Homestead mailing list

[Clansgian AT wmconnect.com]

tvoivozd AT infionline.net writes:


> ---but it will not
> selectively cancel existing bonds which all other bondholders would 
> interpret as forerunner of default on their bonds.. 
> 

Of course it won't.  Saying so is simply the antithesis of notion that that 
because SS benefits are backed by the taxing power of the US government, the 
benefits will go on unabated no matter what right until the US goes bankrupt. 
 
Both scenarios are equally unlikely.  But recognizing that the Congress HAS 
the 
power to ignore the IOU's if it likes, how much more then does it have the 
power to severely modify those IOU's without appearing on the surface to 
compromise them?  

For example, what if someone had retired in, say, 1955.  Would they 
necessarily have expected on SS to maintian a car, have air conditioning in 
their 
house, been able to afford twelve prescription drugs, expected to have 
convenience 
food available for them, cable television (wide screen)?  The reason they 
would not is that those things weren't givens back then.  Some didn't even 
exist.  
 No one expected them.  Fact is, if all seniors lived as seniors lived back 
in 1955 (say), the SS payment they receive now would look like a lot of 
money.  
What people consider the necessities is going up all the time.  What I expect 
to see is SS continuing pretty much it is now, but it will buy less and less 
of what is considered a minimal standard of living.  Then the government 
could 
say, "Hey, we've kept our promise!  Just because what we promised isn't worth 
anything anymore isn't something we promised, is it?"

7th