fuel economy in car commercials

In article >,
Big Bill > wrote:
>On Mon, 28 Mar 05 14:54:36 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>> "C. E. White" > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In article >,
>>>> DTJ > wrote:
>>>> >On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 19:42:15 -0500, "Vendicar Decarian" >
>>>> >wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >>"DTJ" > wrote in message
>>>> >>> You liberals sure like to throw around make believe terms about
>>>> >>> government.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>By now it's well known how Bush turned the $127 billion surplus he
>>>> >>inherited in 2001 into a historic $413 billion deficit by 2004. It's
>>>> >
>>>> >Hey retard, there was no surplus. Your "lockbox" for SS was a fraud,
>>>> >and your favorite Ken Lay supporter, slick willy klinton, used all
the
>>>> >SS money to make it appear, to low life incompetent fools like
>>>> >yourself, that he had a surplus.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> 1. SS has a surplus, a trust fund, that is invested in gov't bonds.
>>>> 2. For 2 years under Clinton, the gov't had a surplus, not counting
SS.
>>>
>>>Item 2 is not true.
>>>They did include the SS revenue when
>>>declaring a surplus.
>>
>>The last 2 years under Clinton, there was a surplus even w/o counting the
>>SS surplus. If you look at the data, you see those 2 years, revenues
>>exceeded expenditures and the debt held by the public declined.
>
>But not the debt held by the Government.

Irrelevant. If I loan myself $100, am I worse off?

>>
>>
>>>As for "1" while technically true, the
>>>money is spent and the "investment" is little more than a
>>>bookkeeping fiction.
>>>
>>
>>No, the money is no more fiction than when you buy a savings bond.
>
>No, when I buy a Savings Bond, the money is real; I know, I paid it.

And SS paid for its gov't bonds too.

>However, when I want to redeem it, the scale is far lower than when
>the SS Bonds will come due; the Government can cover it.

But multiply that by everyone that owns gov't obligations -- it adds up to
trillions of $$.


>The
>Government can't cover those bonds used to replace the funds in the SS
>account.
>You can, I'm certain, cover a $100 check. Can you cover a $1,000,000
>check? I doubt it. Same principle.

Yes, same principle. Same as if I buy an IBM corporate bond; when I redeem
it, I get the money; I don't really care how IBM comes up with it.

>>
>>>
>>>Ed
>

In article >,
Big Bill > wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Mar 05 09:03:04 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>>But not the debt held by the Government.
>>
>>Irrelevant. If I loan myself $100, am I worse off?
>
>It is if you spend both the loaned money and the note.

But I've taken $100 from my savings account and used it to buy a savings
bond.

>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>As for "1" while technically true, the
>>>>>money is spent and the "investment" is little more than a
>>>>>bookkeeping fiction.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>No, the money is no more fiction than when you buy a savings bond.
>>>
>>>No, when I buy a Savings Bond, the money is real; I know, I paid it.
>>
>>And SS paid for its gov't bonds too.
>
>Absolutely.
>But where is it now?
>>
>>>However, when I want to redeem it, the scale is far lower than when
>>>the SS Bonds will come due; the Government can cover it.
>>
>>But multiply that by everyone that owns gov't obligations -- it adds up
to
>>trillions of $$.
>
>We are talking about SS, not other debts. The bonds that make up the
>SS surplus are not capable of being redeemed; the gov't simply doesn't
>have that money.

It doesn't have the trillions owed to investors who have financed the
national debt either. So?

>>
>>
>>>The
>>>Government can't cover those bonds used to replace the funds in the SS
>>>account.
>>>You can, I'm certain, cover a $100 check. Can you cover a $1,000,000
>>>check? I doubt it. Same principle.
>>
>>Yes, same principle. Same as if I buy an IBM corporate bond; when I
redeem
>>it, I get the money; I don't really care how IBM comes up with it.
>
>Ah, yes. You don't care, so you don't think about it.
>The US Government isn't IBM. The US Government is *us*. As a taxpayer,
>*we* have to come up with that money.

Sure, just like IBM stockholders or customers would have to.


>Twice. Once when we paid our SS
>taxes, and now, since that surplus is in the form of Treasury Bonds,
>we'll have to pay again, when those bonds are redeemed.

Perhaps you shouldn't keep electing people who keep borrowing money then.

