give Haliburton...fork, bank it ! FICA was taken for SS it was real eff'en money when we sent it in.  The private account nonsense is a grifters game that red inks the country more, does nothing for the SS problem but make it worse, and enriches on the fattest cats on Wall Street.
[right][snapback]57823[/snapback][/right]

I’ve been watching the State Of The Black Union with Tavis Smiley on C-Span. It seems that Bushie may not be the Savior of The Black community after all.

Seems that most aren’t too pleased about the President’s Social Security plans. Rather than thinking they would get a better deal from the President’s private accounts because they have shorter life spans, they want to ask why they should have shorter lives to begin with.

Some feel the money might be better spent on more health care for the black community.

These cats may be touhger to herd than Bushie thought.
[right][snapback]57881[/snapback][/right]

I’ve been watching the State Of The Black Union with Tavis Smiley on C-Span. It seems that Bushie may not be the Savior of The Black community after all.

Seems that most aren’t too pleased about the President’s Social Security plans. Rather than thinking they would get a better deal from the President’s private accounts because they have shorter life spans, they want to ask why they should have shorter lives to begin with.

Some feel the money might be better spent on more health care for the black community.


[right][snapback]57881[/snapback][/right]

Nobody robbed anything here. It was set up to work the way it works and has been working that way since at least 1983. If SSA cannot invest outside the govenment then the money can only stay inside the government where it can only be spent. Only solutions are to invest it outside the government (many problems there) or not collect an excess amount to begin with.
[right][snapback]57879[/snapback][/right]

That's weak my friend, the FICA money was/has been spent and all that accounts for it is a glorified IOU that  has to be fulfilled by further borrowing. Had the FICA money simply been place in bank accounts since 1983 it would have now been worth twice the now missing 1 ½  trillion, even against Social Security outlays. What we have t here is Enron accounting on a national scale.

The very last place FICA  tax money or any public goods need to be is in stock markets account controlled by friends of the politicians they fund the election of. We have already have, and for FAR too long, too much privatization of federal moneys.
The sad truth is we have “privatization” of the national money supply since 1913 and it’s has been legalized robbery of the country’s assets ever since. The Federal Reserve System is a collection of private banks and not run by the government. The name is, and was meant to be from it’s inception, misleading. The only concession to the Fed being of the government is the appointment of a chairman who for all intents and purposes is not accountable of the remainder of his long term.

While the money supply was still tied to gold and silver there was only so much damage the Fed could do due to that limitation, but with the final demonitization of silver in 1973 it has been running wild.

It’s not that I oppose fiat money, just that the control of that supply of fiat currency should not be in private hands. Hell, the Fed Gets 6% of all new supply just for the privilage of having it delivered from the Treasury’s presses to their vaults. Then they lend that money into the economy according a formula called fractionalized banking(a computed percent of reserve to member for x number of dollars a member bank can lend it to the economy…and is figured to be the amount of actual bills necessary cover all transfers not paper or booking entries) they realize a return based on the total not the fraction of money that they didn’t earn to begin with that was lent into the economy. All of the above is inflationary BTW, doing damage to private savings accounts and those on fixed incomes.

We need to run private banking i.e. the FED, out of the control of the national money supply. We can have have the government provide that service free of fees, OR let the government make the same profits as the Fed, who did nothing to earn it anyway, by loaning it into the economy; you know have a real treasury in charge of the money supply. One way would greatly reduce inflationary trends and the other way could greatly reduce the levels of needed tax money. JFK want to do that, and some say that’s an important part of what got him killed.( you may remember, if your old enough, the red seal US notes, as opposed to Federal Reserve Notes, he had printed for federal housing loans as a start on that project…I have some fives of that printing)

As it stands now all the government does is print money on demand for the Fed which is a collection of private institutions. If we are gong to have fiat money and fractionalized banking let the government realize the profits from it not the reserve (that's a joke) banks.

What I say by all this in privatization of government assets is wrong they are public goods belonging to all the people jointly not to a dieignated few though political shenanigans.
[right][snapback]57921[/snapback][/right]

Not at all. Up front and in full public view the 1983 changes to OASI were very clear. Collect more than SSA needs to pay benefits via OASI payroll taxes and use the excess funds to buy special treasury bonds. Another bad scheme in a seriously flawed OASI program in my opinion but no secret conspiracy. Troting out all your favorite conspiracies does not change the basic facts.
[right][snapback]58227[/snapback][/right]

You're trying to reason with a self-proclaimed John Galt.

One of them, er, immoral elitists. Money is about the only thing that appears to matter with that bunch.


