#15 | POSTED BY HANS

Actually sounds like the typical kink of the woke left. They want to be dominated and degraded for their maleness and whiteness. At first, I thought you were just filled with self hate, however, the more your type displays it, it is clear that it is not self hatred because you have a completed unwarranted level of self esteem. Rather, it is a strange sexual kink you are displaying. Other perverts will pay people to spit on them or stomp their balls in private - the woke left gets off on having your shame in public. It is a mental disorder.

"Actually, no it doesn't.
#17 | POSTED BY HANS"

Except for the fact that it describes you exactly. I don't feel shame based on my color or gender. No need to provide reparations for actions I never participated in - slavery, colonization, etc. I am mature enough to know that values change over time and that it is idiotic to judge someone that lived hundreds of years ago by the same standard we have now. I think you don't want to continue playing that game either or you are going to feel a great deal of shame over your support for abortion in 40 years - the true American genocide.

As such, I don't have a need for a potato like Greta to tell me how to live my life - I see no point in listening to a mentally challenged, uneducated teen with poor social skills lecture me about the climate or any other topic. The left has made her celebrity because you NEED that shame. You LOVE that shame. That is your kink - why you love to support people that say you should feel shame for your gender, race, or wealth status.

Again, it is a sick perversion. It is a mental problem.

#21 | POSTED BY IRAGOLDBERG

I would bet dollars to donuts that the areas of the brain that light up when listening to Greta condemn them are the same receptors associated with sex for the Left. It is like a taboo for your turds as you received nothing but false praise and participation trophies growing up. You are immune to the unearned praise now - you need to be condemned for your sexual kink.

"Get back to me when you have almost 20 years of posting here.
#23 | POSTED BY HANS"

You wear that as a badge of pride? You turds make me bored after a few months. Frankly, I just like to watch Trump tie you in knots as you need to support positions you opposed just 3 years ago simply because you cannot agree with Trump. I think you associate him with the delinquent father figure that left you all to be raised by single moms.

"Hans gets all the chicks with dicks." - Posted by I_N_Cognito at 2007-03-25 12:13 AM
#27 | POSTED BY CREEPY-HANDS"

Much like the guys resorting to the 3rd world to get girls out of their reach, you have embraced the transsexual community.

#30 | POSTED BY HANS

I see you are digging deep into your Creeper File. While you are at it, can you pull the conversation that I had with Danforth regarding SS from about 4 months ago where he stated that Bush used the SS Trust Fund to pay for tax cuts? He wants to lie about what he said now so we need to get it on the record.

"Zero personal responsibility.
Expected.
#34 | POSTED BY HANS"

I don't have a creeper file like you. It is a simple request. I assume you are not in such desperate need for self-esteem that you only save the messages which are positive towards you and that you actually save all posts. So, it is just a matter of a simple search for you. If that is not the case and you actually are that insecure, you have my pity.

"Translation: It's unfair to judge me by my posts!
#38 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

He has not linked to a single one of my posts. I would be happy for him to do so as everything I say comes to pass as truthful and accurate.

"I said Bush SHOULD HAVE used the surpluses to shore up SS; instead, Dubya cited the PAYROLL tax overcollections as a reason to cut the INCOME tax rates.
#40 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

NO, YOU DID NOT LIAR. You said he USED the surpluses to PAY for tax cuts.

Creepy Hands probably has the actual post saved in his spank bank somewhere.

"No he didn't.
But, when all you have are lies then lying's all you can do.
#44 | POSTED BY HANS "

Please provide the actual quote, we all know you have it.

"I said Dubya cited payroll tax overcollections to justify his income tax cut. That's 100% true.
Your claim is a lie, probably because you've realized you can't debate me if you're limited to telling the truth.
#47 | POSTED BY DANFORTH "

NO YOU DID NOT LIAR. You said he USED the money - replacing it with worthless IOU's that should be converted into GOLD - to PAY for the tax cuts - not JUSTIFY. Don't lie now.

"More lies: I said that a company's bond, backed by more company bonds, wouldn't be taken seriously by anyone else, "

IE - WORTHLESS.

"and at least gold had some kind of actual backing"

So you are admitting the gold stupidity?

