Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

internetworkers - Re: [internetworkers] Erection (morality and law)

internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: ron thigpen <ron AT fuzzsonic.com>
  • To: "Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/" <internetworkers AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [internetworkers] Erection (morality and law)
  • Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 14:54:34 -0500

Tony Spencer wrote:

How can you set aside "overpayments" when your return on the investment is
approaching negative? Granted, I agree with you that both parties were
idiots when they dipped into the fund over the past few decades.

What investment are you referring to exactly? The gov't has kept out of the equity markets (for good reason!) and are sellers, not buyers of debt.

The trust fund is not invested assets but only a promissory note from the general fund. The return on investment is whatever is specified in those notes. If the rate of return unspecified, or below market rates, then this whole paper shell game has served as an accounting trick to let the gov't borrow from the future at reduced rates.

And if the general fund fails to pay back the SS trust fund, and the trust fund defaults on its obligations, then the whole system has been used as to steal from tomorrows' retirees to fund today's gov't. An Enron-style scandal on a federal scale.

IMHO, the real idea behind privitization is to starve the SS system and shut the whole thing down before the bills come due. Selling the idea that a failure of the system is inevitable is the first step to selling the concept of privitazation. It is up to the citizenry to cry foul and keep the politicians from getting away with this larceny.

--rt





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page