U.s. Social Security Survivor's Benefits

[villagefarang]

Since I won't be expecting any handouts from SS, I'm not upset that my wife won't get any either.

I have been under the impression that you spent your entire professional life in Thailand. Maybe I'm mistaken. Did you participate in the U.S. S S program?

You are very observant and very correct. I participated but not enough. I didn’t say why I expect nothing from my government, just that I don’t expect anything. I have always known that I was responsible for myself and the government would only take from me but never give. Not complaining, that is just the way things are.

I would probably be as nervous as the next guy if I were depending on Uncle Sam to give me money for the next 30+ years, and I didn’t have any saved up and invested.

[F1fanatic]

Since I won't be expecting any handouts from SS, I'm not upset that my wife won't get any either.

I have been under the impression that you spent your entire professional life in Thailand. Maybe I'm mistaken. Did you participate in the U.S. S S program?

You are very observant and very correct. I participated but not enough. I didn't say why I expect nothing from my government, just that I don't expect anything. I have always known that I was responsible for myself and the government would only take from me but never give. Not complaining, that is just the way things are.

I would probably be as nervous as the next guy if I were depending on Uncle Sam to give me money for the next 30+ years, and I didn't have any saved up and invested.

So why post on this topic?

Edited February 19, 2011 by F1fanatic

[F1fanatic]

Misread previous posts, so have deleted my reply.

[powderpuff]

So you think the american taxpayer should pay for someone who has never paid a cent into the system ??? Not with my tax dollars, you bought her now YOU pay for her.

I paid enough intp the Ponzi scheme for both of us.

OK with me if you renounce your payout.

[villagefarang]

Let me try another tact here. I’m just a little mystified by the entitlement culture back home. Everybody thinking that the bankrupt government entitlement schemes will be able to payout, forever, without raising taxes and, or cutting benefits. Initially recipients were not expected to live long after retirement but that has changed.

To also expect, that you can marry a foreigner who is 30 years your junior and expect this same bankrupt scheme to pay for her as well, for the rest of her life, seems a bit much. I suppose it is too late for most people, but I wanted to put it out there that perhaps people might need a backup plan, if Uncle Sam can’t continue to pay.

Perhaps my first remark was a bit too flippant but considering the topic...

[F1fanatic]

Let me try another tact here. I'm just a little mystified by the entitlement culture back home. Everybody thinking that the bankrupt government entitlement schemes will be able to payout, forever, without raising taxes and, or cutting benefits. Initially recipients were not expected to live long after retirement but that has changed.

To also expect, that you can marry a foreigner who is 30 years your junior and expect this same bankrupt scheme to pay for her as well, for the rest of her life, seems a bit much. I suppose it is too late for most people, but I wanted to put it out there that perhaps people might need a backup plan, if Uncle Sam can't continue to pay.

Perhaps my first remark was a bit too flippant but considering the topic...

Have to agree. Why would anyone in their right mind expect a foreign government to pay for a wife that has never lived (let alone contributed) in their own country?

[flying]

Have to agree. Why would anyone in their right mind expect a foreign government to pay for a wife that has never lived (let alone contributed) in their own country?

Agreed in that sense & I dont know but would hazard this guess....

I am guessing those that think that...Think of SS as their account of what *they* contributed.

As such I am guessing they feel it is theirs to bequeath ....be that to a spouse who spent years caring for them or what ever.

But we know that is not truly the case. SS is a tax....sure a tax with a thin promise but ultimately it can be taken away via changes in qualifying age & a multitude of other reasons....

As others have mentioned it is a form of ponzi & as baby boomers retire eventually it will become exhausted. I think they now claim they will go red in 2017 & 2035 as the date of complete exhaustion. It is not hard to understand that at one time there were five or more workers contributing to each retired & now there is just around 3 workers contributing to each.

Edited February 19, 2011 by flying

[CraigSchuler]

So.....Just to be clear on this.....My (Thai) wife has lived with me in the States for the last 6 years, together we have a 6 year old daughter. She also has a 9 year old daughter from a former Thai boyfriend, this step daughter also lives with us in the States and I am planning on legally adopting her this summer. We are planning on moving back to Thailand this year sometime to live full time. I've been told that if my wife stays outside America for more than a year that she will loose her green card as well as my step daughter's card. Would she also not be able collect my SS? I know she would on my biological daughter but what about the other issues?

