Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Bush lays the groundwork for defaulting on US Treasury Bonds

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Economy Donate to DU
 
LiviaOlivia Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-09-05 06:16 PM
Original message
Bush lays the groundwork for defaulting on US Treasury Bonds
From Josh Marshalls's Talking Points

President Bush lays the groundwork for defaulting on almost two trillion dollars worth of US Treasury bonds, from today at the Commerce Department ...

Some in our country think that Social Security is a trust fund -- in other words, there's a pile of money being accumulated. That's just simply not true. The money -- payroll taxes going into the Social Security are spent. They're spent on benefits and they're spent on government programs. There is no trust. We're on the ultimate pay-as-you-go system -- what goes in comes out. And so, starting in 2018, what's going in -- what's coming out is greater than what's going in. It says we've got a problem. And we'd better start dealing with it now. The longer we wait, the harder it is to fix the problem.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/02/20050209-15.html


It's what they're after. Just watch.

~snip~

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_02_06.php#004757

read also
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_02_06.php#004758
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-09-05 06:18 PM
Response to Original message
1. No, they want to stiff the SSI beneficaries.
We might have to deprive the Pentagon of something.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skink Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-09-05 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I thought it was in a trust fund...
Did his run out or something?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-09-05 06:38 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. What, you think they pile it up somewhere, in a box of something?
It's all just numbers on a page. The monetary system is 100% bullshit
these days, it works as long as everybody keeps believing in it. If they
have to start budgeting to pay back the "trust fund" it will mean
higher deficits or changed budget priorities, i.e. giving the Pentagon
less to throw down a rathole, or curtailing agribusiness subsidies, or
ending "Plan Colombia" and similar horseshit. And if deficits get too
high the sheep will notice that the system is all bullshit. There are
limits. So they want to stiff the SSI beneficiaries so business can
continue as usual.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coastie for Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-09-05 06:25 PM
Response to Original message
3. So - Bush Is Talking "Junk Bond" Status for US Treasuries
You thought interest rates were high in 1979-1981 -- and inflation was high---you ain't seen nothing yet.

<snip, snip><

    We and many others had predicted that the president's angle here was to default on the Treasury bonds sitting in the Social Security Trust Fund. And now we can be pretty confident that he plans to do just that since today he said

    Advertisement
    that the Trust Fund doesn't even exist.

    Now, here's the thing.

    Alan Greenspan headed up the 'Greenspan Commission' (aka the National Commission on Social Security Reform). The Greenspan Commission didn't create the Trust Fund -- it dates back to 1939. But it was the reform package devised by the Greenspan Commission and issued in their January 1983 report that led to the intentional building up of a large surplus in the Trust Fund which would provide excess revenue to help pay for the retirement of the babyboomers in the early decades of the 21st century.

    Setting aside all the actuarial and financial gobbledegook, the basic idea was that the boomers and others would start paying not only their own taxes but also advance paying to cover the costs of their own retirement. The Social Security Adminsitration used the monies in the Trust Fund to purchase bonds -- debt that otherwise would have had to have been purchased by private individuals, pensions, foreigners, all the parties that buy US Treasury bonds. (The majority of the US government's debt is in the hands of those folks; and you can be sure they're going to get paid back.)

    So if you've paid Social Security taxes in any of the years from 1983 until today, you've been advance paying. And now President Bush just said that that money is gone. So, you thought you were advance paying to cover part of the future expenses of your generation's retirement. But it seems you were just a sucker since President Bush is now saying the money ain't gonna be paid back. You're just fresh outta luck, you could say.

    So here's our question: Does Alan Greenspan think there's a Trust Fund? Does he believe those bonds are backed up by the full faith and credit of the United States government? Does he think they will and should be paid back? If he doesn't, he's got a hell of a lot of explaining to do since it was under his guidance that we came up with this whole idea.

    Or how about Sen. Bob Dole? He was on the Commission too. What does he think? Does he agree? Or the recently-retired House Ways and Means Chairman Bill Archer (R). He was on it too.

    Let's ask all of them ..

    http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_02_06.php#004758

<snip, snip><

Defaulting on US Treasuries.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spinzonner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-09-05 06:45 PM
Response to Original message
5. And all the money in a bank-based trust fund

is sitting in a vault in cash or gold somewhere ?

No, it's an obligation of the bank, just like the SS trust fund is an obligation of the US Treasury.

These people are weaseling again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sydnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-10-05 12:27 AM
Response to Original message
6. I think it's time to start protesting with a sign and a lockbox too
a visual to show that Gore was right!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IronLionZion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-10-05 01:15 AM
Response to Original message
7. The US government has never defaulted on treasury notes...NEVER GODDAMNIT!
What makes you think they'll start now?

