A report from the Congressional Budget Office shows that for the first time
in 25 years, Social Security is taking in less in taxes than it is spending
on benefits.Instead of helping to finance the rest of the government, as it
has done for decades, our nation's biggest social program needs help from
the Treasury to keep benefit checks from bouncing -- in other words, a
taxpayer bailout.

Social Security will be $28 billion in the hole this fiscal year, which ends
Sept. 30.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/news...tune/index.htm

Exporting jobs finally shows results...............

Best Regards
Tom.

On 2010-02-05, azotic wrote:
A report from the Congressional Budget Office shows that for the first time
in 25 years, Social Security is taking in less in taxes than it is spending
on benefits.Instead of helping to finance the rest of the government, as it
has done for decades, our nation's biggest social program needs help from
the Treasury to keep benefit checks from bouncing -- in other words, a
taxpayer bailout.

Social Security will be $28 billion in the hole this fiscal year, which ends
Sept. 30.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/news...tune/index.htm

Exporting jobs finally shows results...............

Tom, Republicans were always in support of "free trade", which is
associated with exporting jobs.

I also support "free trade", by the way, even though I voted for
Obama.

The reality is that, given our free trade treaty obligations and the
capitalist system, there is very little that we can do to prevent jobs
going to the lowest suitable builder.

So some impoverished villagers in India bid $3/day to make cheap vises
and poison their own environment, and guess what, that's where the job
goes and we cannot do much about it.

Those villagers cannot bid $3/day to build airplanes, so these jobs
still stay in the US.

It is not free trade that causes our problems, it is excessive
borrowing.

i

azotic wrote:
A report from the Congressional Budget Office shows that for the
first time in 25 years, Social Security is taking in less in taxes
than it is spending on benefits.Instead of helping to finance the
rest of the government, as it has done for decades, our nation's
biggest social program needs help from the Treasury to keep benefit
checks from bouncing -- in other words, a taxpayer bailout.

Social Security will be $28 billion in the hole this fiscal year,
which ends Sept. 30.


http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/news...tune/index.htm

Exporting jobs finally shows results...............

Hey Tom, this was known to be on the horizon.
The Treasury doesn't need to help anyone because the huge surplus's will now
be used, as intended, to cover benefit payments.
The downturn in our economy has certainly reduced revenues, and that needs
to be adressed but SS will NEVER, and isn't able to borrow money. Taxes can
go up and benefit payments can be reduced but that's about it.


--
John R. Carroll

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
azotic wrote:
A report from the Congressional Budget Office shows that for the
first time in 25 years, Social Security is taking in less in taxes
than it is spending on benefits.Instead of helping to finance the
rest of the government, as it has done for decades, our nation's
biggest social program needs help from the Treasury to keep benefit
checks from bouncing -- in other words, a taxpayer bailout.

Social Security will be $28 billion in the hole this fiscal year,
which ends Sept. 30.


http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/news...tune/index.htm

Exporting jobs finally shows results...............

Hey Tom, this was known to be on the horizon.
The Treasury doesn't need to help anyone because the huge surplus's will
now
be used, as intended, to cover benefit payments.
The downturn in our economy has certainly reduced revenues, and that needs
to be adressed but SS will NEVER, and isn't able to borrow money. Taxes
can
go up and benefit payments can be reduced but that's about it.


--
John R. Carroll

Agreed, my intrest is in finding data that gives a clear picture of how much
revenue
in the form fica and medicare taxes is being lost due to exporting jobs, i
havent been
able to find any data and am wondering if anyone is even tracking it.

Best Regards
Tom.

"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Hey Tom, this was known to be on the horizon.
The Treasury doesn't need to help anyone because the huge surplus's will now
be used, as intended, to cover benefit payments.
The downturn in our economy has certainly reduced revenues, and that needs
to be adressed but SS will NEVER, and isn't able to borrow money. Taxes can
go up and benefit payments can be reduced but that's about it.

Are those the FICA taxes? As in making withdrawls from my 401K that has defered income
taxes only subject to the income tax?

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

Wes wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Hey Tom, this was known to be on the horizon.
The Treasury doesn't need to help anyone because the huge surplus's
will now be used, as intended, to cover benefit payments.
The downturn in our economy has certainly reduced revenues, and that
needs to be adressed but SS will NEVER, and isn't able to borrow
money. Taxes can go up and benefit payments can be reduced but
that's about it.

Are those the FICA taxes? As in making withdrawls from my 401K that
has defered income taxes only subject to the income tax?


I suppose. Disbursements from your 401K are hardly tax free, however, if you
make them early.
There was talk last year of passing a law to allow 401K distributions tax
free in distressed situations ut it didn't go anywhere.

Hey Wes, one other alternative is to do what Ronald Reagan did and delay the
onset of benefit payments to an older age.


--
John R. Carroll

"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Hey Wes, one other alternative is to do what Ronald Reagan did and delay the
onset of benefit payments to an older age.

You know that one is coming. Reagan (R) and Tip O'Neal (D) cut a deal on that one.


Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

Wes wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Hey Wes, one other alternative is to do what Ronald Reagan did and
delay the onset of benefit payments to an older age.

You know that one is coming. Reagan (R) and Tip O'Neal (D) cut a
deal on that one.

What's most likely coming is growth of the work force.
Neither taxes or benefits paid are particularly out of line as far as SS is
concerned.
What's whacky is the ratio of old farts not working to whipper snappers like
you who are.

--
John R. Carroll

azotic wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
azotic wrote:
A report from the Congressional Budget Office shows that for the
first time in 25 years, Social Security is taking in less in taxes
than it is spending on benefits.Instead of helping to finance the
rest of the government, as it has done for decades, our nation's
biggest social program needs help from the Treasury to keep benefit
checks from bouncing -- in other words, a taxpayer bailout.

