Understanding the Social Security scam

[Moseley]

[ QUOTE ]
So you're saying that the U.S. has defaulted on it's bond payments? Wow that's news to me and here I thought that U.S. treasuries were viewed has having essentially no default risk.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not. They issue more bonds to retire the bonds outstanding and fuel the current deficit.

I know you're smart enough to realize that.

You are such a silly person, who must spend a lot of time trolling this site looking for fights.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you're saying that the U.S. has defaulted on it's bond payments? Wow that's news to me and here I thought that U.S. treasuries were viewed has having essentially no default risk.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not. They issue more bonds to retire the bonds outstanding and fuel the current deficit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Corporations do this all the time and have capital structures that are such they constantly have debt on their balance sheets. So what/

[ QUOTE ]
I know you're smart enough to realize that.

You are such a silly person, who must spend a lot of time trolling this site looking for fights.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm trolling? You reponded to a post where I asked a specific question that you apparently don't want to answer. Why respond to my post then?

[Moseley]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you're saying that the U.S. has defaulted on it's bond payments? Wow that's news to me and here I thought that U.S. treasuries were viewed has having essentially no default risk.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not. They issue more bonds to retire the bonds outstanding and fuel the current deficit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Corporations do this all the time and have capital structures that are such they constantly have debt on their balance sheets. So what/

[ QUOTE ]
I know you're smart enough to realize that.

You are such a silly person, who must spend a lot of time trolling this site looking for fights.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm trolling? You reponded to a post where I asked a specific question that you apparently don't want to answer. Why respond to my post then?

[/ QUOTE ]

Now I know you're out of touch. Corporations sell bonds for the purpose of leverage and increasing profits. Their goal is to increase profits by a sum that is much greater than the interest payments on the bonds.

The U.S. Govt can't do that. If they need 2 trillion dollars to run the fed govt in 2008, they need to come up with 2 trillion in taxes PLUS enough in taxes to pay the interest on the 10 trillion dollar deficit.

If they don't, which they won't, they have to go out and borrow more money, and in 2009 they will have to borrow more money.

Corporations do not work that way.

Now that I know what level of a playing field you are on, this will be my last response to you.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you're saying that the U.S. has defaulted on it's bond payments? Wow that's news to me and here I thought that U.S. treasuries were viewed has having essentially no default risk.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course not. They issue more bonds to retire the bonds outstanding and fuel the current deficit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Corporations do this all the time and have capital structures that are such they constantly have debt on their balance sheets. So what/

[ QUOTE ]
I know you're smart enough to realize that.

You are such a silly person, who must spend a lot of time trolling this site looking for fights.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm trolling? You reponded to a post where I asked a specific question that you apparently don't want to answer. Why respond to my post then?

[/ QUOTE ]

Now I know you're out of touch. Corporations sell bonds for the purpose of leverage and increasing profits. Their goal is to increase profits by a sum that is much greater than the interest payments on the bonds.

The U.S. Govt can't do that. If they need 2 trillion dollars to run the fed govt in 2008, they need to come up with 2 trillion in taxes PLUS enough in taxes to pay the interest on the 10 trillion dollar deficit.

If they don't, which they won't, they have to go out and borrow more money, and in 2009 they will have to borrow more money.

Corporations do not work that way.[/qutoe]

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes corporations do it for economic benefits. So does the United States, different economic benefits. Let's have a hijack on the economic benefits of government deficit spending.

[ QUOTE ]
Now that I know what level of a playing field you are on, this will be my last response to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great mucho appreciated.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes corporations do it for economic benefits.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by this? A corporation with revenue less than the sum of it's operating expenses and interest on loans would have a hard time finding investors, unless it was a severe outlier with some hope of massive future revenues.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes corporations do it for economic benefits.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by this? A corporation with revenue less than the sum of it's operating expenses and interest on loans would have a hard time finding investors, unless it was a severe outlier with some hope of massive future revenues.

[/ QUOTE ]

The favorable tax treatment of debt is why more or less. Why do they have to have revenue that is less than it's current operating expenses and interest on loans in order to hve corporate debt on the balance sheet?

I guess we'r now going to move towards a hijack of the economic benefits of government deficit spending. Why not just start a new thread on that topic?

I can't believe that with as much ranting and raving about the SS scam being perpetrated by the government in lending out the excess trust fund income that people don't have alternatives to that. It's amazing to me all the attempts at dodging the question simply because they don't like it. I guess I just have to conclude that the railing against the government lending money to itself is a smokescreen for just wanting to change the system entirely.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes corporations do it for economic benefits.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by this? A corporation with revenue less than the sum of it's operating expenses and interest on loans would have a hard time finding investors, unless it was a severe outlier with some hope of massive future revenues.

[/ QUOTE ]

The favorable tax treatment of debt is why more or less.

[/ QUOTE ]

Even the favorable tax treatment of debt isn't enough for private enterprises to engage in a borrowing-on-top-of-borrowing practice with no hope of ultimately making a profit. Government on the other hand...

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes corporations do it for economic benefits.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by this? A corporation with revenue less than the sum of it's operating expenses and interest on loans would have a hard time finding investors, unless it was a severe outlier with some hope of massive future revenues.

[/ QUOTE ]

The favorable tax treatment of debt is why more or less. Why do they have to have revenue that is less than it's current operating expenses and interest on loans in order to hve corporate debt on the balance sheet?

I guess we'r now going to move towards a hijack of the economic benefits of government deficit spending. Why not just start a new thread on that topic?

I can't believe that with as much ranting and raving about the SS scam being perpetrated by the government in lending out the excess trust fund income that people don't have alternatives to that. It's amazing to me all the attempts at dodging the question simply because they don't like it. I guess I just have to conclude that the railing against the government lending money to itself is a smokescreen for just wanting to change the system entirely. or an overall anti-government agenda

[/ QUOTE ]