Tax Refunds are less this year, must be Trumps fault

Not from what I saw. Maybe what I saw was wrong. Point me to the right information.

The argument lost on the merits, the expected name calling begins. You simply can't explain how the treasury securities in the SS trust fund are worthless, a fraud, but identical securities that trade in the free markets around the world trade at full face value or higher, at a 3% interest rate. Long before actual default, securities would be trading like junk bonds. The investors who actually buy US securities say you're just full of BS. And further, with each passing year, your "issue" becomes smaller and will be gone in 15 years, when the trust fund is gone, unless changes are made.

Nuff said.

ote:

Only an idiot would call them "identical securities" and make these repeate d incorrect conflations. Only an idiot would say "would be viewed by invest ors." Only an idiot would keep using the same straw man when it was outed at first instance. Only an idiot would think "the investors who actually b uy US securities" would say any such thing, being that they know the differ ence between intragovernmental securities and those sold on the open market .

You are an idiot.

ted incorrect conflations. Only an idiot would say "would be viewed by inve stors." Only an idiot would keep using the same straw man when it was out ed at first instance. Only an idiot would think "the investors who actually buy US securities" would say any such thing, being that they know the diff erence between intragovernmental securities and those sold on the open mark et.

The argument having been further lost, the name calling intensifies. The securities held in the trust are in fact, virtually identical to the US securities held the world over. Both are backed by the full faith and credit of the US govt. Your argument is like saying that Ford can default on one series of bonds because it can't pay those and it will not have a direct effect on the rest of Ford's bonds. Did you go to the Trump school of economics? A default on the treasury securities in the SS trust would be seen by investors the world over as a default and all US debt instruments would respond, with catastrophic results. Plus, it would be no more tenable for the US govt to default on the SS trust bonds than it would be to default on the bonds held by any other institution, individuals,etc. And again, what's the problem? The trust just started being drawn down, will be gone in 15 years. You expect the US govt to default in the next 15 years? The debt markets obviously disagree and unlike you, they actually own US debt securities.

As we seem to keep telling you, that was Keynesian deficit-funded stimulus spending designed to rescue us from the worst effects of the GST.

Once the economy was out of recession, it wasn't needed and became a driver of inflation.

Trump doesn't seem to have read that particular bit of economic theory. John Larkin and James Arthur do seem to have read it, but don't believe in it - which makes them as ill-informed as Trump.

snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

Your snipped responses are 100% retarded. From what I see.

I wouldn't argue that. They are equally worthless. Just a piece of paper. T heir value is confidence in the issuing body. Government issued ones are SU PPOSED to be more secure but the fact is we got Moody's starting to pull th e plug on us and there are privately issued securities out there that are a s secure as many governemnts.

V at a 3% interest rate. Long before actual default, securities would

They usually pull in more interest IF they actually ever do anything. Now i f you cam sell them before the shit hits their particular fan you can make out.

And that is what US securities are going to look like if Moody's keeps up i ts trend of lowering our rating. Now think of paying higher interest on $15 or $20 trillion worth of those.

However some government bonds etc. come with a little agreement, that they can prevent you from cashing them in and have no choice but to let them rol l over. Germany pulled that one a few years ago. Germany ! The conceivers o f the EU had to do a sorta semi-default ? The economic vertebrae of Europe ? The hell you say...But they did. I doubt many privately issued securities have that little "glitch" in them.

They sell securities on trust funds ? New one on me but then I am not any b ig expert on it. Actually if I want to gamble all my money away I'll just s tart a high stakes poker game.

I know a bit about how economics works, I know more about how poker works. I can play poker but not economics.

If I really had to invest like millions I would use a pro, one of those com panies that has a recommended portfolio and all that based on your age, the cost of the habits to which you have become accustomed etc. But I have nob ody to whom to leave it when I croak. That will be the day when I cannot wo rk anymore, it'll be me, sleeping pills and whiskey. I'm not using a gun, i n fact I gotta figure out who to leave those to, they guys who sold them to me ? I got a really good deal. The family doesn't like guns. Well maybe so me of my cousins but most of them have more money than I.

And then the electronics equipment. Maybe a bunch of it to a school, most o f the Tek stuff I know who wants that.

But if I had a portfolio, with no heirs, what to do ?

You could divide it up among s.e.d. members.

next 15 years?"

Actually I advocate sooner. They are already borrowing the interest.

Thing is, IF we do it at the right time, let's say Trump's trade "action" a ctually does more than we thought it might and gets us a little closer to s elf sufficiency, it won't be so bad. Out money would be like army scrip, ha rdly worth shit anywhere else.