Social Security will be $28 billion in the hole this fiscal year,
which ends Sept. 30.



http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/news...tune/index.htm

Exporting jobs finally shows results...............

Hey Tom, this was known to be on the horizon.
The Treasury doesn't need to help anyone because the huge surplus's
will now
be used, as intended, to cover benefit payments.
The downturn in our economy has certainly reduced revenues, and that
needs to be adressed but SS will NEVER, and isn't able to borrow
money. Taxes can
go up and benefit payments can be reduced but that's about it.


--
John R. Carroll

Agreed, my intrest is in finding data that gives a clear picture of
how much revenue
in the form fica and medicare taxes is being lost due to exporting
jobs, i havent been
able to find any data and am wondering if anyone is even tracking it.

Huntress might have some idea. One thing you'd have to do is look at the
number of jobs exports create as an offset.
You can't just say revenues are down because jobs have been lost through
trade policy.
The actual number of jobs is a lot less important that the tax base erosion.
The US is probably looking at a net gain.
You'd probably be surprised at that number. It's large.

Manufacturing exports, for instance, have risen prety steadily.

--
John R. Carroll

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
azotic wrote:
A report from the Congressional Budget Office shows that for the
first time in 25 years, Social Security is taking in less in taxes
than it is spending on benefits.Instead of helping to finance the
rest of the government, as it has done for decades, our nation's
biggest social program needs help from the Treasury to keep benefit
checks from bouncing -- in other words, a taxpayer bailout.

Social Security will be $28 billion in the hole this fiscal year,
which ends Sept. 30.


http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/news...tune/index.htm

Exporting jobs finally shows results...............

Hey Tom, this was known to be on the horizon.
The Treasury doesn't need to help anyone because the huge surplus's will
now
be used, as intended, to cover benefit payments.
The downturn in our economy has certainly reduced revenues, and that needs
to be adressed but SS will NEVER, and isn't able to borrow money. Taxes
can
go up and benefit payments can be reduced but that's about it.


--
John R. Carroll



SS can not borrow money, but they can require the General Fund of the US
government to start repaying the IOU's it gave SSA for all the extra money
that SS had over the years. Unfortunately that money has already been blown
by Congress, so we will get tax increases to pay back the money they
borrowed from the taxpayers.

"Bill McKee" wrote:

SS can not borrow money, but they can require the General Fund of the US
government to start repaying the IOU's it gave SSA for all the extra money
that SS had over the years. Unfortunately that money has already been blown
by Congress, so we will get tax increases to pay back the money they
borrowed from the taxpayers.


I knew my 401K was at risk.

"That's some catch, that Catch-22," Yossarian observed.
"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

Bill McKee wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
azotic wrote:
A report from the Congressional Budget Office shows that for the
first time in 25 years, Social Security is taking in less in taxes
than it is spending on benefits.Instead of helping to finance the
rest of the government, as it has done for decades, our nation's
biggest social program needs help from the Treasury to keep benefit
checks from bouncing -- in other words, a taxpayer bailout.

Social Security will be $28 billion in the hole this fiscal year,
which ends Sept. 30.



http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/news...tune/index.htm

Exporting jobs finally shows results...............

Hey Tom, this was known to be on the horizon.
The Treasury doesn't need to help anyone because the huge surplus's
will now
be used, as intended, to cover benefit payments.
The downturn in our economy has certainly reduced revenues, and that
needs to be adressed but SS will NEVER, and isn't able to borrow
money. Taxes can
go up and benefit payments can be reduced but that's about it.



SS can not borrow money, but they can require the General Fund of the
US government to start repaying the IOU's it gave SSA for all the
extra money that SS had over the years.

No, they can't.
They can't require anything.
See my response to Wes.


--
John R. Carroll

"azotic" wrote in message
...

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
azotic wrote:
A report from the Congressional Budget Office shows that for the
first time in 25 years, Social Security is taking in less in taxes
than it is spending on benefits.Instead of helping to finance the
rest of the government, as it has done for decades, our nation's
biggest social program needs help from the Treasury to keep benefit
checks from bouncing -- in other words, a taxpayer bailout.

Social Security will be $28 billion in the hole this fiscal year,
which ends Sept. 30.


http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/news...tune/index.htm

Exporting jobs finally shows results...............

Hey Tom, this was known to be on the horizon.
The Treasury doesn't need to help anyone because the huge surplus's will
now
be used, as intended, to cover benefit payments.
The downturn in our economy has certainly reduced revenues, and that
needs
to be adressed but SS will NEVER, and isn't able to borrow money. Taxes
can
go up and benefit payments can be reduced but that's about it.


--
John R. Carroll

Agreed, my intrest is in finding data that gives a clear picture of how
much revenue
in the form fica and medicare taxes is being lost due to exporting jobs, i
havent been
able to find any data and am wondering if anyone is even tracking it.

Best Regards
Tom.

You really won't find any data, Tom. What you'll find is endless arguments.

This happens to be exactly what I'm working on right now. Based on my first
attempt to track this down around five years ago, my guess is that it will
take me at least six or seven months of steady research before I have
anything worth saying about it -- and I know I won't have a clear answer,
even then.

The issue is the net effect, in terms of jobs, types of jobs, and incomes
going both ways.

--
Ed Huntress

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
azotic wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
azotic wrote:
A report from the Congressional Budget Office shows that for the
first time in 25 years, Social Security is taking in less in taxes
than it is spending on benefits.Instead of helping to finance the
rest of the government, as it has done for decades, our nation's
biggest social program needs help from the Treasury to keep benefit
checks from bouncing -- in other words, a taxpayer bailout.