[longball53098]

I have followed this thread pretty closely I think but I am not clear about this last posting. Craig you explain you're situation and it appears you are still living in the US.

Why post a question here about a situation you have and expect answers that may or may not be correct for you and you're wife.

It would seem to me the prudent thing to do is to jump in the old family car and go to the nearest SSA offices and pose the question directly to the folks that can detail the answer. No need to hope someone here gives you an answer that may or may not be correct.

[villagefarang]

Agreed, alway go to the source. Places like this are more for entertainment value.

[moe666]

So you think the american taxpayer should pay for someone who has never paid a cent into the system ??? Not with my tax dollars, you bought her now YOU pay for her.

Lets see your tax dollars, I think it is my money I paid in to the system as well as my tax money as well, get over it.

[BuckarooBanzai]

I have followed this thread pretty closely I think but I am not clear about this last posting. Craig you explain you're situation and it appears you are still living in the US.

Why post a question here about a situation you have and expect answers that may or may not be correct for you and you're wife.

It would seem to me the prudent thing to do is to jump in the old family car and go to the nearest SSA offices and pose the question directly to the folks that can detail the answer. No need to hope someone here gives you an answer that may or may not be correct.

Fully concur that this is very good advice. If I were you I would also take along passports and any other records that confirm your wife's time in the states and maybe she could be qualified on the spot. I do not know whether it would be an attachment to her ITN or some other document but would certainly recommend trying to get it while still in the States. Don't know why possession of a green card would impact this but this may be due to my own ignorance.

Edited February 20, 2011 by BuckarooBanzai

[CaptHaddock]

As others have mentioned it is a form of ponzi & as baby boomers retire eventually it will become exhausted. I think they now claim they will go red in 2017 & 2035 as the date of complete exhaustion. It is not hard to understand that at one time there were five or more workers contributing to each retired & now there is just around 3 workers contributing to each.

The others who have described SS as a ponzi scheme are every bit as uninformed as you. Some basics facts that will be news to you: The SS Trust fund was built up by the increase in the SS contribution rate proposed by the Greenspan Commission in 1983. This increase was above and beyond the then-current needs for payouts to retirees. The purpose was to build up a suplus fund in anticipation of the increased payouts that will occur when the Baby Boomers retire and start collecting. The plan was for this Trust Fund to be spent down to zero during the Boomer payout years at which point the SS system would revert to being the fully pay-as-you-go system that it was formerly. The expected date when the Trust Fund, but not the SS system, is exhausted depends on how the economy performs, but is expected to be around 2037. (The 2017 date mentioned is a result of confusing SS with Medicare.) The SS Administration makes annual estimates of the future of the system based on three separate forecasts for GDP growth. The 2037 date for the exhaustion of the Trust Fund (but not the exhaustion of the SS system) assumes that the lowest estimate of growth applies. The highest of the three growth estimates is 2.5% per year, which is lower than the average rate since WWII. If GDP growth were to meet or exceed this estimate, the Trust Fund would never be exhausted. Even if the Trust Fund runs out as estimated about 2037, SS payouts will continue based on the collection of the payroll tax and will be able to pay out 75% of the planned benefits, which are higher than current benefits even with inflation adjustments.

It's hard to see why a system that is fully funded for the next 26 years (unlike the Defense Department which must get funded every year) is in urgent need of reform. But if reform is the topic, a simple reform would more than address the need 26 years from now. The payroll tax is a regressive tax that is disproportionately paid by lower income workers. The payroll tax only applies to the first $106,500 you earn in wages each year. So, if you earn $106,500 you pay the same payroll tax ($6,621.60) as Warren Buffet. Buffet himself doesn't think that is fair and neither do I. Nor do investors pay the SS tax on dividends, interest payments, or capital gains. Why is investment income favored over wage income? If the payroll tax ceiling were eliminated and applied to all wage income, the funding problem that SS will face in 26 years goes away completely, even if GDP growth turns out to be low.

