Social Security Trust Fund II

[cindykimlisa]

Re: Social Security Trust Fund II

How is this catastrophic risk?

For you IRA or 401K funds, this is catastrophic risk. For the rest of your assets that are held in other vehicles/forms, they ARE NOT EXPOSED, therefore not subject to catastrophic risk.


What I am saying IS the captive assets you hold in your IRA and 401K are subject to this risk (Which is classified as catastrophic due to SEVERITY and LIKELYHOOD of occurance).

If there is a 50/50 chance of being killed (catastrophic risk, severity and likelyhood once again) on the way to work today, the only effective strategy to combat this risk is avoidance UNLESS the OBJECTIVE IS IMPORTANT ENOUGH to take this risk. (In the flying world, the analogy would by "it's worth flying over that SA-10 site on the way in and the way out, EVEN if it means we lose 5/6 aircraft, to ensure that we take out that nuclear facility of some country that will remain nameless".)

Are you ready to risk the complete loss of these funds (IRA/401K ), which is essentially what happened in the Argentina example, for a certain level of gain? What level of gain would be an adequate tradeoff vs the risk of a total loss?

(If you had a risk-reward scenario that you could benefit from, then I wouldn't be so persistent. It is my contention that there is not one.)

Man you are really too paranoid get some counseling

Cindy

[ASH]

Re: Social Security Trust Fund II

For you IRA or 401K funds, this is catastrophic risk. For the rest of your assets that are held in other vehicles/forms, they ARE NOT EXPOSED, therefore not subject to catastrophic risk.

I understand the distinction you are making, but I think it is specious -- especially given your professed asset allocation. Maybe this is semantics, but I don't regard total loss of something I can live without as 'catastrophic'. Making all these analogies to life and limb is rhetorically misleading.

What I am saying IS the captive assets you hold in your IRA and 401K are subject to this risk (Which is classified as catastrophic due to SEVERITY and LIKELYHOOD of occurance).

Then maybe we're arguing about the likelihood of occurrence and severity. Loss of physical gold to robbery -- or loss of its value to confiscatory government taxation -- seem more likely to me. And all your eggs are in that basket.

If there is a 50/50 chance of being killed (catastrophic risk, severity and likelyhood once again) on the way to work today, the only effective strategy to combat this risk is avoidance UNLESS the OBJECTIVE IS IMPORTANT ENOUGH to take this risk. (In the flying world, the analogy would by "it's worth flying over that SA-10 site on the way in and the way out, EVEN if it means we lose 5/6 aircraft, to ensure that we take out that nuclear facility of some country that will remain nameless".)

I assure you I am smart enough to understand these concepts.

Are you ready to risk the complete loss of these funds (IRA/401K), which is essentially what happened in the Argentina example, for a certain level of gain?

Definitely -- and you are apparently willing to risk complete loss of your savings in physical gold to theft or confiscatory taxation. And we both have our reasons for expecting gain.

What level of gain would be an adequate tradeoff vs the risk of a total loss?

I assess the risk of the government confiscating my retirement accounts without enough warning to exit them as less than 0.1%.

First of all, do you realize that this would require a change in law which would be debated in Congress? It isn't going to happen suddenly and without warning. This is going to be as contentious as healthcare reform.

Second, do you realize that this is an anti-FIRE initiative? Tax-deferred capital gains on retirement investments is to equities what the mortgage interest deduction is to the housing industry. It exists, partly, to funnel money INTO equities, equity trading, and equity management fees. Contrary to what some think, this is not a big money-making opportunity for Wall Street. Did you read the article? The group that funded the poll is FIRE industry... they don't want this, because it involves more of the pie going to Uncle Sam and less to FIRE. There is a LOT more money to be made churning trades into and out of stocks, and managing stock funds, and inventing ETFs, than there is to facilitating regular trade in government bonds. So, off the bat, FIRE is going to be lobbying against it.

Third, conversion of all existing retirement holdings into Treasuries is much less likely than a law that says some fraction of new retirement savings must be channeled into the new Treasury bond anuity fund.

Fourth, it is highly likely that the government will allow savers to exit their retirement plans once the new policy is announced, because they are looking for short-term tax revenue. Almost no one in Washington is trying to solve a problem 5 or 10 years out; they are trying to solve their cash flow problem today. That is why conversions out of Traditional IRAs to Roth IRAs is allowed this year for high-income types; the government wants the immediate tax revenue, even though they are giving up a much larger potential revenue in later years.