Social Security will be $28 billion in the hole this fiscal year,
which ends Sept. 30.



http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/news...tune/index.htm

Exporting jobs finally shows results...............

Hey Tom, this was known to be on the horizon.
The Treasury doesn't need to help anyone because the huge surplus's
will now
be used, as intended, to cover benefit payments.
The downturn in our economy has certainly reduced revenues, and that
needs to be adressed but SS will NEVER, and isn't able to borrow
money. Taxes can
go up and benefit payments can be reduced but that's about it.


--
John R. Carroll

Agreed, my intrest is in finding data that gives a clear picture of
how much revenue
in the form fica and medicare taxes is being lost due to exporting
jobs, i havent been
able to find any data and am wondering if anyone is even tracking it.

Huntress might have some idea. One thing you'd have to do is look at the
number of jobs exports create as an offset.
You can't just say revenues are down because jobs have been lost through
trade policy.
The actual number of jobs is a lot less important that the tax base
erosion.
The US is probably looking at a net gain.
You'd probably be surprised at that number. It's large.

Manufacturing exports, for instance, have risen prety steadily.

--
John R. Carroll

The subject is a killer. There really isn't any clear data. There are lots
of anecdotes, but not enough to give you the big picture. Not even many
little ones, except in isolation.

--
Ed Huntress

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
azotic wrote:
A report from the Congressional Budget Office shows that for the
first time in 25 years, Social Security is taking in less in taxes
than it is spending on benefits.Instead of helping to finance the
rest of the government, as it has done for decades, our nation's
biggest social program needs help from the Treasury to keep benefit
checks from bouncing -- in other words, a taxpayer bailout.

Social Security will be $28 billion in the hole this fiscal year,
which ends Sept. 30.


http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/news...tune/index.htm

Exporting jobs finally shows results...............

Hey Tom, this was known to be on the horizon.
The Treasury doesn't need to help anyone because the huge surplus's will
now
be used, as intended, to cover benefit payments.
The downturn in our economy has certainly reduced revenues, and that
needs
to be adressed but SS will NEVER, and isn't able to borrow money. Taxes
can
go up and benefit payments can be reduced but that's about it.


--
John R. Carroll



SS can not borrow money, but they can require the General Fund of the US
government to start repaying the IOU's it gave SSA for all the extra money
that SS had over the years. Unfortunately that money has already been
blown by Congress, so we will get tax increases to pay back the money they
borrowed from the taxpayers.

But there never was any place to *store* the money. Everyone knew from the
start that this is how it would work. That's why many of us laugh when we
hear about the "trust fund."

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

But there never was any place to *store* the money. Everyone knew from the
start that this is how it would work. That's why many of us laugh when we
hear about the "trust fund."


And some of us are outraged that our federal government misrepresented how FICA was used
to finance a government that had un-sound financial policies.

I'm only p*ss*ed, I knew the screw was on for a long, long time.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
azotic wrote:
A report from the Congressional Budget Office shows that for the
first time in 25 years, Social Security is taking in less in taxes
than it is spending on benefits.Instead of helping to finance the
rest of the government, as it has done for decades, our nation's
biggest social program needs help from the Treasury to keep benefit
checks from bouncing -- in other words, a taxpayer bailout.

Social Security will be $28 billion in the hole this fiscal year,
which ends Sept. 30.



http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/news...tune/index.htm

Exporting jobs finally shows results...............

Hey Tom, this was known to be on the horizon.
The Treasury doesn't need to help anyone because the huge surplus's
will now
be used, as intended, to cover benefit payments.
The downturn in our economy has certainly reduced revenues, and that
needs
to be adressed but SS will NEVER, and isn't able to borrow money.
Taxes can
go up and benefit payments can be reduced but that's about it.


--
John R. Carroll



SS can not borrow money, but they can require the General Fund of
the US government to start repaying the IOU's it gave SSA for all
the extra money that SS had over the years. Unfortunately that
money has already been blown by Congress, so we will get tax
increases to pay back the money they borrowed from the taxpayers.

But there never was any place to *store* the money. Everyone knew
from the start that this is how it would work. That's why many of us
laugh when we hear about the "trust fund."

Yeah, it isn't even a drawer.
Somewhere on a computer there is a file recording movement od dollars from
column A to column B and back again.

--
John R. Carroll

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

But there never was any place to *store* the money. Everyone knew from the
start that this is how it would work. That's why many of us laugh when we
hear about the "trust fund."


And some of us are outraged that our federal government misrepresented how
FICA was used
to finance a government that had un-sound financial policies.

I'm only p*ss*ed, I knew the screw was on for a long, long time.

Wes

With all due respect, Wes, they never hid how it works. People just didn't
pay attention. This was all thoroughly explained and vetted back in the
'80s, when Greenspan was selling an increase in the FICA rate to Congress.

This is a complicated government. Its finances work astoundingly well, and
it's not at all hard to understand the basics. But most people don't bother
to look into it, and wind up being suspicious and paranoid about the whole
thing.

There are so many cheap-shot ways to criticize it that Congress generally
keeps pretty quiet about it. But they don't hide it. That's unfortunate in
several ways, one of which we're paying for now: it's given the Tea Partiers
a whole string of cheap-shot arguments.

I'm sure that most of them don't know how it all works. And they're counting
on most of the country not knowing how it works. That's how they get people
worked up and angry -- by selling them a bunch of baloney, playing on their
suspicions and their lack of understanding. That's what creates paranoia.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

But there never was any place to *store* the money. Everyone knew
from the start that this is how it would work. That's why many of
us laugh when we hear about the "trust fund."


And some of us are outraged that our federal government
misrepresented how FICA was used
to finance a government that had un-sound financial policies.