"especially since they're bonds which can't be bought and sold on the market. You even argued that the SS account was similar to 401k accounts, a lie
#53 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

The don't need to be sold on the market because they will be repurchased by the government - backed by the FULL FAITH of the US government. Do you want to know why they are not invested in gold, -------? It is because their OBLIGATIONS are based in US DOLLARS. Thus, if the gold price falls, the SS Trust Fund would decrease in value and pull in the SS bankruptcy date even closer than it is now.

Second - I NEVER stated the SS trust fund was like a 401k account. That is the polar opposite of what I argued. The SS (as opposed to the SS Trust Fund) has ZERO ASSETS - well, I guess the same as your 401k in that regard. SS is a pay in / pay out model - THERE IS NO SAVINGS FEATURE. The only reason why the fund has assets now is because the fund has an OVER COLLECTION in anticipation of the baby boomers retiring. The fund is modeled in a net zero asset basis - it is not a sovereign wealth fund.

So, not only are you once again lying, but you show your financial stupidity....much like yesterday where your TurboTax accounting skills didn't know what an Excel Tab was.

"You've pretended you're an investment advisor."

No, I am the chief investment officer of a large company. I have done consulting work as well in the green energy, technology, and real estate development sectors as well.

"How would you analyze bonds issued by a company, which were backed by...wait for it...bonds issued by the same company?"

It is not a company - IT IS THE US GOVERNMENT. So, to your point - if the company posted as collateral for their loan a US government bond, I would treat it as 100% value as the US government bond is the definition of a RISK FREE ASSET. Again, when you say things like the above, it reveals that you have never seriously worked with money before.

"IOW, they're only backed by newly collected money, from taxes."

Just like EVERY OTHER US GOVERNMENT BOND - and guess what? - they are considered RISK FREE ASSETS. No need to discount them when using as collateral. They are the safest and most easily marketable of all securities - including CASH.

"Meaning their bonds are backed by...other bonds."

Issued by the US ---- GOVERNMENT - and hence RISK FREE.

"And these bonds are SPECIAL ones, since they have no market value of their own."

There you go arguing they are worthless again - that is an incredibly stupid argument to keep making.

"You pretended the advantages were the same; otherwise I never would've had to point out the differences."

You 'pointed out the difference' because you don't understand the SS Trust Fund or a 401k plan. You are a blind man describing color.

"it's NOTHING like a 401(k)"

It is like YOUR 401k program in that there are no assets because you are a fake ass loser pretending to be an accountant on the internet being betrayed by your total lack of understanding in anything money related.

I challenged you before and I challenge you again - which University did you attend and what degree to earn?

"1). SS has no residual value"

NO ----. It is not a saving program - it is money in / money out like I told you from day 1.

"2). The growing 401(k) has value to the owner"

AGAIN - NO ----. Here is your question and the point at which you step on your dick. If your 401k program invests in a fund that owns US government debt - your argument from above is that this fund's assets are worthless because government debt is backed only by future taxpayer dollars. It is a stupid argument that you continue to make. Now, you want to shift and pretend that I argued SS has some 'savings' feature - no, I NEVER made that argument because - unlike YOU - I understand how SS works.

""It is like YOUR 401k program in that there are no assets"
#66 | POSTED BY DANFORTH "

I even capitalized YOUR in my comment so you would understand that I am talking about YOUR - Douchefroth' 401k - not 401k's in general, because YOUR 401k has no assets because you don't have 2 nickels to rub together as shown by your repeated financial stupidity. In that way, SS is like YOUR 401k in that it has no assets.

My lord you are one thick individual.

"You pretended it had the same value as any 401(k)"

Nope. Never, ever said that. I said it has the same value as YOUR 401k, which is ZERO. I said the value of the debt carried in the TRUST FUND had the same value as the debt you carry in ANY 401k program (if you ever actually have assets in YOUR 401k) as the Trust Fund assets are backed by the full faith and credit of the US government.

"That's usually a small percentage, not the whole picture."

It can be 100% ------- - but the % does not matter - the debt is EXACTLY THE SAME IN ITS VALUE.

"You were pretending its value was comparable to a 401(k)"

------- - learn the difference between the TRUST FUND and SS as a PROGRAM. The SS Trust Fund has assets - THAT HAVE VALUE. No need to convert them into gold because they are worthless. That was just stupid and you should own it. The SS Program does not have assets BY DESIGN. It is not a sovereign wealth fund.