Internal trad would not change all that much. Imports prices would go throu gh the roof. Our level of importing is what makes us so precariously vulner able. And it doesn't even take us, happenings in other parts of the world c an affect it as well, as long as we have this level of buying.

If we say, default in 2025 after a bunch of more business is here and we i mport less, the impact will not be as bad.

Natural reaction of traders ? Well with the petrobuck dead we will have to sell our exports in gold and pay for imports in gold. After Germany we know they have nowhere near as much as they should, remember Germany ? Remember how the story about their gold was "debunked" ? Well it wasn't. Germany ST ILL had to wait for their gold, but Venezuela get theirs right away. Even i f they HAVE the gold, they blew their credibility - with the shipping sched ule TO Germany with her gold. That is enough to turn people off.

Remember about stocks, it is not so much what they'll do, it is more what p eople THINK they're going to do. Add it all up, and they fact that those pe ople KNOW our wars are fought for booty and bounty for the select few and m ost of that big money never sees the US economy... They know because they s tudy this shit and they got way better sources than even some governments.

actually does more than we thought it might and gets us a little closer to self sufficiency, it won't be so bad. Out money would be like army scrip, hardly worth shit anywhere else.

Just like Trump, you conflate trade deficits with the federal deficit and national debt.

ough the roof. Our level of importing is what makes us so precariously vuln erable. And it doesn't even take us, happenings in other parts of the world can affect it as well, as long as we have this level of buying.

import less, the impact will not be as bad.

Please, you really can't be serious. First, only you and Trump think that somehow dramatically more business is going to be here by 2025. Trump has had two years and all he's produced so far is a record trade deficit last month with China. Second, a default by the US would be a disaster for the world, regardless of what business conditions are. Did you go to the Trump school of economics?

That happens when people repeatedly make up straw men and go off on wild tangents. It is an accurate description.

I put "default" in scare quotes for a reason: because it was not to be taken in the strict sense of the word.

You don't understand what you agreed to. I'm not interested in your hysterical straw men.

I wouldn't either, and didn't. I saw no need to defend points I did not mak e.

Just to make a point, I never used the word "worthless" to describe federal commitment to redistributing money to 'older people." The word /worthless/ was a result of "tra...'s" imagination.

What I said was the Feds could pay the commitment by other taxes, and that I didn't see much distinction if they took the dollars out of my right or l eft pocket. If $100 comes out of either of my pockets, for example, my net is -$100, regardless of the pocket.

"tra..." even admitted taxpayers are currently paying the "trust fund" down by exactly these "other taxes." This is admitting that the "trust fund" i s an IOU the government wrote itself, and the burden is thus on the taxpaye rs, regardless of the box in our W-2s.

I made the point, lost on "tra...", that there is a strong motivation for a government to not default on securities put on open market.

No. It is part of "tra...'s" straw man.

ake. "

and

tributing money to 'older people."

I never saw that either.

My point though is that paper is inherently worthless. It is the thoughts a nd beliefs of the People which give it value.

If I write you an IOU for a couple grand, and I have done this before and p aid it all back you would do it again. But a Johnny Come Lately right off t he bus won't get that. It is earned, and it has been spent by the last half dozen regimes in the US.

And when I say as others have that SS is a Ponzi scheme, well it is close. Its success depends on more workers to support the non-workers. In a growin g population it depends on more payers and less payees or it goes bust. Wel l we don't got that. We got less and less workers and more and more non-wor kers. Trump did not do this.

t I didn't see much distinction if they took the dollars out of my right or left pocket."

Absolutely agreed.

a government to not default on securities put on open market."

Mainly for the politicians who don't want to be in power when it happens. T here are pundits and politicians who want to have a collapse or something j ust to blame it on Trump and they do work actively to make that happen. Tha t makes it their fault, not his.

So they don't sell like bonds n shit on trust funds, well I didn't think th ey did so I guess I was right.

I can take Keynes the f*ck apart, interested ?

te:

er,

ake.

al commitment to redistributing money to 'older people." The word /worthles s/ was a result of "tra...'s" imagination.

Your buddy that's trying to help you claims that all US treasuries are worthless. You, on the other hand, try to weasel out of that, lying that somehow the word worthless came in about the federal commitment to pay SS benefits. What I said was that if you consider the securities held by the SS trust to be worthless, then so too are ALL US govt securities, because both are backed by the full faith and credit of the US govt. And a default on the SS trust fund bonds would be seen as a default by the US govt, with disastrous consequences, worldwide.

t I didn't see much distinction if they took the dollars out of my right or left pocket. If $100 comes out of either of my pockets, for example, my ne t is -$100, regardless of the pocket.