The frequent miscomparison of SS to a ponzi scheme fails to understand the characteristics of each. SS is an insurance program to protect against old age poverty due to outliving your assets and income. As in any other insurance product such as fire insurance, many people pay in and a relatively small number actually collect. In SS this means that SS promises to pay you even if you live past 100, but few people do. Those few who do are, in effect, collecting the payments that the dead retirees are no longer collecting. This benefit is called the mortality credit. I have yet to encounter anyone who characterizes SS as a ponzi scheme who understand the mortality credit. If the concept of the mortality credit is beyond your comprehension then please continue shouting about ponzis. All investors in a ponzi scheme expect and are entitled to get their money back. But that can't happen since the money has been stolen. Therefore all ponzi schemes eventually collapse. In an insurance scheme all are covered against the financial outcome (for SS this means outliving your income and assets), but only a few actually experience that outcome. Well-run insurance programs, such as SS, are completely sustainable. Insurance companies seldom go out of business unless, like AIG, they imprudently take on unfamiliar risks that they don't understand.

[Wrong Turn]

I also got the same information. If your wife is or has not resided in USA for 5 years, forget it. She is likely not going to be happy hearing such news. Unfortunately, Thai women ASSUME a lot of things, when getting involved with a foreigner. Most of them have no awareness of all the various financial pitfalls involved and each country of origin (of the man) is different. The women generally have no concept of this.

And....

He died two years later and the girlfriend was adamant that everything was hers...

I don't think a Thai (or any foreign wife) should get her dead American husband's social security, unless she lived and worked in the US and yes, paid into SS enough to get vested.

Why should I pay for a foreign Thai wife? Especially when SS is literally paying out more than it receives, starting last year, 27 years ahead of schedule.

[flying]

In an insurance scheme all are covered against the financial outcome (for SS this means outliving your income and assets), but only a few actually experience that outcome. Well-run insurance programs, such as SS, are completely sustainable. Insurance companies seldom go out of business unless, like AIG, they imprudently take on unfamiliar risks that they don't understand.

I am sure there are more than a few that hope you are correct.

Without taking this too far off topic I will just say folks like AIG did not necessarily take on unfamiliar risks.

Risks were taken on with ratings provided by trusted sources....

Insurance risks are not always completely sustainable if claims exceed contributions.

History shows many insurance companies have gone under for that very reason.

Your claims that SS is completely sustainable assumes much.

[F1fanatic]

I have followed this thread pretty closely I think but I am not clear about this last posting. Craig you explain you're situation and it appears you are still living in the US.

Why post a question here about a situation you have and expect answers that may or may not be correct for you and you're wife.

It would seem to me the prudent thing to do is to jump in the old family car and go to the nearest SSA offices and pose the question directly to the folks that can detail the answer. No need to hope someone here gives you an answer that may or may not be correct.

Fully concur that this is very good advice. If I were you I would also take along passports and any other records that confirm your wife's time in the states and maybe she could be qualified on the spot. I do not know whether it would be an attachment to her ITN or some other document but would certainly recommend trying to get it while still in the States. Don't know why possession of a green card would impact this but this may be due to my own ignorance.

Agree, but be aware that the advice given by the SSA office may be wrong...

Retiring from the UK (admittedly not the USA), my husband and I contacted the tax office to ascertain our tax situation. They told us that if we were living abroad, no UK tax would be payable on our pension.

We retired and when tax was deducted from the pension, contacted the tax office again only to be told that the advice we'd been given previously was wrong!

Sometimes one gets better info from people who are living here than the authorities in one's own country who, let's face it, are normally underpaid youngsters who have only been in the job for a short while, and move on as soon as they gain some experience.

[BuckarooBanzai]

To Americans in particular. Just a note to all you youngsters born after 1960 or so. It was the law of the land that a husband provided for his family during his life and after his death. Social Security was built on this ethic. About 0% of women worked in the early 50's and 60's in the conventional sense - they took care of the household. When a husband met his demise his wife recieved SS as the second in command. This is what we signed into. Then, other social programs, some questionable, some not, were initiated. You were not responsible personally, but by collective vote, all excepted these new expenditures. When I die, my wife, weather born in Albany, Philadelphia, Denver, San Francisco, or Thailand, should be allowed the fruits of my labor and the law of the land. That is what I signed up for and paid for through my entire working life. Young Whippersnappers - I hope you can eventually understand your history!

Edited February 21, 2011 by BuckarooBanzai

[CaptHaddock]

I don't think a Thai (or any foreign wife) should get her dead American husband's social security, unless she lived and worked in the US and yes, paid into SS enough to get vested.

Why should I pay for a foreign Thai wife? Especially when SS is literally paying out more than it receives, starting last year, 27 years ahead of schedule.

