OT: shutdown

Your snippage of your asinine argument noted.

Because those procedures are not calculated in the costs. It's a contract.

Why not? He's controlling many billions for his INVESTORS. His INVESTORS are paying him, not you, idiot.

You really are a moron and insist on demonstrating it constantly.

There is, moron. Good God, you're stupid!

But you just said that insurance, investment, and Ponzi schemes are all the same thing, dumbass!

It is interesting that you snip everything so you can conveniently back away from your asinine arguments. What a moron!

m >>cost exceeds tax revenue and interest earnings until depletion of total >>trust fund reserves in 2033, the same year projected in last year?s Tr ustees >>Report. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay about th ree->>quarters of scheduled benefits through 2087."

Current payroll taxes (FICA) pay for about 95% of benefits. SS is completel y off budget and a system unto it's own. All the payroll tax funds received are earmarked for SS Benefits, and nothing else. If you want to juggle the numbers and allocate some of the (FICA) payroll tax to other areas of gove rnment, it amounts to grand felony theft.

-Bill

Complete nonsense. The SS fund has been laundered though the treasury for decades. Money goes in to the general fund and an IOU gets left to "pay for" future benefits. Money must be borrowed to repay that IOU. The money was spent. The government *cannot* invest money.

gram >>cost exceeds tax revenue and interest earnings until depletion of to tal >>trust fund reserves in 2033, the same year projected in last year?s Trustees >>Report. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay about three->>quarters of scheduled benefits through 2087."

and

tely off budget and a system unto it's own. All the payroll tax funds recei ved are earmarked for SS Benefits, and nothing else. If you want to juggle the numbers and allocate some of the (FICA) payroll tax to other areas of g overnment, it amounts to grand felony theft.

So, if a Chinese investor buys a US treasury bond, money must also be borro wed to repay that IOU. What is the difference of the two cases? Seems the g overnment *cannot* invest the borrowed money in either case? If push comes to shove, who gets paid first?

-Bill

rowed to repay that IOU. What is the difference of the two cases? Seems the government *cannot* invest the borrowed money in either case? If push come s to shove, who gets paid first?

And in either case, why "invest" money if you can simply print it?

As long as we insist on running a deficit, that's true. Money is borrowed to pay off the last bond. It's no different than taking a cash advance on one credit card to pay the minimum payment on another.

The government cannot *invest* money at all. It would be a *bad* idea if it could.

That's the lefty's solution to everything. Worked well for the Weimar Republic, and the rest of the world.

program >>cost exceeds tax revenue and interest earnings until depletion of total >>trust fund reserves in 2033, the same year projected in last year ?s Trustees >>Report. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay about three->>quarters of scheduled benefits through 2087."

SS

pletely off budget and a system unto it's own. All the payroll tax funds re ceived are earmarked for SS Benefits, and nothing else. If you want to jugg le the numbers and allocate some of the (FICA) payroll tax to other areas o f government, it amounts to grand felony theft.

rrowed to repay that IOU. What is the difference of the two cases? Seems th e government *cannot* invest the borrowed money in either case? If push com es to shove, who gets paid first?

So the National Bureau of Standards was a bad idea. krw takes every possibl e chance to reminds us of his intellectual limitations.

BS > So the National Bureau of Standards was a bad idea. Over and over again you seem inordinately concerned about US Government functions for an Australian. Or were you referring to the Australian Bureau of Standards?

rrowed to repay that IOU. What is the difference of the two cases? Seems th e government *cannot* invest the borrowed money in either case? If push com es to shove, who gets paid first?

How about the moon landing in 1968? Was that a bad idea?

-Bill

I'm no great fan of Australian politicians, but at least they don't go around shutting down useful government services from time to time.

The Australian National Bureau of Standards seems to be working fine.

They haven't done much that has impinged on my interests since they invented the Thompson-Lampard cross-capacitor back in 1956

but standards labs do tend to concentrate on the esoteric.

Um, 1968? I thought the first moon "landing" was the Luna 2 (soviet) back in 1959. And if we're talking US, then it would be Ranger 4 in '62 (unmanned), and '69 for the first man on the moon.

Tang (r), now THAT was a bad idea! :)

Ummm... Tang! I LOVE Tang! ;-)

As for government 'investing'. there are a few things that government SHOULD invest in. Pure research is usually a good investment. I would say education, especially higher education, but that has proven to be a fiasco. All that has happened there is that universities took in ever more money, found ever more ways to waste it, decided that there were ever more ways to derail an education for idealogical nonsense, and all that money did was cause tuition to raise faster than anyone could possibly pay for it!

I recall a beverage made from it that was popular with students. Tang, alcool*, and a bag of ice dumped into a cooler.

• formatting link

Proving, once again, that you're illiterate, Slowman.

Evidently. We have nothing but a money pit left of it.

Liberals think all spending is investment.

That's why they think welfare pays back 10:1?