Hey Earl, you are an economist, would you try to explain to
 Richardson how he got this completely wrong.

 Explain to him how social security was set up that way from the
 begining.

 Explain to him how drawing off all that money to spend without
 having to raise income taxes was behind the Reagan
 Administration's increase in Social Security taxes in the mid
 '80s.

 Explain to him how the same theory applied to the Bush
 Administration and the republican congress in 2006 when they
 required the post office to pre-fund employee health care for 75
 years ahead. Explain how that gave Bush more money to spend
 without raising taxes at all. Explain how most current employees
 of the post office won't live another 75 years, and no retirees
 will. Explain how almost half those being born this year won't
 live 75 years. Explain to him that is pre-funding health care
 for workers who haven't even been born yet. No private company
 in the country has to do that, but the republicans forced the
 post office to do so.

 Oh, and explain to Richardson that Alan Greenspan supported
 Bush's tax cuts, rather than Clinton's plan to pay off the
 national debt, because he did not want to pay off the debt.
 Explain to him that would take all that money from the trust
 funds away from the republican government they were planning to
 be permenant when they passed those laws.

 Go ahead, Earl, put on your economist hat and explain that to
 Tim.

 Oh, and when you get done explaining government health and
 retirement trust funds to him, explain to Tim how private sector
 retirement funds don't have actual cash in them either. Explain
 how many of them even invest in the same IOUs, US Treasury
 obligations, that the govt trust funds invest in.

 Take care of that, will you, Earl? After all, you are the
 economist in Fidonet.

 TR> Remember all those times in recent years politicians have
 TR> lamented how `Social Security is going broke'? How it needs
 TR> `fixing' (say some pols), and how it `doesn't need fixing'
 TR> (say other pols)? And of course everyone knows that if you
 TR> actually looked `in' that so-called `Social Security lock
 TR> box' that was a big buzz-phrase in both the Senate AND the
 TR> House some years ago, there's nothing IN there but a lot of
 TR> IOU's, because they've been taking money out of it all the
 TR> time to make up budget short-falls (that is...pre-Hussein
 TR> Obama, when they used to actually HAVE a budget as per the
 TR> Constitution).


 TR> And now...they've gotten to a point where today's workers
 TR> who pay into the Social Security fund are actually paying
 TR> for the monthly checks of recipients, and there isn't any
 TR> `surplus' in the fund to speak of. The Congress in other
 TR> words have `spent' *our* retirement and benefits money
 TR> almost as fast as we paid into it for many years, now, such
 TR> that what we paid for may not BE there for future payees!
 TR> Thats pretty much the same as stealing our retirement
 TR> investment on us. And it is an investment that was
 TR> *compulsory*...not `voluntary'. In other words...we were
 TR> FORCED to make this investment in our future retirement by
 TR> the power of the U.S. government. But it turns out that the
 TR> U.S. government was diverting this money from its proper
 TR> purpose, into its own spendthrift projects and pork barrel
 TR> uselessness (bridges to nowhere...etc etc).


 TR> In a corporation or company...when such financial
 TR> shinanagans occur, its called `embezzlement', or `fraud'
 TR> (AKA stealing!)!


 TR> If it is traced to one or more individuals...there is
 TR> usually prison time and restitution meted out. In the case
 TR> of just the corporation or company entity, restitution to
 TR> stock holders and\or customers, plus a severe fine and\or
 TR> penalties are meted out.

 ...

BOB KLAHN bob.klahn{at}sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]