I'm only p*ss*ed, I knew the screw was on for a long, long time.

Wes

With all due respect, Wes, they never hid how it works. People just
didn't pay attention. This was all thoroughly explained and vetted
back in the '80s, when Greenspan was selling an increase in the FICA
rate to Congress.

This is a complicated government. Its finances work astoundingly
well, and it's not at all hard to understand the basics. But most
people don't bother to look into it, and wind up being suspicious and
paranoid about the whole thing.

There are so many cheap-shot ways to criticize it that Congress
generally keeps pretty quiet about it. But they don't hide it. That's
unfortunate in several ways, one of which we're paying for now: it's
given the Tea Partiers a whole string of cheap-shot arguments.

I'm sure that most of them don't know how it all works. And they're
counting on most of the country not knowing how it works. That's how
they get people worked up and angry -- by selling them a bunch of
baloney, playing on their suspicions and their lack of understanding.
That's what creates paranoia.

My Mom and I are watching Beck every evening. It's becoming a sort of past
time.
She actually records his and Smith's daily broadcasts so we can watch it
together.
LOL
A couple of days ago Beck displayed and then explained his "Debt Clock".
He got a bunch of stuff right and then at the end added that the US had an
unfunded liability of $75 Trillion dollars.
Yep, you guessed it - Social Security. I paused the playback and explained
how rediculous this was and also that it just isn't, and couldn't be, true.
She got it right away, especially the part about either raising taxes or
reducing benefits to correct any imbalance.

OK, she's an MLS from Michigan State but if a woman in her 80's suffering
from the early symptoms of either senile dementia or Ahlziemer'scan wrap her
head around the actual truth, anyone ought to be able to do the same.
Apparently, Glenn Beck, Wes and a huge percentage of the population are
unable to be as rational as my 80 something mother.

--
John R. Carroll

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...



Agreed, my intrest is in finding data that gives a clear picture of how
much revenue
in the form fica and medicare taxes is being lost due to exporting jobs,
i havent been
able to find any data and am wondering if anyone is even tracking it.

Best Regards
Tom.

You really won't find any data, Tom. What you'll find is endless
arguments.

This happens to be exactly what I'm working on right now. Based on my
first attempt to track this down around five years ago, my guess is that
it will take me at least six or seven months of steady research before I
have anything worth saying about it -- and I know I won't have a clear
answer, even then.

The issue is the net effect, in terms of jobs, types of jobs, and incomes
going both ways.

--
Ed Huntress


you saying that ed makes me wonder if ANYBODY knows, if this is yet another
massive uncontrolled experiment. they were just going on ideology when they
started this instead of having any idea how it was going to turn out.

b.w.

William Wixon wrote:


you saying that ed makes me wonder if ANYBODY knows, if this is yet another
massive uncontrolled experiment. they were just going on ideology when they
started this instead of having any idea how it was going to turn out.

b.w.




Kinda scary, isn't it...

--

Richard Lamb

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
...

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
azotic wrote:
A report from the Congressional Budget Office shows that for the
first time in 25 years, Social Security is taking in less in taxes
than it is spending on benefits.Instead of helping to finance the
rest of the government, as it has done for decades, our nation's
biggest social program needs help from the Treasury to keep benefit
checks from bouncing -- in other words, a taxpayer bailout.

Social Security will be $28 billion in the hole this fiscal year,
which ends Sept. 30.



http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/news...tune/index.htm

Exporting jobs finally shows results...............

Hey Tom, this was known to be on the horizon.
The Treasury doesn't need to help anyone because the huge surplus's
will now
be used, as intended, to cover benefit payments.
The downturn in our economy has certainly reduced revenues, and that
needs
to be adressed but SS will NEVER, and isn't able to borrow money.
Taxes can
go up and benefit payments can be reduced but that's about it.


--
John R. Carroll



SS can not borrow money, but they can require the General Fund of
the US government to start repaying the IOU's it gave SSA for all
the extra money that SS had over the years. Unfortunately that
money has already been blown by Congress, so we will get tax
increases to pay back the money they borrowed from the taxpayers.

But there never was any place to *store* the money. Everyone knew
from the start that this is how it would work. That's why many of us
laugh when we hear about the "trust fund."

Yeah, it isn't even a drawer.
Somewhere on a computer there is a file recording movement od dollars from
column A to column B and back again.

--
John R. Carroll

And the bottom line is that the dollars were spent, as they had to be.
There's no sock to put them in. There is no big pot of money. There's
nothing else to do with them except to use them to pay down the national
debt.

Which Clinton did, to a modest degree. What drives me crazy is that Bush II
and Reagan kept spending in deficit even when the economy was climbing!

--
Ed Huntress

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

My Mom and I are watching Beck every evening. It's becoming a sort of past
time.
She actually records his and Smith's daily broadcasts so we can watch it
together.
LOL
A couple of days ago Beck displayed and then explained his "Debt Clock".
He got a bunch of stuff right and then at the end added that the US had an
unfunded liability of $75 Trillion dollars.
Yep, you guessed it - Social Security. I paused the playback and explained
how rediculous this was and also that it just isn't, and couldn't be,
true.
She got it right away, especially the part about either raising taxes or
reducing benefits to correct any imbalance.

OK, she's an MLS from Michigan State but if a woman in her 80's suffering
from the early symptoms of either senile dementia or Ahlziemer'scan wrap
her
head around the actual truth, anyone ought to be able to do the same.
Apparently, Glenn Beck, Wes and a huge percentage of the population are
unable to be as rational as my 80 something mother.

--
John R. Carroll


Just curious, did beck explain how he came up with $75 trillion dollars ?