"I could've retired years ago.
#71 | POSTED BY DANFORTH "

Douchefroth - literally, just stop. You aren't fooling anyone. You won't state your university or degree because those don't exist. You show your financial illiteracy on a daily basis. But, just for ----- and giggles, tell me what the CAPM is and its shortcoming in project level budgeting for companies. Tell me what the efficient frontier is and how it is impacted by leverage. Tell me when a company makes an investment in another firm, what are the rules for consolidating the financials vs. carrying at cost. Simple ---- anyone with a degree in finance/accounting can answer.

"So you're admitting when cornered"

Once again, my statement was 100% accurate, you are still just butthurt over it.

"Not on the open market, and not on a day-to-day basis for the participant. "

THE PARTICIPANT DOES NOT OWN ----. The Trust Fund owns the assets - not a person. Again, for the 1000th time - SS IS NOT A SAVINGS PROGRAM. That is why it is going bankrupt.

"so all the contributions are worthless to the contributor"

TO THE CONTRIBUTOR - NO ---- ----. No one has EVER argued otherwise. Your argument was that the assets themselves were worthless because "they are just a stack of IOU's" - that was an idiotic argument so thank you for abandoning it.

"Riiiiiiight. Meanwhile, you confused government debt with SS bonds held specifically within the SS system."

Again, you are a blind man describing color. You have no clue what you are talking about so you are excitedly trying to move the goalposts and even failing at that because you are so financially illiterate.

"Just to see if you're at all connected to reality: under SS law, how much is the government required to pay out? I'll even give you three choices: a) what they've promised; b) what they've promised, adjusted for inflation; or c) nothing.
#77 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

Social Security is a MANDATED PROGRAM - by that - it is supposed to pay out what was promised. However, in actual operation is can, and will, default on those obligations. It is a political question - not a legal question on how much the fund can default on required obligations before taxpayers revolt POLITICALLY.

Now, go on. You had a bit to do some googling - answer my questions above.

"That I'm essentially broke?!?"

That is the logical deduction based on your poor understanding of finance and lack of a university degree while pretending to be an accountant. If you ever held such a position, book-keeper or tax preparer/Turbotax Review would be more apt.

"Not worthless, per se, just non-marketable on a day-to-day basis,"

The TRUST FUND can redeem any time they want. So, no you are still wrong.

"and no residual guarantee."

Again, no. These bonds are interest bearing.

"No guarantee at all, to be totally honest. And that's DIFFERENT from your 401(k)."

Other than the backing of the full faith and credit of the US government. We are not even talking quasi-government like the mortgage guarantors - these are explicitly 100% government backed.

"Says the guy who brought up marketable government"

From the perspective of the Trust Fund? There is no different. Redeemable on demand, interest bearing, and risk free.

"So in other words: nothing. Game. Set. Match.
G'night, all.
#79 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

Moving the old goal posts again their -------. Now you are conflating the assets in the Trust Fund with the SS Program as a whole. So, again - no, you are wrong. The assets in the fund are 100% government backed and risk free an any other US government debt issued. The SS PROGRAM, however, is pay in/pay out which is why is will default. But, again, has ZERO to do with your original argument about Bush using the SS Trust Fund to pay for tax cuts or that the assets held by the Trust Fund being worthless and should be converted to gold.

Now - for the 3rd time - plenty of time to Google, answer my simple questions above. Use that big brain of yours for something.

"But the participant can't, which was the point."

BECAUSE THERE IS NOT SUCH THING AS A PARTICIPANT. An illegal with wage withholding cannot collect either - does that make the Trust Fund fake? Your argument is moronic. The people collecting are beneficiaries, not savers or investors.

"The word is "difference", and it's nonsense: one is marketable, and one is non-marketable.

The only people that can buy and sell them is the SS Administers and US government - they are 100% marketable. Hell, just look up the definition of 'marketable securities' on Google and you get:

"These are financial instruments that can be easily converted to cash such as GOVERNMENT BONDS, common stock or certificates of deposit."

- and that is EXACTLY what the Trust Fund holds. Again, stop your dumber than dirt argument about these Trust Fund assets being worthless and should be converted to gold. Literally - just stop.

"Ya gotta love the self-retorting retort.
#81 | POSTED BY DOUCHEFROTH"

My argument was the same since day 1 - correct then as it is now. You first tried to lie about your claims - then tried to move the goalposts - but you failed in both attempts.

4th time - which university did you attend what is your degree? Or - you have had several hours to study - you can now answer my simple financial questions above.