I must be in the mood for shoveling sand into the wind today, so let me attempt to correct your confusion. SS has never run at a deficit. Last year payouts exceeded collections of the payroll tax, it is true, but in addition to the payroll tax, SS can and will draw down the SS Trust Fund, which at the end of 2009 was valued at $2.336 trillion dollars. But even that option is not necessary yet, since SS also earns interest on the US Treasury Bonds that the Trust Fund holds. Payroll tax collections together interest from the Trust Fund were more than sufficient to meet the required payouts for 2010. As the US recovery picks up and employment grows, payroll tax collections will grow also extending the life of the Trust Fund, which is planned to be exhausted eventually.

The spousal or survivor's benefit is distinct from a worker's Principal Insurance Amount or benefit. Spouses and widows have never had to work or contribute to receive the benefit. If they did work, they would have earned their own PIA and been entitled to collect the larger of the PIA or widow's benefit.

Has it ever occurred to you to check one the half-baked rumors before you repeat them?

Here's the latest SS Trustee's Summary Report, in case you are interested:

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html

[CaptHaddock]

I am sure there are more than a few that hope you are correct.

Without taking this too far off topic I will just say folks like AIG did not necessarily take on unfamiliar risks.

Risks were taken on with ratings provided by trusted sources....

Insurance risks are not always completely sustainable if claims exceed contributions.

History shows many insurance companies have gone under for that very reason.

Your claims that SS is completely sustainable assumes much.

Is there any subject, Mr. flying, on which you are actually well-informed? Joe Cassano brought AIG to its knees by selling CDOs without reserving any capital for payouts, which he first traded in 1998 and which were then deregulated two years later. In 2008 AIG's inability to pay out on the CDOs cost the taxpayers $181 billion. Sounds to you like AIG was just following its traditional lines of business?

I identified the assumptions on which the SS Trustees base their forecasts for the future of SS. I also identified reform proposals that could easily address funding needs that might appear 26 years from now, under certain scenarios.

You have identified nothing.

[flying]

Is there any subject, Mr. flying, on which you are actually well-informed?

According to your understandings probably not.....But do I care?

Folks like you who are impressed with themselves are not in short supply here.

You have identified nothing.

Here is something simple enough..........or not?

The U.S. Federal government deficit for fiscal year 2011 was revised to $1.645 trillion. That revision was up from the previous estimate of $1.4 trillion, which itself was a revision just a couple-three weeks ago by the Congressional Budget Office from the White House’s earlier projection of $1.267 trillion in December.

The additional $378 billion in deficit spending comes from loss of tax revenue

This trend does not show any signs of stopping.

I am sure you think it will not leave a stain on SS or anything else.

After all they can always just print more.

We have drifted from the OP topic

Please if you cannot speak without insults then feel free to not respond

(to me) any further.

Edited February 21, 2011 by flying

[uoduck]

So.....Just to be clear on this.....My (Thai) wife has lived with me in the States for the last 6 years, together we have a 6 year old daughter. She also has a 9 year old daughter from a former Thai boyfriend, this step daughter also lives with us in the States and I am planning on legally adopting her this summer. We are planning on moving back to Thailand this year sometime to live full time. I've been told that if my wife stays outside America for more than a year that she will loose her green card as well as my step daughter's card. Would she also not be able collect my SS? I know she would on my biological daughter but what about the other issues?

If she has lived in the states for that long then why doesn't she just become a US citizen?

[CaptHaddock]

Here is something simple enough..........or not?

The U.S. Federal government deficit for fiscal year 2011 was revised to $1.645 trillion. That revision was up from the previous estimate of $1.4 trillion, which itself was a revision just a couple-three weeks ago by the Congressional Budget Office from the White House’s earlier projection of $1.267 trillion in December.

The additional $378 billion in deficit spending comes from loss of tax revenue

This trend does not show any signs of stopping.

I am sure you think it will not leave a stain on SS or anything else.

After all they can always just print more.

We have drifted from the OP topic

Please if you cannot speak without insults then feel free to not respond

(to me) any further.

Why on earth would you be worrying about the deficit? Assuming you are an American, you have lived with deficits your whole life. Did it ever have an effect on your life that you could see? You and I both know Americans who have lost a job, or a career or a home to the Great Recession. Or had to live with a lower income because of reduced hours or been unable to borrow for their business. Or been unable to retire or couldn't stay retired. Who do you know who was ever crushed by the deficit?