Best Regards
Tom.

azotic wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

My Mom and I are watching Beck every evening. It's becoming a sort
of past time.
She actually records his and Smith's daily broadcasts so we can
watch it together.
LOL
A couple of days ago Beck displayed and then explained his "Debt
Clock". He got a bunch of stuff right and then at the end added that
the US had an unfunded liability of $75 Trillion dollars.
Yep, you guessed it - Social Security. I paused the playback and
explained how rediculous this was and also that it just isn't, and
couldn't be, true.
She got it right away, especially the part about either raising
taxes or reducing benefits to correct any imbalance.

OK, she's an MLS from Michigan State but if a woman in her 80's
suffering from the early symptoms of either senile dementia or
Ahlziemer'scan wrap her
head around the actual truth, anyone ought to be able to do the same.
Apparently, Glenn Beck, Wes and a huge percentage of the population
are unable to be as rational as my 80 something mother.

--
John R. Carroll


Just curious, did beck explain how he came up with $75 trillion
dollars ?

No.
He just attributed the shortfall to the unfunded portion of SS obligations.
The truth is that SS is funded in real time and he must certainly know that.

The excess beyond that amount can only be used to do one thing - buy
T-Bills.
The reasoning was to prevent the distortion of markets while hedging
against inflation and to do so with risk limited to the maximum extent
possible.

The issue is completely separate from deficit spending or deficits at all
for that matter.

--
John R. Carroll

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

But there never was any place to *store* the money. Everyone knew
from the start that this is how it would work. That's why many of
us laugh when we hear about the "trust fund."


And some of us are outraged that our federal government
misrepresented how FICA was used
to finance a government that had un-sound financial policies.

I'm only p*ss*ed, I knew the screw was on for a long, long time.

Wes

With all due respect, Wes, they never hid how it works. People just
didn't pay attention. This was all thoroughly explained and vetted
back in the '80s, when Greenspan was selling an increase in the FICA
rate to Congress.

This is a complicated government. Its finances work astoundingly
well, and it's not at all hard to understand the basics. But most
people don't bother to look into it, and wind up being suspicious and
paranoid about the whole thing.

There are so many cheap-shot ways to criticize it that Congress
generally keeps pretty quiet about it. But they don't hide it. That's
unfortunate in several ways, one of which we're paying for now: it's
given the Tea Partiers a whole string of cheap-shot arguments.

I'm sure that most of them don't know how it all works. And they're
counting on most of the country not knowing how it works. That's how
they get people worked up and angry -- by selling them a bunch of
baloney, playing on their suspicions and their lack of understanding.
That's what creates paranoia.

My Mom and I are watching Beck every evening. It's becoming a sort of past
time.
She actually records his and Smith's daily broadcasts so we can watch it
together.
LOL

Now, THAT's entertainment. g

A couple of days ago Beck displayed and then explained his "Debt Clock".
He got a bunch of stuff right and then at the end added that the US had an
unfunded liability of $75 Trillion dollars.
Yep, you guessed it - Social Security. I paused the playback and explained
how rediculous this was and also that it just isn't, and couldn't be,
true.
She got it right away, especially the part about either raising taxes or
reducing benefits to correct any imbalance.

Your mom, as you've described her, is smart. Most people are plenty smart
enough to get it. But they get their information from people with an agenda,
who play on the fact that studying balance sheets isn't fun for anyone, so
hardly anyone does it.

That "Turkeys Voting for Christmas" piece was one of the most depressing
things I've heard lately. But I don't blame people for not looking into
these things for themselves. Many of them have become so complicated, as has
the world. That makes us vulnerable to the polemicists -- even the fairly
ignorant and transparent ones, like Beck.


OK, she's an MLS from Michigan State but if a woman in her 80's suffering
from the early symptoms of either senile dementia or Ahlziemer'scan wrap
her
head around the actual truth, anyone ought to be able to do the same.

They should, and they can. But they don't.

Apparently, Glenn Beck, Wes and a huge percentage of the population are
unable to be as rational as my 80 something mother.

Beck has a shtick that makes him a lot of money. Wes has a full-time job.
But Wes watches C-Span, which I can rarely bring myself to do. What seems to
get lost is the background and perspective. It requires quite a bit of
study.

For example, if you talk to someone who thinks that our national debt is
insurmountable, at 83% of GDP, and explain to them that it was 120% of GDP
after WWII and was followed by two decades of high average growth, they look
immediately for a reason this couldn't be true, rather than trying to figure
out why it IS true.

--
Ed Huntress

On Feb 5, 3:33*pm, Ignoramus17710 ignoramus17...@NOSPAM.
17710.invalid wrote:
On 2010-02-05, azotic wrote:

A report from the Congressional Budget Office shows that for the first time
in 25 years, Social Security is taking in less in taxes than it is spending
on benefits.Instead of helping to finance the rest of the government, as it
has done for decades, our nation's biggest social program needs help from
the Treasury to keep benefit checks from bouncing -- in other words, a
taxpayer bailout.

Social Security will be $28 billion in the hole this fiscal year, which ends
Sept. 30.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/news...curity_bailout....

Exporting jobs finally shows results...............

Tom, Republicans were always in support of "free trade", which is
associated with exporting jobs.

I also support "free trade", by the way, even though I voted for
Obama.

The reality is that, given our free trade treaty obligations and the
capitalist system, there is very little that we can do to prevent jobs
going to the lowest suitable builder.

So some impoverished villagers in India bid $3/day to make cheap vises
and poison their own environment, and guess what, that's where the job
goes and we cannot do much about it.

Those villagers cannot bid $3/day to build airplanes, so these jobs
still stay in the US.

It is not free trade that causes our problems, it is excessive
borrowing.

i

Not yet that is.

China is working very hard to become a viable airplane exporter.

In the future you will be driving a Chinese car.

