On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 13:54:22 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 07:21:49 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 00:05:36 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


So, I'm done. g You may accept these things or not; it doesn't
matter,
because everyone who makes the key economic decisions that affect the
national debt, and SS, and so on know them perfectly well, and these
are
the
basis on which those decisions are being made. And that, I suppose, is
as
close as we're going to get here to the bottom line.

--
Ed Huntress

http://www.worldfreeinternet.net/news/nws174.htm
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14771
http://www.fff.org/freedom/1199d.asp
http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/org/p...8-02-05/6.html

Gunner, let's see if you understand the b.s. you've dumped here in those
links. Tell us, in your own words, how issuing a Treasury bond to the
Social
Security funds increases today's debt, or tomorrow's debt, or any debt at
all. It's simple, you can do it in one paragraph.

Or you could, if it were true. Try it. You'll find it enlightening.

I made no comment Ed. I left it up to the readers to make up their
own minds. I suspect you dont like it very much when folks do that.

In other words, you have no idea what it means, right? Then why did you post
the links, if you don't understand them?

It means I posted them without comment Eddy boyo.

Sometimes a cigar is simply a cigar.

Your not liking them is notable, though not unusual as they tend to be
at odds with your claims.

But then..so many things are....

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"