(If you had a risk-reward scenario that you could benefit from, then I wouldn't be so persistent. It is my contention that there is not one.)

I got your risk/reward scenario right here. I just talked about risk -- sudden confiscation of retirement accounts without the advance possibility of exiting them is about as realistic as death panels. The reward is that tax-free capital gains traded inside a retirement account are probably the best way to profit from gold doing what it is bound to do. If I trade out now, I pay an early withdrawal penalty on top of my marginal income tax rate, so lets say that's 44% (including my state income tax). I convert the remainder to gold. Gold does what it does (lets use 5x). Then I sell and pay 28% collectibles tax. Now I have about 2x what I started with, and it's only 2015 (or whatever): I put my savings back to work in whatever looks like good value, and it does what it does -- but without any tax advantage. On the other hand, lets say I stay in the retirement account and gold does what it does... in the best case scenario, with no change to the law, I have the option of selling out of gold near the top and buying whatever looks like value. My investment continues to compound tax-free until withdrawal: Come 2015, 5x what I started with in 2010, inside an account where the investment can grow without capital gains tax, is obviously better than 2x outside such an account, unless there is a HUGE difference between capital gains rates and my marginal income tax rate down the road in 2040, when I need those savings. And if I get wind that the tax code is going to be changed in a way that I don't like, at worst I'm withdrawing with a penalty similar to what you have already incurred.

Mark my words -- any proposal to actually confiscate existing individual retirement savings and convert them into Treasuries will float like a lead balloon. At most, there will be legislation to require that a portion of new retirement savings go into this annuity scheme. Since this runs counter to FIRE's interests, I think the most likely thing is that such legislation will get killed; if it doesn't, it will probably be voluntary.

(And to return to an earlier point -- mostly the idea of doing away with the 401(k) in exchange for a Treasury-funded system comes from nanny-state idealists who want to protect unwary investors from themselves. They see themselves as fighting FIRE; they are not in league with FIRE.)

[jtabeb]

Re: Social Security Trust Fund II

I understand the distinction you are making, but I think it is specious -- especially given your professed asset allocation. Maybe this is semantics, but I don't regard total loss of something I can live without as 'catastrophic'. Making all these analogies to life and limb is rhetorically misleading.



Then maybe we're arguing about the likelihood of occurrence and severity. Loss of physical gold to robbery -- or loss of its value to confiscatory government taxation -- seem more likely to me. And all your eggs are in that basket.



I assure you I am smart enough to understand these concepts.



Definitely -- and you are apparently willing to risk complete loss of your savings in physical gold to theft or confiscatory taxation. And we both have our reasons for expecting gain.



I assess the risk of the government confiscating my retirement accounts without enough warning to exit them as less than 0.1%.

First of all, do you realize that this would require a change in law which would be debated in Congress? It isn't going to happen suddenly and without warning. This is going to be as contentious as healthcare reform.

Second, do you realize that this is an anti-FIRE initiative? Tax-deferred capital gains on retirement investments is to equities what the mortgage interest deduction is to the housing industry. It exists, partly, to funnel money INTO equities, equity trading, and equity management fees. Contrary to what some think, this is not a big money-making opportunity for Wall Street. Did you read the article? The group that funded the poll is FIRE industry... they don't want this, because it involves more of the pie going to Uncle Sam and less to FIRE. There is a LOT more money to be made churning trades into and out of stocks, and managing stock funds, and inventing ETFs, than there is to facilitating regular trade in government bonds. So, off the bat, FIRE is going to be lobbying against it.

Third, conversion of all existing retirement holdings into Treasuries is much less likely than a law that says some fraction of new retirement savings must be channeled into the new Treasury bond anuity fund.

Fourth, it is highly likely that the government will allow savers to exit their retirement plans once the new policy is announced, because they are looking for short-term tax revenue. Almost no one in Washington is trying to solve a problem 5 or 10 years out; they are trying to solve their cash flow problem today. That is why conversions out of Traditional IRAs to Roth IRAs is allowed this year for high-income types; the government wants the immediate tax revenue, even though they are giving up a much larger potential revenue in later years.