And flying in a Chinese airplane.

TMT

On Feb 5, 6:35*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message

...

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

But there never was any place to *store* the money. Everyone knew from the
start that this is how it would work. That's why many of us laugh when we
hear about the "trust fund."

And some of us are outraged that our federal government misrepresented how
FICA was used
to finance a government that had un-sound financial policies.

I'm only p*ss*ed, I knew the screw was on for a long, long time.

Wes

With all due respect, Wes, they never hid how it works. People just didn't
pay attention. This was all thoroughly explained and vetted back in the
'80s, when Greenspan was selling an increase in the FICA rate to Congress..

This is a complicated government. Its finances work astoundingly well, and
it's not at all hard to understand the basics. But most people don't bother
to look into it, and wind up being suspicious and paranoid about the whole
thing.

There are so many cheap-shot ways to criticize it that Congress generally
keeps pretty quiet about it. But they don't hide it. That's unfortunate in
several ways, one of which we're paying for now: it's given the Tea Partiers
a whole string of cheap-shot arguments.

I'm sure that most of them don't know how it all works. And they're counting
on most of the country not knowing how it works. That's how they get people
worked up and angry -- by selling them a bunch of baloney, playing on their
suspicions and their lack of understanding. That's what creates paranoia.

--
Ed Huntress

Hey Ed...did you hear less than 600 people have shown up for the Tea
Party National Convention.

I wonder how many came for the free T-shirt?

TMT

On Feb 5, 6:49*pm, "John R. Carroll" wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

But there never was any place to *store* the money. Everyone knew
from the start that this is how it would work. That's why many of
us laugh when we hear about the "trust fund."

And some of us are outraged that our federal government
misrepresented how FICA was used
to finance a government that had un-sound financial policies.

I'm only p*ss*ed, I knew the screw was on for a long, long time.

Wes

With all due respect, Wes, they never hid how it works. People just
didn't pay attention. This was all thoroughly explained and vetted
back in the '80s, when Greenspan was selling an increase in the FICA
rate to Congress.

This is a complicated government. Its finances work astoundingly
well, and it's not at all hard to understand the basics. But most
people don't bother to look into it, and wind up being suspicious and
paranoid about the whole thing.

There are so many cheap-shot ways to criticize it that Congress
generally keeps pretty quiet about it. But they don't hide it. That's
unfortunate in several ways, one of which we're paying for now: it's
given the Tea Partiers a whole string of cheap-shot arguments.

I'm sure that most of them don't know how it all works. And they're
counting on most of the country not knowing how it works. That's how
they get people worked up and angry -- by selling them a bunch of
baloney, playing on their suspicions and their lack of understanding.
That's what creates paranoia.

My Mom and I are watching Beck every evening. It's becoming a sort of past
time.
She actually records his and Smith's daily broadcasts so we can watch it
together.
LOL
A couple of days ago Beck displayed and then explained his "Debt Clock".
He got a bunch of stuff right and then at the end added that the US had an
unfunded liability of $75 Trillion dollars.
Yep, you guessed it - Social Security. I paused the playback and explained
how rediculous this was and also that it just isn't, and couldn't be, true.
She got it right away, especially the part about either raising taxes or
reducing benefits to correct any imbalance.

OK, she's an MLS from Michigan State but if a woman in her 80's suffering
from the early symptoms of either senile dementia or Ahlziemer'scan wrap her
head around the actual truth, anyone ought to be able to do the same.
Apparently, Glenn Beck, Wes and a huge percentage of the population are
unable to be as rational as my 80 something mother.

--
John R. Carroll- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Good luck with your mom.

It sounds like she has a good son.

TMT

On Feb 5, 4:31*pm, "John R. Carroll" wrote:


Yeah, it isn't even a drawer.
Somewhere on a computer there is a file recording movement od dollars from
column A to column B and back again.

--
John R. Carroll

You are absolutely correct, John. The FICA money goes directly to the
US Treasury via the IRS. Not a penny goes to the SSA. On the other
side, the SSA does not disburse a single penny. They tell the US
Treasury to disburse so much money to some recipient. All the SSA does
is keep records and print reports.

The FICA money used to purchase Treasury Notes is just a book keeping
system and nothing more, since Treasury also issues/sells the notes.
No money ever changes hands in the transaction, just changes account
numbers.

Paul

Too_Many_Tools wrote:


Good luck with your mom.

It sounds like she has a good son.


The opposite is true.
I've got a good Mom.
A little nuts, but otherwise OK.

--
John R. Carroll

Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

I'm sure that most of them don't know how it all works. And they're
counting on most of the country not knowing how it works. That's how
they get people worked up and angry -- by selling them a bunch of
baloney, playing on their suspicions and their lack of
understanding. That's what creates paranoia.

My Mom and I are watching Beck every evening. It's becoming a sort
of past time.
She actually records his and Smith's daily broadcasts so we can
watch it together.
LOL

Now, THAT's entertainment. g

She's funny.
I haven't cross connected her new DVR to the new big screen yet so she's
limited in how much material she can store.
I swear Ed, watching her select an episode of Beck's show to erase in order
to make space is painful G


For example, if you talk to someone who thinks that our national debt
is insurmountable, at 83% of GDP, and explain to them that it was
120% of GDP after WWII and was followed by two decades of high
average growth, they look immediately for a reason this couldn't be
true, rather than trying to figure out why it IS true.

You ought to use a more current example Ed.
I've had people respond that "things are different now" which is the
equivelant of "doesn't count".
LOL
When Belgium entered the EU they were a 240 percent of GDP, IIRC.
Today, they enjoy a higher standard of living than American's do.
That does count.