If Bush does that, our economy will tank like never before. People will frantically try to sell back their bonds and other countries will too. Investments will grind to halt and the dollar will inflate to damn near nothing.

Unless Bush and his buddies have their investments in Euros, they'd become hella poor too. They won't default on these bonds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
German-Lefty Donating Member (568 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-10-05 04:57 AM
Response to Original message
8. I'm sick of all this alarmism about SS.
Some in our country think that Social Security is a trust fund -- in other words, there's a pile of money being accumulated. That's just simply not true. The money -- payroll taxes going into the Social Security are spent. They're spent on benefits and they're spent on government programs. There is no trust.
Want to hear something equally alarmist and far fetched?

Some people think people think the Bank accounts contain money -- in other words, there's a pile of money being accumulated. That's just simply not true. Banks loan out the money and buy US Bonds allowing your money to be spent on government programs.

You don't need an SS surplus. If you've got one you may as well "invest it" in US bonds. In umpten years when SS starts to go negative we'll just raise the rates, if we have to. The system will work as long as there are enough working people to pay taxes for the elderly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jwirr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 12:44 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. So the real trick is to
improve our economy and keep people working at good paying jobs. That is something the bushies are ignoring.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-17-05 04:30 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. Well said ! :-)
:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rustydad Donating Member (753 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 01:32 PM
Response to Original message
10. Default??
International Perspective, by Marshall Auerback

Debt Trap Dynamics: Time To Think The Unthinkable
February 15, 2005

With the government and external deficits both so large and the private sector so heavily indebted, it is said that satisfactory growth in the US cannot be achieved without a large, sustained and discontinuous increase in net export demand. After perusing the trade data from last year, it is doubtful whether this will happen spontaneously through a continuous fall in the external value of the dollar, and it certainly will not happen without a cut in domestic absorption of goods and services by the US which would impart a deflationary impulse to the rest of the world.

The truth of the matter is this: Across three decades, only one economic event has been guaranteed to produce balanced US trade: a recession. When the economy is contracting, people naturally buy less of everything, including imports. Historically, on the four occasions when the line of exports briefly converged with the line of imports in the post-war period, the country was in recession. Each time economic growth was restored, the trade deficits resumed. A more ominous contradiction occurred during the 2001 recession: The trade gap was so enormous it persisted throughout. Again, in 2004, despite a significant fall in the dollar’s trade weighted index, the external account continued to haemorrhage. This suggests that American dependency on foreign producers has advanced to a dangerous new level.

<snip>

If a full-blown crisis does occur, the macroeconomic challenge would be unlike anything the United States has faced in more than half a century. While this would be a time of wrenching, painful change, the new adverse circumstances might also inspire a great shift toward radically different political solutions than have hitherto been considered within the realm of acceptability.

The first imperative--an unavoidable necessity--would be to suppress consumption through credit-restraining measures, fiscal caution or tax reform, and to stimulate greater domestic savings, yet somehow to keep the economy growing. If this great adjustment is left to market forces alone, the predictable consequences will be to punish the innocent--struggling households and small businesses--first.
<snip>

It is true that such actions on the part of the US may well provoke reactions in kind. On the other hand, given the lack of restraint evident in the country’s current foreign policy aspirations, it is hard to envisage that an economic response to the Americans’ abrogation of existing obligations would come without some possibility of a robust military response (or at least the threat of one). The US has already show itself willing to address the problem that it does not make enough of what the rest of the world wants by going to war to monopolise control of the supply and distribution of what the world needs, petroleum. There are other war aims, of course, but control of the global hydrocarbon net is certainly the most important. As market strategist Chris Sanders has noted, “The truth is that the dangerously destabilising idea has rooted in Washington that, in the words of Vice President Cheney, ‘deficits don’t matter (we proved that in the 90s).’ He is right of course in pure power terms; a fuller expression of Cheney’s dictum might well add, ‘as long as we are able to force everyone else to accept them (deficits).’”

Already, it appears clear that the US is driven to rely more on military adventure because the economic house is in disarray and "overstretched". They can't just bludgeon their way economically anymore. They have to use the stick. Any close look at the inauguration speech bears out the reliance on forcing the world to conform to us dictates. Why should this not extend ultimately to existing debt arrangements if the US finds itself facing an Argentina-like predicament? All these outcomes may sound quite improbable at this moment. Certainly, the establishment would brush them aside. But do not dismiss the possibility that dramatic change and epic political reforms lie ahead. As we have said many times before, Washington’s elites will not go down without a fight.


http://www.prudentbear.com/internationalperspective.asp


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oecher3 Donating Member (127 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-16-05 03:51 PM
Response to Original message
11. this is nothing new anymore
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 09:51 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Economy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC