[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Amazingly I think we are on the same page and I don't think there are any contradictions between what you said here, what I've said, or what nate has said.

You claimed that you made as much money as your expenses and were not saving anything. Where are you going to get the extra $250/month to pay off the loan? You are going to have to cut expenses or get more money somehow. And if you keep getting more and more IOUs, eventually you are going to have to pay the piper. Getting more money is going to mean increased tax revenues.

[/ QUOTE ]

Theres may not be any differences in the understanding of the transactions but there are huge differences in interpretration of those transactions and you and natedogg have said:

"Scam, pyramid scheme, ponzi scheme" No it isnt
"There is no Social Security trust fund" Yes there is
"Treasury investments by SS aren't assets" Yes they are
"Accounting shenanigans" no, there are none

If the prior nauseatingly detailed analogy isnt enough to convince you of the "no, yes, yes, no", theres nothing else I can do. Others of reasonable financial understanding and without anti-government agendas should be able to see past the rhetoric, Iron included.


Its a nit I said I wouldnt respond to but to make it clear, there are no additional loans to take or income needed, the new cash flow exactly replaces the $250 cash flow lost from the savings account. Yes there are underlying policy changes and interest rate differentials (eg why werent all of the assets invested in the utilities the whole time and more income generated) that result in that increse cash flow, just as there are policy decisions that were made regarding where Social Security funds get invested, but that doesnt change the essence of the transactions.