I got your risk/reward scenario right here. I just talked about risk -- sudden confiscation of retirement accounts without the advance possibility of exiting them is about as realistic as death panels. The reward is that tax-free capital gains traded inside a retirement account are probably the best way to profit from gold doing what it is bound to do. If I trade out now, I pay an early withdrawal penalty on top of my marginal income tax rate, so lets say that's 44% (including my state income tax). I convert the remainder to gold. Gold does what it does (lets use 5x). Then I sell and pay 28% collectibles tax. Now I have about 2x what I started with, and it's only 2015 (or whatever): I put my savings back to work in whatever looks like good value, and it does what it does -- but without any tax advantage. On the other hand, lets say I stay in the retirement account and gold does what it does... in the best case scenario, with no change to the law, I have the option of selling out of gold near the top and buying whatever looks like value. My investment continues to compound tax-free until withdrawal: Come 2015, 5x what I started with in 2010, inside an account where the investment can grow without capital gains tax, is obviously better than 2x outside such an account, unless there is a HUGE difference between capital gains rates and my marginal income tax rate down the road in 2040, when I need those savings. And if I get wind that the tax code is going to be changed in a way that I don't like, at worst I'm withdrawing with a penalty similar to what you have already incurred.

Mark my words -- any proposal to actually confiscate existing individual retirement savings and convert them into Treasuries will float like a lead balloon. At most, there will be legislation to require that a portion of new retirement savings go into this annuity scheme. Since this runs counter to FIRE's interests, I think the most likely thing is that such legislation will get killed; if it doesn't, it will probably be voluntary.

(And to return to an earlier point -- mostly the idea of doing away with the 401(k) in exchange for a Treasury-funded system comes from nanny-state idealists who want to protect unwary investors from themselves. They see themselves as fighting FIRE; they are not in league with FIRE.)

I Don't disagree with anything you are saying. I don't have anything to gain (or lose) financially if you act on my advice or if you don't. I don't want to insult your or anyone else (and apologize if you feel that I have, for that was never my intent). I think that one should offer counsel and advice while it is useful. (Intentions are great things, but being a day late and a dollar short isn't of much use to people after the fact).

I not saying this IS fact, or that THIS WILL Happen. I only think that given the history of behavior of this adminsitration, this is not a risk I am willing to bear myself and that likewise, I don't think it is wise for others to bear this risk either.

Advice offered and we will all independantly make our own choices. I can think something is unwise, and tell you such, but I can't (nor wouldn't) stop you from making what you feel is the best decision for you.

Didn't mean to come across as insulting of your intelligence (Said the "Beaver" to the "CalTech'r"). I did want to make sure that I spoke in a manner that was understood.
(It seems that I have done that so I will shut-up now)

[audrey_girl]

Re: Social Security Trust Fund II

I Don't disagree with anything you are saying. I don't have anything to gain (or lose) financially if you act on my advice or if you don't. I don't want to insult your or anyone else (and apologize if you feel that I have, for that was never my intent). I think that one should offer counsel and advice while it is useful. (Intentions are great things, but being a day late and a dollar short isn't of much use to people after the fact).

I not saying this IS fact, or that THIS WILL Happen. I only think that given the history of behavior of this adminsitration, this is not a risk I am willing to bear myself and that likewise, I don't think it is wise for others to bear this risk either.

Advice offered and we will all independantly make our own choices. I can think something is unwise, and tell you such, but I can't (nor wouldn't) stop you from making what you feel is the best decision for you.

Didn't mean to come across as insulting of your intelligence (Said the "Beaver" to the "CalTech'r"). I did want to make sure that I spoke in a manner that was understood.
(It seems that I have done that so I will shut-up now)

thanks for a very interesting thread...

imho, i agree with ash on how this is looking right now

still, as the times becoming increasingly desperate, the men and women running the country will starting taking some pretty desperate actions...

[jtabeb]

Re: Social Security Trust Fund II

Man you are really too paranoid get some counseling

Cindy

Go to setting/options/edit ignore list - member "jtabeb" on your personal Itulip page if you like. But sadly, there is nothing wrong with my mental state.


see:

http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot...401ks-and.html

08 January 2010

The Obama Administration Is Eyeing Your 401k's and IRA's


As a rule of thumb, the worst possible time to convert lump sum savings into a fixed income annuity would be when interest rates are historically low.

Although products may vary, this is roughly equivalent to buying long term bonds at a time when interest rates are likely to increase, substantially reducing your principal in real terms, and eroding your fixed returns through inflation.