>Do you not understand this?
>

In article >,
"C. E. White" > wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> >> 1. SS has a surplus, a trust fund, that is invested in gov't bonds.
>> >> 2. For 2 years under Clinton, the gov't had a surplus, not counting
SS.
>> >
>> >Item 2 is not true.
>> >They did include the SS revenue when
>> >declaring a surplus.
>>
>> The last 2 years under Clinton, there was a surplus even w/o counting
the
>> SS surplus. If you look at the data, you see those 2 years, revenues
>> exceeded expenditures and the debt held by the public declined.
>
>Lloyd, Why is when Clinton cooks the books you appear to
>accept it at face value, and when W does it you act like it
>is the end of the world? I have no love for W, he is leading
>us down the wrong path at breakneck speed. But...Clinton was
>only a little better. I believe you give him far more credit
>than is due. On the other hand it is hard to blame W too
>much.
>
>The way I look at the debt - without borrowing from Social
>Security Clinton rate a defict every year.


Not true. There was a surplus for the last 2 years.

>He paid down the
>public debt with SS tax revenues.

The last 2 years, revenues exceeded expenditures.


>So, it is true the total
>publically held debt decreased, but not because of Clinton's
>masterful handling of the economy. None of the excess SS
>revenues were saved or invested,

So treasury bonds are not investments?


>they were used to make him
>look good. If the economy hadn't come out of recession after
>his fist year in offie (which he had almost nothing to do
>with), he would have run as big a defict as W. Clinton got
>lucky...always a valuable asset.

Don't you remember even Bush was forecasting trillion dollar surpluses when
he took office, based on Clinton's economy?


>Do you honestly think if
>Gore had been elected in 2000, we'd still be running
>"surpluses?"

Yes.

>What would Gore have done differently (well
>hopefully he would have stayed out of Iraq)?

Right, avoid those huge expenses; no tax cuts for the rich, so avoid that
loss.

>
>> >As for "1" while technically true, the
>> >money is spent and the "investment" is little more than a
>> >bookkeeping fiction.
>> >
>>
>> No, the money is no more fiction than when you buy a savings bond.
>
>The money is not there. It was spent. I can hope / believe /
>pray / wish / dream that one day the government can repay it
>out of future tax revenues, but there is no asset backing it
>up. I can't can't forclose on the government to get "my"
>money back. If the money was invested in valuable assets,
>then maybe I'd be more comfortable. And arguably some of the
>money is (roads, bridges, damns, airports, basic research)
>but much more is dissipated on projects that have no long
>term benefit (or shot off at Iraqis that don't understand we
>are saving them).

So you think the people who've invested trillions in the US are not going
to get a penny either?

>
>Ed

In article >,
Big Bill > wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Mar 05 09:01:26 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
>wrote:
>
>>>>1. SS has a surplus, a trust fund, that is invested in gov't bonds.
>>>
>>>Do you know what those bonds are? They are Treasury bonds.
>>
>>
>>Yep, just like thousands of investors own, little different from savings
>>bonds.
>
>And how are trhey going to be redeemed?
>>
>>> Do you knw
>>>where the funds to redeem those bonds are? Neither does anyone else.
>>
>>If people with treasury bonds, T bills, and savings bonds cash them in,
>>where does that money come from?
>
>We are discussing Social Security.
>You're a college teacher? Would you let one of your students get away
>with such a display of ignorance? Don't answer a question with
>information about something else, while ignoring the question.

It's the same thing. My savings bond is the same as SS's treasury bonds,
which are the same as treasury bonds Japanese investors own, ...

>Here it is, incase it was too hard for a college teacher to
>understand: Where will we get the money to redeem the Treasury Bonds
>that make up the SS "surplus"?

Where the gov't always gets the money -- either raise taxes, cut spending,
or borrow more.

>>
>>When the foreign investors holding trillions of dollars of US debt
>>obligations redeem them, where does that money come from? Bush seems to
>>believe it'll never have to be paid.
>
>See above.
>>
>>>>2. For 2 years under Clinton, the gov't had a surplus, not counting SS.
>>>
>>>Do you know WHY? Do you know what happened to stop those surpluses?
>>
>>Yep, Bush squandered them.
>
>Ah, of course. It's Bush's fault. No idea of how our government works,
>eh?
>First, many presidents were ion office beforeBush who presided over
>the spending of SS funds.
>Second, the President spends little; it's Congress who spends.

1. The Republicans control Congress.
2. Bush has never vetoed a spending bill.


>And
>they do that quite well, regardless of who's in the White House. or
>are you too young to remember anything before Bush? If you are,
>there's a library on your campus, I'm sure they will let you in.
>>
>>>You should, if you're as smart as you think you are.
>>>And no, it had nothing to do with Bush, as he wasn't elected before
>>>this happened.
>>>>
>>
>>The surpluses were during the last 2 years of Clinton.
>
>But do you know *WHY* they were there (it had NOTHING to do with
>Clinton, except his record tax increase; and taxes are a burden on the
>economy)? And WHY the economy started it's decline before Clintomn
>left office?
>
Yet Clinton's last year also saw a surplus.