How are they going to pay the commitment by "other taxes" when the premise is that the govt is going to default by not being able to pay to begin with ?

wn by exactly these "other taxes." This is admitting that the "trust fund" is an IOU the government wrote itself, and the burden is thus on the taxpa yers, regardless of the box in our W-2s.

Boy are you totally confused. We are not paying the trust fund down by "other taxes". We are paying it down by the SS trust fund redeeming bonds. All the treasury has to do is sell new bonds, which they do all the time to replace maturing ones and the overall federal debt remains the same. If your Aunt redeems a US bond, did that money come from some mysterious "new tax"?

a government to not default on securities put on open market.

The correct point is that there is strong motivation for a govt not to default on ANY debt, especially one those that carry the full faith and credit guarantee of the govt, which the SS trust fund does. Additionally, there is "strong motivation" for a govt not to default on what pays it's elderly their retirement money. And any such default would have disastrous consequences around the world. In fact, just the prospect of it, would send interest rates on US obligation spiking up, further accelerating any problem the govt was having in meeting it's obligations, selling new bonds, etc.

That's a lie. I never said any such thing. Your buddy is just as confused as you are. And there is no straw man period.

make. "

istributing money to 'older people."

Thank you.

and beliefs of the People which give it value.

This is just silly. That's true of just about anything. Following that, all bonds are worthless because they are paper. So too are all stocks.

paid it all back you would do it again. But a Johnny Come Lately right off the bus won't get that. It is earned, and it has been spent by the last ha lf dozen regimes in the US.

If you mean that because of the last half dozen presidents US securities have no value, that's obviously not true. US securities are traded every day around the world as among the safest in the world. The markets are where people actually put their money behind their opinions.

. Its success depends on more workers to support the non-workers. In a grow ing population it depends on more payers and less payees or it goes bust. W ell we don't got that. We got less and less workers and more and more non-w orkers. Trump did not do this.

Where did anyone say that Trump did something? SS isn't a Ponzi scheme. Sure, you are correct, there are less workers today for each retiree. But we've faced this problem before and it's been fixed by a combination of increasing taxes, raising retirement age, taxing benefits, etc. It will be fixed again. Which does get us back to Trump. He's supposed to be the great leader, the guy with all the answers. Where is he on this? Hello? He'd rather be tweeting about Notre Dame being on fire or insulting someone again.

hat I didn't see much distinction if they took the dollars out of my right or left pocket."

or a government to not default on securities put on open market."

There are pundits and politicians who want to have a collapse or something just to blame it on Trump and they do work actively to make that happen. T hat makes it their fault, not his.

Obsessed with Trump? How did Trump get in here? But since you persist and say Trump has no responsibility for the govt potentially going broke, what about what Trump did? Trump significantly increased govt spending and cut taxes! The deficit was $580 bil in 2016, it's $1 tril this year! That's the first $1 tril deficit since the years right after 2008. When is the last time Trump said the words deficit or national debt?

Oh, and the genius, when he was running, suggested that the US could negoti ate with our creditors to pay less than full value on our debts. Then he said, if not, we can just borrow more and default. He even said that if interes t rates RISE, we can then refinance the national debt! That last part helps explain why his casinos went bankrupt. Even a homeowner with a mortgage knows that you don't refinance when rates go up. Thankfully Trump hasn't seen fit to expand on similar thoughts with his crazy tweets, but there is still plenty of time for that.

snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

'kill taxpayers'?

I am ashamed of some folks. You made the list. I am a republican. You are a piece of shit. You do not represent my party. The proof is in your inane, inept devisivness.

snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

First somewhat intelligent thing you've have yet said.

With all the lotteries in place since around 1970, the schools in most of those states should all be top notch, with top notch hardware. Hell they should all be gold plated by now.

The problem with the kids though is not the schools, per se. if you want to get the kids back on track, separate tham from their older siblings and keep them home at night doing their homework. THEN, we can give kids back their morals and we could even start stating the pledge of allegiance again. Then we can start talking about actual educational cirriculum and teacher elements.

We need to criminalize gangs. They are NOT "peaceful assembly". We also need to begin holding parents accountable in many cases for the actions of their minor children.

Teacher's unions? You're an idiot. Kids are defiant early on and it is the parents whom are at fault, because it is the parents teaching them that language and jailhouse mentality behavior.

That is different and has nothing to do with a state charging their residents a big fat income tax _plus_ a big fat sales tax and then expecting Uncle Sam to foot part of that bill.

No, profligate spending means spending excessively.

That's a new one, even for you. It's an expression. And if you think that Republicans don't think that the high taxes from all the new free stuff the Democrats are proposing would kill taxpayers, then I'd say you're the one who doesn't even know what Republicans stand for.