For some reason the Obama Administration is promoting the idea now that there should be some encouragement for Americans to start converting their 401K's and IRA's into annuities, to provide themselves with lifetime income.

Perhaps just rolling those 401K's and IRA's into Social Security or the Long Bond would be what they have in mind. Somehow the panacea of TIPS with inflation defined by the government sounds probable. The drawback perhaps is that this would not generate the highest recurring fees for Wall Street and the FIRE sector, which have to be eyeing that 'cash on the sidelines' hungrily.

How about Patriot bonds that are fully invested in Mortgage Debt formerly owned by the Fed, with some tranches of Commercial Real Estate to add some 'bam' to the recipe?

And I thought that Greenspan's advice for homeowners to step into ARMs into the knee of the housing bubble was foul.

Have these people no shame?


And Just in case you would like some further information, you can listen to what MIT economist Simon Johnson thinks about the present economy (Not related directly to this thread on 401Ks/IRAs)

Best Quote?

Simon Johnson: "We Now Have A Financial System That Is Completely Based On Moral Hazard"

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Social Security Trust Fund II

I don't think "they" want to take nominal ownership of our 401K or IRA money from us, but rather divert these funds into Treasuries. So I don't fear a sudden loss of the money I have in IRA's. However it would not surprise me to see limitations on further earning capacity in them due to constraints on investment options. We might also see worsening penalties for removing money from them before retirement age, and (as in Social Security) increasing taxation hits on withdrawals by those who can't prove they are sufficiently poor.

Particularly in a situation with which "I am familiar," self-directed IRA's in illiquid assets would be quite difficult to pry loose capriciously. The resulting legal mess and bad press would overwhelm any benefit to either the government or the IRA holder. They need to boil us frogs with slowly rising water temperature; they don't want us jumping out of the pan prematurely. They're afraid we might bite, or in the case of Texans, shoot.

They also have a continuing stream of new investment money coming into 401K's; I doubt they want the majority of 401K contributors stopping their contributions.

If I were a Jew in Germany in 1939 (with the benefit of a good crystal ball) then I would properly fear the outright confiscation of my property, my gold teeth and my life. I don't see that being an issue here.

Rather I suspect most of us are viewed like a herd of cows, to be milked for votes, taxes and whatever role playing (mortgage holder, consumer, ...) they decide is our proper lot in life. Only a few, such as those sent off to dubious wars or those caught on the wrong end of some War on Drugs bust or those who threaten the elite or the victims of some alleged immoral medical experiments are at serious risk of losing life or property.

Calm down everyone, calm down. Eat your chemical laced hay and don't touch the electric fence.

[Rajiv]

Re: Social Security Trust Fund II

Most likely what would happen is that they would put limits on where money managers could put their client's money. I do not think tht they could do that on self directed IRA's and 401K's

[jimmygu3]

Re: Social Security Trust Fund II

Most likely what would happen is that they would put limits on where money managers could put their client's money. I do not think that they could do that on self directed IRA's and 401K's

I doubt it too, but they can do anything they want if they have enough votes in congress.

I think just about everyone here is blowing this way out of proportion. As I have said in previous threads, if the gov't seizes accounts and converts them to Treasuries, the stock market crashes immediately. Do you think Wall Street will let that happen? The same people who came up with this whole privatized retirement account system in which WS gets all the money before taxes are taken out?

Tax-deferred accounts are sold to consumers using flawed logic that boils down to betting your tax rate is lower at retirement than it is now. Meanwhile, the real reason is that WS gets more money. Same reason they wanted to privatize Social Security. Funneling more money to WS. They will not let go of that money without a huge fight.

The proposals in the article deal with encouraging annuities for those close to retirement. They rest of this is pure speculation based on Argentina, who did not have the luxury of debt denominated in its own currency.

-Jimmy

[ASH]

Re: Social Security Trust Fund II

I Don't disagree with anything you are saying. I don't have anything to gain (or lose) financially if you act on my advice or if you don't. I don't want to insult your or anyone else (and apologize if you feel that I have, for that was never my intent). I think that one should offer counsel and advice while it is useful. (Intentions are great things, but being a day late and a dollar short isn't of much use to people after the fact).

Sorry for being snippy, JT. I appreciate your commentary; I just think we're disagreeing about the magnitude of the threat, rather than its proper method of analysis. (And, as always, I stand ready to eat my words when things don't turn out the way I think they will!)