In article >,
(Brent P) wrote:
>In article >, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>But not the debt held by the Government.
>>
>> Irrelevant. If I loan myself $100, am I worse off?
>
>SS starts sending out more money than it takes in. It calls in the
>'loan'. Trouble is, the rest of government is spending more money than it
>takes in too. Where does the money come from Dr. Parker?
>
>a) Borrow from someone else.
>b) Raise taxes.

So? You right-wingers elected the current big borrowers.

>I want out of SS.

I want out of my paying taxes for Iraq.


>I am disciplined enough to save my money without the
>government taking it from me with only the promise to pay something
>back. Remember, SS is a tax, we have NO PROPERTY RIGHT to the money.

Yeah, I'm sure all the Enron stock holders feel so sorry for you.


>Congress could decide to kill SS at any time and give us nothing.

Like Enron.

>(although, that I believe is part of the point, to create a
>dependence and thusly votes to be in power. If we had property rights to
>the money, the democrats couldn't play the 'republicans-are-going-to-take-
>away-your-social-security' fear game. It's on par with drugs-are-going-
>to-kill-your-children and the-terrorists-are-going-get-you.)
>
>There is no SS for me. The SSA says as much on their website.

Then you need someone to read it to you.


>I pay SS
>taxes my entire life, and when I turn 65 I'll get the finger, or shortly
>there after. The pyramid will be rubble. Even if the rest of the
>government pays back SS. You'll get yours Dr. Parker, but there is no SS
>for me. SSA reports going back at least 6 years show this. It's all on
>the offical website for you to read.

So English must not be your native language.

>
>There are two plans in circulation right now:
>1) Do nothing.
>2) Have some bit in private accounts.

Which doesn't do anything for SS solvency (Bush admits this) and will cost
trillions of dollars.

>Plan #1 I get nothing or close to it. Plan #2 I may have something to
>walk away with.

Ever hear of an IRA? You can have a private account now.

>
>I liked the idea of having a property interest to retain at least some of
>the funds the government takes from me as SS tax back when President
>Clinton proposed it back in 1999. Bush's proposal offers the same basic
>thing, a property right to some of the money now taken from me. Even if
>it remains in government bonds and there is no other choice, just having
>a property interest is of great benefit.
>

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 02:03:28 -0500, "Vendicar Decarian" >
wrote:

>
>"Big Bill" > wrote in message
.. .
>> No, when I buy a Savings Bond, the money is real; I know, I paid it.
>> However, when I want to redeem it, the scale is far lower than when
>> the SS Bonds will come due; the Government can cover it.
>
> No more real than the dollars used by the Social Security system to
>purchase U.S. bonds and treasuries.
>
> Stupid... Stupid... Billyboy.

I note you cleverly snipped the part that would make sense to even
you. Well, maybe not.
Because you probably stopped reading (because it hurt to think about
it?), you should read on...
There's a difference between redeeming a $100 savings bond, and
$billion$ in treasury notes.
Where are those $billion$? We'd like to know; no one can tell us where
they are, yet you seem to think they are just laying around somewhere,
ready to be spent.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Tue, 29 Mar 05 09:03:04 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>>But not the debt held by the Government.
>
>Irrelevant. If I loan myself $100, am I worse off?

It is if you spend both the loaned money and the note.
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>As for "1" while technically true, the
>>>>money is spent and the "investment" is little more than a
>>>>bookkeeping fiction.
>>>>
>>>
>>>No, the money is no more fiction than when you buy a savings bond.
>>
>>No, when I buy a Savings Bond, the money is real; I know, I paid it.
>
>And SS paid for its gov't bonds too.

Absolutely.
But where is it now?
>
>>However, when I want to redeem it, the scale is far lower than when
>>the SS Bonds will come due; the Government can cover it.
>
>But multiply that by everyone that owns gov't obligations -- it adds up to
>trillions of $$.

We are talking about SS, not other debts. The bonds that make up the
SS surplus are not capable of being redeemed; the gov't simply doesn't
have that money.
>
>
>>The
>>Government can't cover those bonds used to replace the funds in the SS
>>account.
>>You can, I'm certain, cover a $100 check. Can you cover a $1,000,000
>>check? I doubt it. Same principle.
>
>Yes, same principle. Same as if I buy an IBM corporate bond; when I redeem
>it, I get the money; I don't really care how IBM comes up with it.