--
John R. Carroll

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Feb 5, 3:33 pm, Ignoramus17710 ignoramus17...@NOSPAM.
17710.invalid wrote:
On 2010-02-05, azotic wrote:

A report from the Congressional Budget Office shows that for the first time
in 25 years, Social Security is taking in less in taxes than it is spending
on benefits.Instead of helping to finance the rest of the government, as it
has done for decades, our nation's biggest social program needs help from
the Treasury to keep benefit checks from bouncing -- in other words, a
taxpayer bailout.
Social Security will be $28 billion in the hole this fiscal year, which ends
Sept. 30.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/02/news...curity_bailout....
Exporting jobs finally shows results...............
Tom, Republicans were always in support of "free trade", which is
associated with exporting jobs.

I also support "free trade", by the way, even though I voted for
Obama.

The reality is that, given our free trade treaty obligations and the
capitalist system, there is very little that we can do to prevent jobs
going to the lowest suitable builder.

So some impoverished villagers in India bid $3/day to make cheap vises
and poison their own environment, and guess what, that's where the job
goes and we cannot do much about it.

Those villagers cannot bid $3/day to build airplanes, so these jobs
still stay in the US.

It is not free trade that causes our problems, it is excessive
borrowing.

i

Not yet that is.

China is working very hard to become a viable airplane exporter.

In the future you will be driving a Chinese car.

And flying in a Chinese airplane.

TMT

Cessna 162 SkyCatcher
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_162

A $110,000 airplane
"By manufacturing the aircraft in China, Cessna reported that it saved
US$71,000 in production costs per aircraft produced."

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

I'm sure that most of them don't know how it all works. And they're
counting on most of the country not knowing how it works. That's how
they get people worked up and angry -- by selling them a bunch of
baloney, playing on their suspicions and their lack of
understanding. That's what creates paranoia.

My Mom and I are watching Beck every evening. It's becoming a sort
of past time.
She actually records his and Smith's daily broadcasts so we can
watch it together.
LOL

Now, THAT's entertainment. g

She's funny.
I haven't cross connected her new DVR to the new big screen yet so she's
limited in how much material she can store.
I swear Ed, watching her select an episode of Beck's show to erase in
order
to make space is painful G


For example, if you talk to someone who thinks that our national debt
is insurmountable, at 83% of GDP, and explain to them that it was
120% of GDP after WWII and was followed by two decades of high
average growth, they look immediately for a reason this couldn't be
true, rather than trying to figure out why it IS true.

You ought to use a more current example Ed.
I've had people respond that "things are different now" which is the
equivelant of "doesn't count".
LOL
When Belgium entered the EU they were a 240 percent of GDP, IIRC.
Today, they enjoy a higher standard of living than American's do.
That does count.

--
John R. Carroll

Yeah, but I avoid using European countries as examples when I'm talking to
self-styled "fiscal conservatives."

The whole issue is whether you can grow your way out of the debt. We have in
the past, and there are plenty of examples from around the world to show
what the economic pattern is that makes it happen.

And the final point is this: If we can get a good rate of growth going,
we'll wonder before long what we were worried about. If we can't get it
going, we're screwed anyway. The best shot at getting it moving, now that
monetary controls have crapped out and we're at near-zero interest, if
deficit spending. National debt won't matter much if we stall out, like
Japan did for over a decade, and like it's doing again.

If that happens, we'll all be on tenterhooks -- the US, Europe, and Japan --
hoping that we don't have a sharp downturn in the middle of it. The only way
out of that, should you have a big downturn while the debt is piled up, is
to inflate your way out (problematic, if the economy is slumping to begin
with) or to default. Neither one is a happy option.

So we should be doing everything possible to stimulate growth. It's looking
fairly good, except now we're entering the 1937 moment: Conservatives are
saying to stop the deficit spending now that GDP has flattened out. That's
just what they said in '37, which we did, and which whip-sawed us into the
second phase of the Depression.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:


Anyway, maybe, and I'm really curious to see what would happen if we
let all of the derivatives and hot air out of the balloon. It's like
standing on an ice flow in the Bering Sea and wondering what would
happen if it started to break into little pieces.

A better analogy would be human flight absent an airplane.
You think flapping the feathered contraption strapped to your arms will have
you soaring like an eagle and it looks impressive.
In fact, you might even think you are really flying for a while after
jumping from a high enough perch. That's where we are today, point and laugh
time.
The trouble comes when the realities of gravity and contact with Mother
Earth intrude. That's where we are headed. Gasp, cringe and turn.

Our financial system is just like that right now Ed.
What I haven't had anyone explain in terms of the underlying fundamentals is
why Citi, AIG, BofA and all of our other publicly traded banks and financial
institutions aren't trading where they ought to be - at ZERO.

Even at the paltry sum of $3.50 per share, Citi is overvalued. They aren't
worth a thing.
AIG ought to be paying anyone stupid enough to want their common equity and
the list just goes on and on.
Pretty funny. Go ahead, point and laugh.
That situation, not sovereign debt debacles, is about to end. It had to be
so and it will.
Gravity and Mother Earth are about to intrude and no amount of arm flapping
will prevent it.
S.P.L.A.T.
The first gasp came in the form of a preemptively defensive $9 million
dollar bonus payment.

--
John R. Carroll

F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 21:19:00 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:
snip a bunch of good stuff

Gunner may have found his niche is the only area of growth in
U.S. economy, the liquidation and salvaging of manufacturing and
other industrial assets as part of the non-cash/informal sector
ala much of the third world.

Unfortunately for him, he can't monetize it.
The velocity, for him, is zero.


It's a 50/50 thing in my
estimation but the odds against don't improve. Doing nothing or
making no descision is really a decision in itself and that seems to
be the path we are on.
Most unfortunately, you appear to be entirely correct in your
analysis.

