From: "Mark" 

"Except that there is some suspicion that Bush is setting us up to
default on those bonds, which would be Bad."

"some suspicion?" Gimmee a break, that's lunatic fringe
conspiracy crap Steve. The more that kind of crap is floated the better
chance of getting the personal accounts passed, so keep shoveling it out.



"Steve Ewing"  wrote in message
news:opsl0he1idsagvys{at}news.barkto.com...
> On Wed, 09 Feb 2005 21:21:07 -0500, Gary Wiltshire  wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 21:02:47 -0500, Geo  wrote:
>>> No not really, the problem is the government has been raiding the fund
>>> of all extra monies and using it like it was part of their budget.
>>>
>>> Geo.
>>>
>>
>> No, that is not all.  The change from 16:1 to 2:1 ratio is factual, with
>> or without borrowing from the account.
>
> Geo.: The "fund" has not been stashed in a vault, no, it has
been used to
> buy Treasury bonds.  At some point the gov't is going to have to repay
> them, with interest.  Therefore there is a looming problem with the
> general fund (that will require tax increases to cover), but it is no
> different than if the bonds had been sold to the Chinese.  Except that
> there is some suspicion that Bush is setting us up to default on those
> bonds, which would be Bad.
>
> Gary: We seem to have handled the transition from 16:1 to 3:1 pretty
> handily.  Why is 3:1 to 2:1 such a crisis?
>
> --
> Steve 
> http://www.qmss.com/sewing

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5