[right][snapback]58267[/snapback][/right]

That's horseshit. Arebuntz is the only person here with a plan that actually tried to give people MORE than poverty level. The fact you didn't understand it isn't his fault. Cram your moral superiority.
[right][snapback]58271[/snapback][/right]

There’s no need to dump on arebuntz just because he demonstrates a knowledge of money and investing. As to his disagreement with Grig, I tend to agree with arebuntz. There are plusses and minuses to a central banking system, and on balance, I think the Fed does more good than harm.
[right][snapback]58273[/snapback][/right]

I wasn't dumping on him, just irritated at being talked down to. I don’t object to the system's structure, if you read closely, just the private ownership. It’s too tempting a thing to place in front of even a saint, let alone ordinary mortals.
[right][snapback]58276[/snapback][/right]

And I object to owning nothing but a government IOU. One that is likely to be paid off at only 70%. The government is the one that gave in to temptation and spent SS funds while only leaving behind IOUs.
[right][snapback]58278[/snapback][/right]

That's horseshit. Arebuntz is the only person here with a plan that actually tried to give people MORE than poverty level. The fact you didn't understand it isn't his fault. Cram your moral superiority.
[right][snapback]58271[/snapback][/right]

Good, then instead of the several trillions the Bush so called reform wants to borrow for his scheme and from future as debt,  just borrow the One and a half trillion missing from the SS accounts to replace the phoney IOUs and place that money it in banking accounts at interest, and all future FICA taxes in the same accounts keeping it from the general fund... problem solved…and much more cheaply for the national treasury, OF course the salivating speculators who back Bush will be disappointed, but fork them.

And for the umpteenth time Bush program does nothing for the solvency of the program which they will destroy by their course of action, and know they will. His plan is a confidence game.
.
[right][snapback]58279[/snapback][/right]

I'm not the one proclaiming superiority. That would be arebuntz.

As for the 120% of poverty, I don't see his plan as doing anything for anyone but rich bankers YMMV
[right][snapback]58280[/snapback][/right]

Even as I acknowledge AV's concern, I agree with Grig that the President's plan is a con game, a poor shadow of the sytem that AV would like.
[right][snapback]58281[/snapback][/right]

Arebuntz doesn't support the Bush plan. He has worked hard to propose his own approach that focuses on the poorest among us with benefits paid by the wealthiest among us. To no avail, of course.
[right][snapback]58283[/snapback][/right]

Your mileage varies.

[shrug]
[right][snapback]58287[/snapback][/right]

I'm not the one proclaiming superiority. That would be arebuntz.

As for the 120% of poverty, I don't see his plan as doing anything for anyone but rich bankers YMMV
[right][snapback]58280[/snapback][/right]

I haven't seen anything as an actual plan. ON MTP they were discussing SS as if almost everything were on the table. I know one thing, the old plan was doomed from the start. And the same goes for medicare and medicaid.  And nobody wants to discuss them because of the demographics of voting.
[right][snapback]58285[/snapback][/right]

Your mileage varies.

[shrug]
[right][snapback]58287[/snapback][/right]

What favorite conspiracies? Is this incessant “conspiracy” whining just a reflex action to inconvenient remarks, or what ?

What I mentioned is hardly a state secrete or a dark plot, nor is the fact that a good number of people don't care for the current setup. I have followed the history of money and banking in this country from the Hamilton/Jefferson positions forward. I’ve looked Murray Rothbard’s and others analysis of the panic of 1819 and “panics” in general.

I’ve studied the great controversies of the Jacksonian ie Jackson’s struggle with Nicolas Biddle and the National Bank; Lincoln’s stumping for Zachary Taylor (who BTW was a matrilineal Grandfather of mine) promising a National bank to replace the “pet” state banks.

I am familiar with Martin van Buren’s Independent Treasury System
which the only legally recognizable money was gold and silver coins and all currency was redeemable in specie on demand and was a true deregulated system and of which Jeffrey Hummel and Timberlake write was optmial and the most stable system the country has ever enjoyed. I know the reasons Lincoln opposed it and the problems his 1862 Legal Tender Act which authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to issue paper money (that’s where the term “greenbacks” come from) that was not redeemable in gold or silver caused.

I have followed the issue the past civil war into Guided Age, the Progressive’s revolt against the gold standard; the history of founding of the Fed and it’ effects on the Great Depression; banking and banking regulatory laws in the  Roosevelt era and into my own life time, where I've made an attempt to follow the matter. 

I think I'm entitled to advance some opinions on the matter without meeting the worthless and meaningless "conspiracy" canard, some keep handy thinking it somehow dsiplays a more informed position on any situation they chose whitewash with it. It really been so over used of late (conspiracy baiting) it has become a calling card.

Go tend to you investments, you’re wasting my time…
[right][snapback]58255[/snapback][/right]

Pay attention now. My plan has nothing to do with individual accounts. I would pay everyone who qualifies for OASI a monthly benefit of 120% of poverty. Nobody on OASI would be below 120% let alone below poverty.

I will say again, there are more options than just individual accounts or nothing.
[right][snapback]58318[/snapback][/right]

Your odometer appears non functional.
[right][snapback]58320[/snapback][/right]

The SSA DI Trust Fund cashes in all of its bonds beofre the end of the decade as well. Turns out OASI is in the best shape, finance wise, of all of them, and that is damning with feint praise.
[right][snapback]58319[/snapback][/right]

operative words--who qualifies.

