Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (327107)	2/22/2007 10:16:12 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574489

No, it from the government to the people. Man, I paid for this since I was 15. You paid for it. You also paid for government office buildings, B-2 bombers, and the White House Christmas party. You don't own any of them. Edit - SS could be set up with actual individual accounts that you own, but that idea has been rejected. It's a separate tax and benefit scheme. You know that. Sure I know that, and I've never implied otherwise. And the corporate income tax is also a separate tax from the personal income tax. The department of agriculture is a different department from the department of homeland security. Farm price supports are a different benefit scheme from medicaid, which is a different scheme than social security. But they are all the federal government. I might decide to take my rent income and automatically direct deposit it to a certain account. I could call it the rent account, and call the whole thing the rent income scheme. It would be separate from my wages or any other source of income, and the account would be separate from any of my other accounts. But the money would still be mine. If I "borrowed" from it, moved it to the bank account where my pay check gets deposited, wrote myself IOUs, called them bonds, and even set up a table of interest payments back to the old account; and I then I blew the money at the craps tables in Vegas, I shouldn't really be happy that I had the "bonds" as assets. I'm not going in to a semantic black hole. I'm describing reality. Your trying to paper over the reality with semantics. You can set up all the internal structures you want but it doesn't mean that there are two separate federal governments. And it doesn't change the point that spending is spending, and social security spending costs an awful lot. I may be ideologically opposed to social security, but these statements aren't a slam of social security. I don't really love military spending (I think the country should be prepared and capable, but I don't like having to spend all the money on it), but loving or hating it doesn't change the fact that its become a smaller and smaller part of our budget all the time. I don't love war, but even if I did it would be irrelevant. Again your descending in to ad-hominem. My circumstances or other opinions don't change the facts or invalidate my arguments, and they would do either no matter what the circumstances and opinions where.