It is not the case that the deficit is completely unimportant, but it pales in importance compared to the loss of 8 million jobs and the reduced economic activity that persists in the current very weak recovery. The problem with the deficit is that it is not growing fast enough because the govt is not borrowing enough and spending enough to keep up the growth rate of the economy. To the extent that the federal, state and local govts cut spending, layoff workers, cut pay and cut hours, the effect on the economy will be to slow growth. Just like when Herbert Hoover tried it in 1931 and the Japanese govts tried it again in 1998 and 2002. At the end of WWII the US national debt was 120% of GDP. Twenty years later it was 40%. How did we manage to pay it down so much in twenty years? We didn't. Not a bit. The debt grew during those years, but the economy grew faster. The standard of living increased dramatically.

The deficit has no immediate effect on SS since it's ability to pay depends on the payroll tax, the interest on the Trust Fund, and depletion of the Trust Fund itself. However, as I mentioned in my earlier post, the rate of growth of GDP is critical to the long-term health of SS.

But if you are remain worried about the deficit and want to watch an indicator to see how serious it is at the current time, look at the interest rates on the US Treasury bonds. When the bond market starts to regard the US govt as a poor credit risk those rates will climb accordingly. Today's rate on the US 10 year is 3.58%, near to a 40 year low. For a cautionary tale, pay attention to Japan whose national debt is 200% of GDP. Their 10 year rate is 1.7%.

[Wrong Turn]

I don't think a Thai (or any foreign wife) should get her dead American husband's social security, unless she lived and worked in the US and yes, paid into SS enough to get vested.

Why should I pay for a foreign Thai wife? Especially when SS is literally paying out more than it receives, starting last year, 27 years ahead of schedule.

I must be in the mood for shoveling sand into the wind today, so let me attempt to correct your confusion. SS has never run at a deficit. Last year payouts exceeded collections of the payroll tax, it is true, but in addition to the payroll tax, SS can and will draw down the SS Trust Fund, which at the end of 2009 was valued at $2.336 trillion dollars. But even that option is not necessary yet, since SS also earns interest on the US Treasury Bonds that the Trust Fund holds. Payroll tax collections together interest from the Trust Fund were more than sufficient to meet the required payouts for 2010. As the US recovery picks up and employment grows, payroll tax collections will grow also extending the life of the Trust Fund, which is planned to be exhausted eventually.

The spousal or survivor's benefit is distinct from a worker's Principal Insurance Amount or benefit. Spouses and widows have never had to work or contribute to receive the benefit. If they did work, they would have earned their own PIA and been entitled to collect the larger of the PIA or widow's benefit.

Has it ever occurred to you to check one the half-baked rumors before you repeat them?

Here's the latest SS Trustee's Summary Report, in case you are interested:

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html

Capt. Haddock thanks for your info. I am interested in re-freshing myself on the working of the SS system.

77+ baby boomers were born from 1946 to 1964, and I pay 6.4% and my employer pays 6.4% for a total of 13.1%.

No, a foreign wife should not get a dime of SS, because her American husband dies, IMO. I'm 41 and I am eligible at 67, and I do not expect to see it, even though by LAW, I have to pay into it.

Thanks for the info.

[powderpuff]

<deleted> are you smoking? What is the difference between a Thai wife or an American stay at home homemaker who never worked a job & never paid into the system?

Some of you are delusional.

[mstribling]

^ agree.

[powderpuff]

Why on earth would you be worrying about the deficit? Assuming you are an American, you have lived with deficits your whole life. Did it ever have an effect on your life that you could see? You and I both know Americans who have lost a job, or a career or a home to the Great Recession.

It is not the case that the deficit is completely unimportant, but it pales in importance compared to the loss of 8 million jobs and the reduced economic activity that persists in the current very weak recovery. The problem with the deficit is that it is not growing fast enough because the govt is not borrowing enough and spending enough to keep up the growth rate of the economy. To the extent that the federal, state and local govts cut spending, layoff workers, cut pay and cut hours, the effect on the economy will be to slow growth.

The deficit has no immediate effect on SS since it's ability to pay depends on the payroll tax, the interest on the Trust Fund, and depletion of the Trust Fund itself. However, as I mentioned in my earlier post, the rate of growth of GDP is critical to the long-term health of SS.

The most horrendous recession of our lifetimes has been institutionalised by Barack Obama. The "stimulus" money was not much more than bribes paid to unions. That is why the recovery is slow.