John Galt decides?

No Thank you.
[right][snapback]58322[/snapback][/right]

Who is eligible for retirement

If you were born in 1929 or later, you need to have worked for at least 10 years to be eligible for retirement benefits. If you're eligible for retirement benefits, some members of your family also can receive benefits.

Same rules as today of course. You really go to a lot of effort to be so dense.
[right][snapback]58330[/snapback][/right]

I think it comes natural.  When an "artiste" tries to talk finance, science, etc it just happens.
[right][snapback]58332[/snapback][/right]

Them graphic artists don't seem to be doing bee any good.
[right][snapback]58333[/snapback][/right]

Same rules as today of course. You really go to a lot of effort to be so dense.
[right][snapback]58330[/snapback][/right]

Simple question:

Are dollars received as FICA taxes each year spent each year for other uses than Social Security program disbursements yes or no?

Id say they are since we never spend less than we take in plus a wad of red ink, and those FICA dollars are being treated as general fund.

Now if the FICA acquired dollars are spent outside the SS system, how can they be spent for/into a OASI Trust Fund? You got a way to spend money and still have it to spend again? Seems to me the FICA dollars in excess of SS outlays are spent and have to be borrowed to be replaced.
[right][snapback]58338[/snapback][/right]

Of course? I'm not dense at all. I'm just no fool. Your plan is based on the same SSI we have now? Of course it isn't.

The fact is all that needs to be done is to up the caps. No complex rewriting of rules or letting Wall Street get their grubby paws on OASI investments.

Sorry, no sale. Not with you, at any rate. Your plan stinks like snake oil, and you're about as convincing a salesman as an oldtime bunkshooter.
[right][snapback]58337[/snapback][/right]

Ah yes, continue to tax the poorest workers and least profitable small businesses via the most regressive tax imaginable. Continue to send the largest OASI benefit checks to the wealthiest seniors while 10% of seniors live below and absurdly low poverty line. Your compasion for those less fortunate brings a tear to my eye. Your gonna get you big fat OASI check though. Anyone want cake?
[right][snapback]58349[/snapback][/right]

If it is so absurdly low. Why do you want to keep it the same? Once again you are showing that you are not exactly kosher in your motivations. That is why your plan is so silly. It makes no sense.

As far as introducing personal attacks, you have no peer.
[right][snapback]58351[/snapback][/right]

Simple question:

Are dollars received as FICA taxes each year spent each year for other uses than Social Security program disbursements yes or no?

Id say they are since we never spend less than we take in plus a wad of red ink, and those FICA dollars are being treated as general fund.

Now if the FICA acquired dollars are spent outside the SS system, how can they be spent for/into a OASI Trust Fund? You got a way to spend money and still have it to spend again? Seems to me the FICA dollars in excess of SS outlays are spent and have to be borrowed to be replaced.
[right][snapback]58338[/snapback][/right]

If it is so absurdly low. Why do you want to keep it the same? Once again you are showing that you are not exactly kosher in your motivations. That is why your plan is so silly. It makes no sense.

As far as introducing personal attacks, you have no peer.
[right][snapback]58351[/snapback][/right]

Absolutely, per the plan established in 1983 to collect considerably more in OASI payroll taxes than is required to pay benefits. The excess revenue is used to buy the special treasury bonds which are placed in the OASI Trust Fund. The money to pay for the special treasury bonds is sent the the Treasury in exchange. The treasury spends the revenue on other parts of government. Designed to work that way, works that way, no secrets there.

Another way to look at it of course is todays worker is paying excess OASI payroll taxes and those dollars are being used to provide government services to those same workers. In addition, they are also being used to buy the special treasury bonds that will be cashed in down the road (thanks to their kids then current taxes) with interest to pay for the todays worker future OASI benefits.

I would eliminate the OASI payroll tax and fund OASI out of the general fund with a borad economy tax with refund mechanism so the poor pay no Federal taxes and a high income progressive income tax so the wealthy do.
[right][snapback]58354[/snapback][/right]

WTF?  How can this Bee get any denser? 
[right][snapback]58352[/snapback][/right]

High compresion would work.
[right][snapback]58358[/snapback][/right]

Sure. A "refund" in what? Food stamps?

We have a 'progressive' income tax now.

I paid more taxes than Bush did last year.

Let's do that. Sure. Why not? Another scheme to screw the middle class who will end up paying for everything.
[right][snapback]58357[/snapback][/right]

Where is your head anyway? On the income tax, give every taxpayer a $50K personal exemption and tax all income with a progressive set of rates between 5% and 50% with 5% steps for every 50K of so. Couple making $100K pays no income tax. Poor pay no income tax. For the economy tax, send every citizen a monthly benefit of economy tax rate X monthly 120$ of poverty. Up to 120% of poverty pay no econmy tax. Anything else I can help you with?
[right][snapback]58362[/snapback][/right]