As it happens, I think the beaver is also Caltech's mascot... only I think the school disbanded their football team in 1993 or so... hence the T-shirt that says "Caltech Football: Undefeated Since 1993".

[ASH]

Re: Social Security Trust Fund II

Tax-deferred accounts are sold to consumers using flawed logic that boils down to betting your tax rate is lower at retirement than it is now. Meanwhile, the real reason is that WS gets more money. Same reason they wanted to privatize Social Security. Funneling more money to WS.

I agree with most of what you say, but I think you are missing the aspect of compound growth without taxation on dividends and capital gains. Insofar as buy-and-hold doesn't really work, avoidance of capital gains tax is pretty significant. You may be taxed at a higher rate on income withdrawn from a tax-deferred retirement account than you would have been taxed at the time the money was deposited, but its rate of compound growth will have been much higher.

The Wall Street angle is not the only reason people wanted to privatize Social Security (or, at least, the surplus payroll tax collected for Social Security... back when there was a surplus). The purchase of GAS bonds by the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds is abusive and unethical. Consider what it means: tax-payers working during the period of "surplus" get the full value of their tax dollars at the time they are working because the surplus is actually spent on current government operations. Then, through a legal fiction, they lay claim to those same dollars for their retirement needs, pre-obligating the general tax funds raised from their children. Not only do the retirees double-dip through this fiction -- they collect compound interest! Every year, billions of dollars never collected as surplus payroll tax nor spent by the government are added to the Trust Funds -- "paid" as interest on the GAS bonds held by the Trust Funds. No doubt privatization of Social Security would have benefitted Wall Street, but at least it would not have harmed future generations. Loaning money to yourself at interest is not an investment that brings in any new money -- the Trustees say that every year in their report. If the Trust Funds had been invested anywhere else, in anything else, they would have some positive value as a resource to draw upon to fund future retirement spending. The key is that any investment other than a Treasury bond is an asset that can actually bring new money into the Treasury when it is redeemed; the surplus payroll tax has been invested in the one thing on this earth that is guaranteed to be useless for that purpose. Even if Wall Street claimed a fraction of the surplus payroll tax -- even if Wall Street claimed 99.99999% of it -- there would still be more to show for it when withdrawals are made from the Trust Funds than investment in GAS bonds. They are a diabolical excrescence; I'd rather invest in sand. At least sand isn't a liability.

[Crazyfingers]

Re: Social Security Trust Fund II

Interesting! TPTB have soo many options at this point. Good luck figuring out their next chess move. They have many moves that could achieve the same objective of skimming off the top of other people's earnings.

Could they be overstating the amount of treasuries the TBTF banks are holding? Could they be collecting interest on their reserves or in equites and commodities instead? Quitely exiting and building up cash to buy 10 year treasuries at much higher rates? Just waiting patiently for the masses to get scared or forced back into treasuries. And after the herd has purchased high with poor rates, jack up rates and the Crooks pounce on 10 year with +5% returns.

TPTB are not stupid. They know everything and more that we know.

My guess is they will crash the markets, force the herd into treasuries, then wait and buy 10 year with much better yields. Corporate bonds are to risky, commercial real eastate too risky, same for stocks. 10 year with decent yield seems less risky. Then raise taxes, cut social benefits, and privatize anything the government still has of value. The bullhorn will be in full force promoting public/private partnerships. The good ol USA will then be completely owned by TPTB. At least this way they can claim they prevented another bubble and practiced fiscal responsibility.

Or they hyperinflate and start a new currency. Same result, more risky.

Unfortunately the masses are too divided and manipulated to effectively stop their next chess move, whatever it may be.

I completely disagree with the people that say these guys are incompetent. Thats what they want us to believe on everything. We are not crooks! Just dumb! Dont buy it. They know exactly what they are doing. Selling fear for profit. Wether it is the banker bailouts, war on terror, global warming, or H1N1.

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: Social Security Trust Fund II

They know exactly what they are doing. Selling fear for profit. Whether it is the banker bailouts, war on terror, global warming, or H1N1.

Yes, except in one detail.

I view it more as "they" are herding us like some herds of half-wild cattle. At specific choke points, they know pretty much how the herd will go. But the weather is never certain, some of the terrain is unchartered, and sometimes things happen, so they won't necessarily know whether the herds will break this way or that or stand there and eat grass . But this doesn't present a critical problem to them; whichever way we break, they have a pretty good idea how to work it.