*ALL* the objective/hard data points this direction as well as
the objective/soft data and financial analysis from people I
trust. My only demur is that it may well be that the ship hits
the rocks at the end of the current quarter [01 April] rather
than drifting for 90 days before sinking.

Ask yourself what you'd pay for shares of either Citi or AIG if you were
forced to put all of your money in either, or both.
Any number higher than zero will land you in the corner wearing a pointy
hat.

--
John R. Carroll

On Sat, 6 Feb 2010 02:00:46 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip
If that's all there was to it, the matter would be settled. But that's not
all there is. The issue I'm trying to track is what kinds of jobs replace
the ones that are lost. That's much harder to do than you might think. And
there's much more to account for.
snip
========
In this context you may find the following article of interest.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100206/...dlcHJhdHRjYQ--
snip
HARTFORD, Conn. – A federal U.S. judge ordered jet engine maker
Pratt & Whitney to halt its plans to move 1,000 jobs out of
Connecticut and to Japan, Singapore and the state of Georgia.

U.S. District Judge Janet C. Hall in Bridgeport issued a
permanent injunction, stopping the company's plans to shift the
jobs.

The judge strongly criticized the subsidiary of United
Technologies Corp., saying it evaded the spirit of its union
contract requiring it to make every effort to keep the jobs in
the state.
snip

Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 21:19:00 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:
snip a bunch of good stuff



Some areas of particular concern are the bursting of the U.S.
municipal bond bubble, in spite of the "Build America" extension,
and/or the bursting of the commodities bubbles. Another area is
the total lack of honesty/transparency of governmental
accounting, which unfortunately is not limited to Greece, e.g.
the secret ledgers of the U.S. FRB.

It appears that the extent of major U.S. [and other] financial
institutional exposure [and thus taxpayer liability] to the Euro
zone sovereign debt problems and/or new bubble collapse through
direct investment, loans to speculators, and CDS/derivative
counter parties is totally unknown, but after a big loss most
gamblers "double down" or even go "all in" in an attempt to
recoup their losses.
I'd get another trillion dollars or more in the pipeline today if it were up
to me.
One the one hand this may be correct, on the other hand it may
well be sending good money after bad.

We have already spent trillions on top of the trillions of
capital/asset losses with no effect. Still no
Glass-Steagall-Volker. Still no "small enough to fail" size
caps. Still no derivative regulation. Still no lynchings.


It's really hard to stop looters in police uniforms...

wwm

On Sat, 06 Feb 2010 10:04:35 -0800, Bill Martin
wrote:
snip
We have already spent trillions on top of the trillions of
capital/asset losses with no effect. Still no
Glass-Steagall-Volker. Still no "small enough to fail" size
caps. Still no derivative regulation. Still no lynchings.


It's really hard to stop looters in police uniforms...

wwm
==========
Its even harder when they do not see themselves as looters, but
rather as "doing god's work" for which they make a little money.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6907681.ece
http://www.businessinsider.com/lloyd...s-work-2009-11

This is not anything new. See the following quote from 1902.
“The rights and interests of the laboring man will be protected
and cared for—not by the labor agitators, but by the Christian
men to who God in His infinite wisdom has given the control of
the property interests of this country. . .”
George F. Baker of Philadelphia and Reading Coal & Iron says July
17 as he continues to attempt to break the coal miners
union/strike.


Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:


Anyway, maybe, and I'm really curious to see what would happen if we
let all of the derivatives and hot air out of the balloon. It's like
standing on an ice flow in the Bering Sea and wondering what would
happen if it started to break into little pieces.

A better analogy would be human flight absent an airplane.
You think flapping the feathered contraption strapped to your arms will
have
you soaring like an eagle and it looks impressive.
In fact, you might even think you are really flying for a while after
jumping from a high enough perch. That's where we are today, point and
laugh
time.
The trouble comes when the realities of gravity and contact with Mother
Earth intrude. That's where we are headed. Gasp, cringe and turn.

Our financial system is just like that right now Ed.
What I haven't had anyone explain in terms of the underlying fundamentals
is
why Citi, AIG, BofA and all of our other publicly traded banks and
financial
institutions aren't trading where they ought to be - at ZERO.

Because investors are confident they'll be bailed out. That's part of what's
keeping interest rates low for large-corporation bonds and loans. Moral
hazard at work, helping to stimulate investment.


Even at the paltry sum of $3.50 per share, Citi is overvalued. They aren't
worth a thing.
AIG ought to be paying anyone stupid enough to want their common equity
and
the list just goes on and on.
Pretty funny. Go ahead, point and laugh.
That situation, not sovereign debt debacles, is about to end. It had to be
so and it will.
Gravity and Mother Earth are about to intrude and no amount of arm
flapping
will prevent it.
S.P.L.A.T.
The first gasp came in the form of a preemptively defensive $9 million
dollar bonus payment.

I suspect that Treasury and the Fed are trying to accomplish a gradual
unwinding and liquidation, without killing the host. The trick is to allow
things to collapse in smaller steps. That's what the bailouts are about.
Whether it will work is an open question. If it doesn't, we'll be right back
where we were in late 2008, which would have caused a complete collapse of
the worldwide credit system if they hadn't been bailed out.

Who knows? A lot of it is guesswork at this point. The people in charge of
financial operations in the US government are among the smartest and most
knowledgeable financial people in the world. Unfortunately, they see
everything through a banker's eyes.

--
Ed Huntress

"John R. Carroll" wrote:

The opposite is true.
I've got a good Mom.
A little nuts, but otherwise OK.


Not often I agree with TMT but if you sit and watch Beck with her, you have to be a good
son. I've been known to watch HGTV with my mom.

Wes