At 05:47 PM 2/17/2005 -0800, you wrote: >JDG wrote: > >> Nick, it is not just that the Social Security Administration is required by >> law to give its surpluses to the Federal Government to spend, it is also >> the reverse side of the coin - the fact that Social Security's obligations >> are backed by the Federal Government as well... all of which is combined >> with the fact that those so-called "bonds" can only be spent at the precise >> time and for the precise reason of the Federal Government's choosing. > >Although I cannot disagree with anything you wrote here, the fact is that the government's own >definition of Social Security assets is the one I described.
Yes. It is one of the grand ironies of life that those people involved with administering those so-called "bonds" in the trust fund are engaging in an activity that is as economically useful as digging a hole and filling it back in again. >But perhaps I should have acknowledged that it's not exactly a normal use of the word. Surplus? >Outflows? Government subsidy? ;-) I believe that the word you are looking for is IOU's.* JDG * - O.k. that was dramatic, but not quite accurate. The government doesn't even need to print IOU's - all that really matters is what level of benefits are promised in the future by the government. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