Ah, yes. You don't care, so you don't think about it.
The US Government isn't IBM. The US Government is *us*. As a taxpayer,
*we* have to come up with that money. Twice. Once when we paid our SS
taxes, and now, since that surplus is in the form of Treasury Bonds,
we'll have to pay again, when those bonds are redeemed.
Do you not understand this?

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> >> 1. SS has a surplus, a trust fund, that is invested in gov't bonds.
> >> 2. For 2 years under Clinton, the gov't had a surplus, not counting SS.
> >
> >Item 2 is not true.
> >They did include the SS revenue when
> >declaring a surplus.
>
> The last 2 years under Clinton, there was a surplus even w/o counting the
> SS surplus. If you look at the data, you see those 2 years, revenues
> exceeded expenditures and the debt held by the public declined.

Lloyd, Why is when Clinton cooks the books you appear to
accept it at face value, and when W does it you act like it
is the end of the world? I have no love for W, he is leading
us down the wrong path at breakneck speed. But...Clinton was
only a little better. I believe you give him far more credit
than is due. On the other hand it is hard to blame W too
much.

The way I look at the debt - without borrowing from Social
Security Clinton rate a defict every year. He paid down the
public debt with SS tax revenues. So, it is true the total
publically held debt decreased, but not because of Clinton's
masterful handling of the economy. None of the excess SS
revenues were saved or invested, they were used to make him
look good. If the economy hadn't come out of recession after
his fist year in offie (which he had almost nothing to do
with), he would have run as big a defict as W. Clinton got
lucky...always a valuable asset. Do you honestly think if
Gore had been elected in 2000, we'd still be running
"surpluses?" What would Gore have done differently (well
hopefully he would have stayed out of Iraq)?

> >As for "1" while technically true, the
> >money is spent and the "investment" is little more than a
> >bookkeeping fiction.
> >
>
> No, the money is no more fiction than when you buy a savings bond.

The money is not there. It was spent. I can hope / believe /
pray / wish / dream that one day the government can repay it
out of future tax revenues, but there is no asset backing it
up. I can't can't forclose on the government to get "my"
money back. If the money was invested in valuable assets,
then maybe I'd be more comfortable. And arguably some of the
money is (roads, bridges, damns, airports, basic research)
but much more is dissipated on projects that have no long
term benefit (or shot off at Iraqis that don't understand we
are saving them).

Ed

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 03:24:22 GMT, Joshua Halpern
> wrote:

>> Do you know what those bonds are? They are Treasury bonds. Do you knw
>> where the funds to redeem those bonds are? Neither does anyone else.
>>
>Same place the funds to redeem the public debt are. This is a silly
>argument because to say that there is no money to redeem the Social
>Security Treasury bonds is the same as saying there is no money to
>redeem any Treasury bond.

So where are the funds? That's the question I asked, and you didn't
answer.
You dance around, trying to change the point from SS to a general bond
thing. Keep your eye on the ball, and think about what happens when
the "surplus" is gone; where do we get the money to redeem the bonds?
>
>>>2. For 2 years under Clinton, the gov't had a surplus, not counting SS.>
>
>> Do you know WHY? Do you know what happened to stop those surpluses?
>> You should, if you're as smart as you think you are.
>> And no, it had nothing to do with Bush, as he wasn't elected before
>> this happened.
>
>Oh, you mean those large tax cuts in 2001, and 2002. Hmm, glad to know
>you think Clinton was responsible for those.

Can't you read?
"And no, it had nothing to do with Bush, as he wasn't elected before
this happened."
I didn't say anything about Clinton, and I didn't even *HINT* that
CVlinton was responsible.
You really need to actually read for content, and THINK, regardless of
how much it hurts.
The reason was very simple, and well publicized: the DOT-COM bubble
burst, and we started towards a recession.
The tax revenue went up during Clinton't administration because people
were paying taxes on paper profits. When the buble burst, those paper
profits disappeared, and the money the taxes were paid on went Poof!
Result, high tax revenue (Clinton had nothing to do with this, except
to raise the tax rates) on money that didn't exist. Consequences: a
teriffic few years for Clinton, a lot of bankrupt people, and,
obviously, a lot of people who looked at the whole thing and missed it
entirely.
>>>
>>>Retard, look to the beam in your eye first.
>
>I love your way of hitting yourself in the face

Try again.
--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

Vendicar Decarian wrote:

> AmeriKKKa is nothing more than an animated corpse...
> So long suckers....

So exactly where do you live? If America (United States),
goes down the tubes, aren't you worried we will drag you
down with us?

Ed