Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (21213)	8/9/2001 5:11:15 PM
From: Win Smith	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Once again, Tim, why is the obligation of the U.S. Treasury to repay the bonds the SS Trust fund holds any less than its obligation to repay the bonds that anybody else holds? The commission line seems to be that default is cool, in the SS context. I sure hope they don't try to float that line in any other context.

To: TimF who wrote (21213)	8/9/2001 5:11:25 PM
From: Don Hurst	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

>>"Somebody who doesn't understand the reasoning above might say "but if it was invested in German bonds the German government would spend it". True but then the German government would still have an obligation to pay it back and Germany would have to come up with the money to pay it back. You can lend money to someone else who spends it and if they don't default you have an asset even after they spend it. If you lend it to yourself and then spend it you no longer have an asset, or trust fund or whatever it is you want to call it."<< Are you suggesting that the US government will pay holders of US Treasury Bonds but would not pay SS recipients? Will this happen before or after the day the sun does not rise in the east?