But yes, one of their stocks in trade is fear. A sufficient variety, intensity and frequency of fear eventually numbs the victims, especially if most of the time no useful response was available (or even required, in the face of drummed up bogus fears.)

[jpatter666]

Re: Social Security Trust Fund II

Yes, except in one detail.

I view it more as "they" are herding us like some herds of half-wild cattle. At specific choke points, they know pretty much how the herd will go. But the weather is never certain, some of the terrain is unchartered, and sometimes things happen, so they won't necessarily know whether the herds will break this way or that or stand there and eat grass . But this doesn't present a critical problem to them; whichever way we break, they have a pretty good idea how to work it.

But yes, one of their stocks in trade is fear. A sufficient variety, intensity and frequency of fear eventually numbs the victims, especially if most of the time no useful response was available (or even required, in the face of drummed up bogus fears.)

So basically you feel we're going to get milked more, that quality of the grass is going to get worse. Jtabeb thinks we're going to get turned into steaks and better to make a break for it? :p

Of course an unpredicted stampede at any point could screw the whole thing up.

[jk]

Re: Social Security Trust Fund II

a good thread, and i'd like to thank you all for it. the issue is an important one for me, as i'm older than most of you [early 60's] and have pretty much ALL my assets in my retirement plan.

i think that, as usual, ash's analysis is both level-headed and insightful.

re: manipulation via fear- it is a sad reality that there is no security or predictability for anyone in this society except for the richest.

i also had the thought that itulip is a tremendous and far-seeing resource. list the issues being discussed or referenced here: fire's political influence, government manipulation of statistics and policies including tax structures, the value of the dollar, public-private partnerships, monetary policy, debt and fiscal policy. [somehow we haven't managed to bring in peak cheap oil.] these are all the SAME issues we've been discussing since itulip re-opened in early '06. i say that not as a criticism, but as praise- imo, we've been focused on the right things from the beginning, and we continue to chew them over, to the benefit of both newcomers and long-term participants. pretty good.

[rjwjr]

Re: Social Security Trust Fund II

a good thread, and i'd like to thank you all for it. the issue is an important one for me, as i'm older than most of you [early 60's] and have pretty much ALL my assets in my retirement plan.

i think that, as usual, ash's analysis is both level-headed and insightful.

re: manipulation via fear- it is a sad reality that there is no security or predictability for anyone in this society except for the richest.

i also had the thought that itulip is a tremendous and far-seeing resource. list the issues being discussed or referenced here: fire's political influence, government manipulation of statistics and policies including tax structures, the value of the dollar, public-private partnerships, monetary policy, debt and fiscal policy. [somehow we haven't managed to bring in peak cheap oil.] these are all the SAME issues we've been discussing since itulip re-opened in early '06. i say that not as a criticism, but as praise- imo, we've been focused on the right things from the beginning, and we continue to chew them over, to the benefit of both newcomers and long-term participants. pretty good.

I'm in a similar situation to jk in that most (about 85%) of my liquid investable assets are in a 401k. Those in this thread that have little fear of this issue or feel that jtabeb is being paranoid, whether it be outright Argentine-type confiscation or forced investment in TIPS, you likely have relatively little dollar amounts at risk.

Ash...I don't know your situation, but hypothetically, if you were jk and you had $1,000,000 in your 401k and about $100,000 in the bank, wouldn't you be worried about relying on the goverment annuity idea for your retierment if retirement were staring you in the face? Try to put yourself in that position and you can see how scary this issue becomes. You become totally beholden to the government for the rest of your life. You have gone from being a strong, independent, successful, proud indivuidualist to being on the goverment teet for a bi-monthly check. Sad.

jtabeb...The only thing holding me back from also liquidating my 401k is I still believe that grabbing 401k balances would be HUGELY unpopular, even mob-inciting, and I feel that Uncle Sam has an alternative...keep printing dollars. I don't have a good answer yet to the question "Why wouldn't Uncle Sam simply print the dollars he needs rather than confiscate private retirement monies?"

No offense to any of the great minds on this site, but I sure wish Fred or EJ would weigh-in on this topic. It's important to many of us. Hell, even the sanest among us iTulipers have said this issue may finally incite us to pitchfork status. EJ...any thoughts?