"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
"The administration wants to keep some of the unspent funds available
for emergencies, but is considering setting aside a chunk for debt
reduction, according to people familiar with the matter. It is also
expected to lower the projected long-term cost of the program -- the
amount it expects to lose -- to as little as $200 billion from $341
billion estimated in August."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125799009185344567.html

So let me see if I got this right. The Administration wants to use
borrowed money which created increased debt to pay down the overall
debt incurred by increased spending.

Son-of-a-gun. That must mean that your average citizen should be able
to decrease his/her overall debt by borrowing more money to pay down
that debt.

Huh - how about that.


You're mis-reading the information. The money is available to be borrowed.
If it isn't used, it doesn't need to be borrowed. The current projected
deficit would thus be lower, since the money isn't used. It's not like it's
sitting in a paper bag somewhere.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:19:34 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

And this lowered your debt?

You can see how desperate our resident liberal know-nothings are.
Laying claim to "speculation" as a debt reduction technique. The
borrowed money comes from the same pool - US Treasuries. And the debt
cost is high. Speculators make their money manipulating 10/ths and
100/ths on much smaller scale debt bets than an entire national
economy.

The current administration is clueless, hapless, arrogant and
terminally wedded to an ideology that just does not work.

And liberals realise it, can't do anything about it, but persist in
adhering to it.

The ultimate Kool-Aid swallowers.

On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 09:38:04 -0500, NowNow wrote:

In article ,
says...

"The administration wants to keep some of the unspent funds available
for emergencies, but is considering setting aside a chunk for debt
reduction, according to people familiar with the matter. It is also
expected to lower the projected long-term cost of the program -- the
amount it expects to lose -- to as little as $200 billion from $341
billion estimated in August."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125799009185344567.html

So let me see if I got this right. The Administration wants to use
borrowed money which created increased debt to pay down the overall
debt incurred by increased spending.

Son-of-a-gun. That must mean that your average citizen should be able
to decrease his/her overall debt by borrowing more money to pay down
that debt.

Huh - how about that.

Uh, speculators have been doing such forever. It can actually be quite
cost affective to borrow money at a much lower rate to pay off debt with
a higher rate of interest.

Well, that explains it. Good mind, Loogy.
--

John H

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

Churchill

On 11/13/09 2:35 PM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:19:34 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

And this lowered your debt?

You can see how desperate


Go pound sand, tomcat. No one gives a flying fuch about your bull****
here anymore. And whatever meds you are taking for your bipolar
disorder...double them.



--
If you are flajim, herring, loogy, GC boater, johnson, topbassdog, rob,
or one of a half dozen others, you're wasting your time by trying to
*communicate* with me through rec.boats, because, well, you are among
the permanent members of my dumbfoch dumpster. As always, have a nice,
simple-minded day.

H the K wrote:
On 11/13/09 2:35 PM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:19:34 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

And this lowered your debt?

You can see how desperate


Go pound sand, tomcat. No one gives a flying fuch about your bull****
here anymore. And whatever meds you are taking for your bipolar
disorder...double them.


Gawd, Tom was such a good friend of yours too once, like loopy. A
'responsible righty', or something, you called him.

Someone will quote my post so you can answer vicariously.

Johnson

Johnson wrote:
H the K wrote:
On 11/13/09 2:35 PM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:19:34 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

And this lowered your debt?

You can see how desperate


Go pound sand, tomcat. No one gives a flying fuch about your bull****
here anymore. And whatever meds you are taking for your bipolar
disorder...double them.


Gawd, Tom was such a good friend of yours too once, like loopy. A
'responsible righty', or something, you called him.

Someone will quote my post so you can answer vicariously.

Johnson

I'd like to help you out, but I'm on his pretend to ignore list too.

On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:24:00 -0500, Johnson
wrote:

H the K wrote:
On 11/13/09 2:35 PM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:19:34 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

And this lowered your debt?

You can see how desperate


Go pound sand, tomcat. No one gives a flying fuch about your bull****
here anymore. And whatever meds you are taking for your bipolar
disorder...double them.


Gawd, Tom was such a good friend of yours too once, like loopy. A
'responsible righty', or something, you called him.

Someone will quote my post so you can answer vicariously.

Johnson

I know folks in your world never change. Tom certainly has, or
perhaps we just didn't see his true colors when his guy was in office.

On 11/13/09 6:16 PM, jps wrote:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:24:00 -0500, Johnson
wrote:

H the K wrote:
On 11/13/09 2:35 PM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:19:34 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

And this lowered your debt?

You can see how desperate


Go pound sand, tomcat. No one gives a flying fuch about your bull****
here anymore. And whatever meds you are taking for your bipolar
disorder...double them.


Gawd, Tom was such a good friend of yours too once, like loopy. A
'responsible righty', or something, you called him.

Someone will quote my post so you can answer vicariously.

Johnson

I know folks in your world never change. Tom certainly has, or
perhaps we just didn't see his true colors when his guy was in office.


Neither tom nor loogy were ever "good friends" of mine. Loogy always has
been a dimwit here. Tom? Just lately.


--
If you are flajim, herring, loogy, GC boater, johnson, topbassdog, rob,
or one of a half dozen others, you're wasting your time by trying to
*communicate* with me through rec.boats, because, well, you are among
the permanent members of my dumbfoch dumpster. As always, have a nice,
simple-minded day.

jps wrote:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:24:00 -0500, Johnson
wrote:

H the K wrote:
On 11/13/09 2:35 PM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:19:34 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

And this lowered your debt?
You can see how desperate

Go pound sand, tomcat. No one gives a flying fuch about your bull****
here anymore. And whatever meds you are taking for your bipolar
disorder...double them.

Gawd, Tom was such a good friend of yours too once, like loopy. A
'responsible righty', or something, you called him.

Someone will quote my post so you can answer vicariously.

Johnson

I know folks in your world never change. Tom certainly has, or
perhaps we just didn't see his true colors when his guy was in office.

Tom hasn't changed. Krause's opinion of him changed, just like it does
sooner or later with everyone.

Johnson

On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 18:30:51 -0500, Johnson
wrote:

jps wrote:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:24:00 -0500, Johnson
wrote:

H the K wrote:
On 11/13/09 2:35 PM, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:19:34 -0800, "Bill McKee"
wrote:

And this lowered your debt?
You can see how desperate

Go pound sand, tomcat. No one gives a flying fuch about your bull****
here anymore. And whatever meds you are taking for your bipolar
disorder...double them.

Gawd, Tom was such a good friend of yours too once, like loopy. A
'responsible righty', or something, you called him.

Someone will quote my post so you can answer vicariously.

Johnson

I know folks in your world never change. Tom certainly has, or
perhaps we just didn't see his true colors when his guy was in office.

Tom hasn't changed. Krause's opinion of him changed, just like it does
sooner or later with everyone.

Johnson

No, Johnson. I've noticed a marked change in Tom's demeanor since the
2007 election. He went into attack mode immediately. Identified
Obama as the enemy and went on a weekly tirade about liberals.

He'd never been that hostile before the election season.

BTW, what caused you to emerge from your hermit shell?