[Jingthing]

If you want to consider the unfairness of the SS system, think of gay spouses. They could be married for 50 years, both working in the US the entire time, and ZERO survivor benefits.

[F1fanatic]

<deleted> are you smoking? What is the difference between a Thai wife or an American stay at home homemaker who never worked a job & never paid into the system?

Some of you are delusional.

Have to agree. Any American stay at home homemaker obviously married a husband wealthy enough to pay for both of them as soon as she left college (as she NEVER worked) - and should therefore, have enough money to not need the state to pay survivor benefits.

People in this situation (where the American wife has NEVER worked are few and far between).

Similarly, if the Thai wife has never worked in America, the husband was obviously wealthy enough to pay for both of them, and the state should not pay survivor benefits.

No difference.

[JimGant]

I must be in the mood for shoveling sand into the wind today, so let me attempt to correct your confusion.

Wow. So arrogant, while being so wrong...

It's hard to see why a system that is fully funded for the next 26 years .. is in urgent need of reform.

Fully funded...and for the next 26 years? You're shoveling <deleted>, not sand...

This 'pay as you go' system finally ended up this year paying out more 'greenbacks' than it took in. And the key word here is 'greenbacks.' Because SS recipients can't be paid with all those treasury IOU's in the SS trust fund -- IOU's issued for the surplus of greenbacks that, until recently, were quite large -- and which were then mixed with general tax receipts. But the party's over. Those IOU's will now have to be exchanged for real greenbacks to be paid to the SS recipients. And where does Uncle Sam get greenbacks? From taxes, from issuing bonds to folks who can buy them with greenbacks (which ain't the SS trust fund), or from effectively printing money (which, obviously, has its limitation). Thus, the trust fund will now be in line for payments from the general fund, same as the Pentagon and all other Fed operations.

One of the best articles describing this is found HERE

The article is two years old, so he was off by a decade in his prediction as to when payouts would exceed payins.

And this is why the Simpson-Bowles report on fixing the deficit is heavy on Social Security reforms, as it has now become part of the problem with its now-negative drain on greenbacks.

Pay-as-you-go schemes, like Ponzi schemes, remain under the radar as long as money-in exceeds money-out. However, Social Security has now reached a Bernie Madoff moment.

I also identified reform proposals that could easily address funding needs that might appear 26 years from now, under certain scenarios.

You're about 26 years too late on funding needs.

[CaptHaddock]

I must be in the mood for shoveling sand into the wind today, so let me attempt to correct your confusion.

Wow. So arrogant, while being so wrong...

It's hard to see why a system that is fully funded for the next 26 years .. is in urgent need of reform.

Fully funded...and for the next 26 years? You're shoveling <deleted>, not sand...

This 'pay as you go' system finally ended up this year paying out more 'greenbacks' than it took in. And the key word here is 'greenbacks.' Because SS recipients can't be paid with all those treasury IOU's in the SS trust fund -- IOU's issued for the surplus of greenbacks that, until recently, were quite large -- and which were then mixed with general tax receipts. But the party's over. Those IOU's will now have to be exchanged for real greenbacks to be paid to the SS recipients. And where does Uncle Sam get greenbacks? From taxes, from issuing bonds to folks who can buy them with greenbacks (which ain't the SS trust fund), or from effectively printing money (which, obviously, has its limitation). Thus, the trust fund will now be in line for payments from the general fund, same as the Pentagon and all other Fed operations.

One of the best articles describing this is found HERE

The article is two years old, so he was off by a decade in his prediction as to when payouts would exceed payins.

And this is why the Simpson-Bowles report on fixing the deficit is heavy on Social Security reforms, as it has now become part of the problem with its now-negative drain on greenbacks.

Pay-as-you-go schemes, like Ponzi schemes, remain under the radar as long as money-in exceeds money-out. However, Social Security has now reached a Bernie Madoff moment.

I also identified reform proposals that could easily address funding needs that might appear 26 years from now, under certain scenarios.

You're about 26 years too late on funding needs.

So, your argument is that the US Treasury will default on its bonds. Not. Going. To. Happen. That's my opinion and the more influential opinion of the bond market. Ten year Treasury yields would look like Greek bonds if the bond market thought the US would default. But if you think so, please short Treasuries and rake in a fortune.

Edited February 26, 2011 by CaptHaddock