The Cellar Security proposal

[lookout123]

there, now i answered one - would you care to try answering any of the questions i've asked you in the past?

[quote]have you decided to post in a clear and concise manner exactly why individual retirement accounts won't work.[quote]

should i take your silence as a resounding "no"?

where oh where oh where is tw?

[tw]

Originally Posted by lookout123

where oh where oh where is tw?

Notice that Lookout123 refuses to deal with the basic fraud. Money is removed from the SS trust fund. No IOU is left. No interest is paid on that money.

Monies taken by the government to pay today's bills can be replaced in the SS Trust Fund with T-bills. IOW the government pays the SS Trust Fund interest on the confiscated (borrowed) money. All Social Security problems solved with no increased risk to the public AND with more money for Social Security. One reason why Lookout123 avoids this? No windfall profits to be made by stock brokers.

[lookout123]

No windfall profits to be made by stock brokers.

you ignorant SOB, have you even read my previous posts on the subject. it is the general opinion of most people in my field that a well designed and run Individual account system would make many of our clients less likely to invest additional $$ with us - thereby taking money OUT of our pockets, not putting more in.

ignoring the idea of paying back the IOU's? hardly. that is an option. if i've read correctly, that method would put the system back on track to remain solvent through the middle of this century. that would be good for anyone who plans on dieing before then. but let me ask you, how much do you trust the politicians not to raid the cookie jar? it hasn't worked up to this point.

have you read any of my posts describing the effects of only $100 month savings in a personal account of different types of funds? or is it just easier to ignore those real life scenarios and say i'm a stock broker so i must be a liar?

tell us, what specifically scares you about individual accounts? please give me specifics, not generalizations about MBA's, shiny shoe salesman, and mental midgets - tell us what exactly doesn't work, in regards to individual accounts?

[Clodfobble]

Riddle me this, tw: If the government doesn't have the money to afford Baby Boomers surging into Social Security, how is it they're supposed to have the money to repay with interest the money they borrowed over the decades??

Yeah, if I pulled money out of my ass I could repay my mortgage tomorrow. But the fact is I don't have that money, that's why I had to borrow it in the first place. You're crying over spilt milk--the money they've stolen is gone, spent on other things. Harping on their financial irresponsibility doesn't help fix the problem.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Riddle me this, tw: If the government doesn't have the money to afford Baby Boomers surging into Social Security, how is it they're supposed to have the money to repay with interest the money they borrowed over the decades?

OK, let's assume much of the old money is gone. SS therefore is only solvent for another 40 years. But if starting today, every new dollar put into SS gets paid interest, then plenty of money remains to fund the boomers. But if starting today, every new SS dollar bought Treasury bonds, then a major Federal Treasury cash flow problem gets exposed. Best to avoid the *repaid with interest* solution. You just asked the question they (and Lookout123) hope to avoid - because the answer is rather embarrassing and troubling.

BTW, its not just the Republicans that fear to address *repaid with interest*. This fraudulent accounting is endorsesd with winks from both sides of the aisle.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by tw

But if starting today, every new dollar put into SS gets paid interest, then plenty of money remains to fund the boomers.

Finally a starting point. We know the FedGov can't pay interest on anything without robbing the taxpayer. Hmmm... who would borrow money and pay interest on it at no cost to the citizenry and a net gain to society?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Griff

Finally a starting point. We know the FedGov can't pay interest on anything without robbing the taxpayer. Hmmm... who would borrow money and pay interest on it at no cost to the citizenry and a net gain to society?

But all along people have been deceived into thinking they were paying a certain tax to the Feds and another tax for SS when in fact more of the total was actually going into the budget than they thought. Maybe that would wake people up to how much the feds are actually spending. The budget numbers are so huge nobody can relate to them, but the amount you pay becomes a real mumber to show changes in spending.

[lookout123]

Ever since I reamed Lookout123 a new asshole with a simple question, he is now playing this game of "you don't answer my questions - boo hoo hoo".

are you kidding me? when the hell do you think you reamed me? cite? or is this one of those things that if you say it enough, you can accept as truth. i've been asking you to answer questions since i got here last april... total questions tw has answered since then... 0.

and on Bin Laden - tw - i've answered that one enough times. i guess that is just further proof that you don't read any posts but your own.

but, damn, you got me on the neo-con bit... was it the horns sticking out of my head that tipped you off?

[tw]

Originally Posted by lookout123

and on Bin Laden - tw - i've answered that one enough times. i guess that is just further proof that you don't read any posts but your own.

Yes you did answer it all zero times. But you did not answer it through that newly reamed asshole.

So how many times will Lookout123 discuss "repaid with interest"? Let's see. He cannot do it minus one times......

[lookout123]

have you been drinking? if not, could you start?

[Happy Monkey]

Washington Post

A new paper by Yale University economist Robert J. Shiller found that under Bush's default "life-cycle accounts," which shift assets from stocks to bonds over a worker's lifetime, nearly a third of workers would bring in less in benefits than if they remained in the traditional system. That analysis is based on historical rates of return in the United States. Using global rates of return, which Shiller says more closely track future conditions, life-cycle portfolios could be expected to fall short of the traditional system's returns 71 percent of the time.