[News] Gov. Perry propose flat tax.

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Chibibar

GasBandit said:
My question was a little more rhetorical. In theory, the money is "borrowed" via bond - which is supposed to be very secure investment. But I'm not as confident in the government's repayment as I might once have been. Granted, they've not failed to repay a bond yet, but the debt train is an absolute runaway, and in my opinion it's just a matter of time. As my Obama link above showed, apparently the social security "fund" is now entirely bonds with no liquid assets whatsoever. That doesn't strike me as a good thing.
Click to expand...
It is looking bad. sometimes I wonder if WE will ever see it (I got at least 25 years to go) some economic analyst said SS will run out of money before then (prediction varied).

but what are our alternatives?
Privatization - if SS WAS privatize say, 10-20 years ago, it will still be in a slump now since many 401K are hurting (generally suppose to be safer to low level risk and can get REALLY high if you want to)
granted my 403B is hurting now, but I won't be touching it until 20-30 years from now, so it have a chance to recover/grow. they are form of stocks anyways so I won't be losing money until I cash out. BUT people who are retiring NOW is suffering bad. The cash out is poor than it suppose to be. Now of course not everyone is in bad shape. There are some savvy people who cash out earlier before the crash and make it out ok and now invest in something else that is stable, but not everyone is that lucky (hence the major slump)
 
Necronic

Necronic

Staff member
GasBandit said:
Ok, I need some help with this one.
Added at: 11:03

The guy's apparently a professor of economics in Illinois. Your response is to belittle his decal job?
Click to expand...
My response is to point out that there is nothing shocking about his point. It's just a matter of perspective:

-The SS fund invests its money in government bonds
or
-The government borrows money from the SS fund.

He looks at it from the second perspective and then he blares klaxon's because everyone thinks it's the first. Guess what, it's both. I don't disagree that there are serious problems with the long term survivability of the SS fund (since government borrows a LOT from it, and it won't be able to do that in the future.) But that guy doesn't talk like a professor. He talks like a whackjob. And, frankly, it's not surprising he talks like a whackjob when you look at his car.

I will admit that I'm attacking the arguer here, which is a bit lame. But I'm also attacking the argument, which is crap.

My question was a little more rhetorical. In theory, the money is "borrowed" via bond - which is supposed to be very secure investment. But I'm not as confident in the government's repayment as I might once have been. Granted, they've not failed to repay a bond yet, but the debt train is an absolute runaway, and in my opinion it's just a matter of time. As my Obama link above showed, apparently the social security "fund" is now entirely bonds with no liquid assets whatsoever. That doesn't strike me as a good thing.
Click to expand...
I agree with all of that and it's an infinitely more valid/usefull statement than the 2 page article of the other dudes.
 
Necronic

Necronic

Staff member
Heh.

Also, here's a pretty good article on the debate. Basically the guy says "yeah basically SS is a pay as you go system, and the whole 'Trust' concept just deludes people from thinking its pay as you go, but none of that really matters, and the whole SS fund debate really just boils down to government spending vs taxation, where are the reasonable limits?"

http://moneywatch.bnet.com/retireme...ife/the-social-security-trust-fund-myth/2944/

Which is followed by 10 1k word comments from a poster called "AllenWSmithPhD" where he copypastas one of his own article into the comments......
 
Covar

Covar

GasBandit said:
As my Obama link above showed, apparently the social security "fund" is now entirely bonds with no liquid assets whatsoever. That doesn't strike me as a good thing.
Click to expand...
If true someones head should roll. That's just plumb illegal (at least if it was a bank anyway).
 
strawman

strawman

Our bonds were recently downgraded by the major financial advisers anyway. I don't think the SS administration should trust US bonds as highly as they do.
 
Krisken

Krisken

GasBandit said:
Don't even get me started on things the government does that it would be illegal for any private entity to do.
Click to expand...
Don't get me started on things private entities do that they don't get prosecuted for because they make huge donations to government.
 
Necronic

Necronic

Staff member
This has no real bearing on the conversation anymore, but I kept looking into the Allen W Smith guy. Here's what I have found so far:

1) Claims to be Professor of Economics (emeritus) at East Illinois University, retired in 98 after teaching 30 years.

This may be true, but I can't find any record anywhere at that university that includes his name.....which is a bit odd, I would think that, even from the late 90s there would be some internet records. However, on that note, I can't find his name alongside any university (like, referenced on a classes webpage for instance.)

2) I can't find a single journal article by him, but there's a good chance I missed one. Still though, I google-scholared my great uncles name and found the one paper he wrote in the 50s. For 30 years in academia you should be able to find something.

3) Touts his 4 published books. Now....this is the company that published them: http://www.ironwoodpublications.com/ . As far as I can tell this is a publishing company that he set up to publish his own books....For an academic, this is pretty embarassing. Any professor that did this (for subjects within their fields) would be a laughing stock.

Like I said, I realize this has no bearing on the conversation, but I find it *really* interesting......more to come
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top