gamb00ler

The Treasury never has and never will cover shortfalls in funding for SS benefit payments. It CANNOT because of the Antideficiency Act. What the Treasury has done is redeem for cash the OASI trust funds T-bill assets. The cash is then sent to the SS benefit recipients. Where does the cash come from? Of course it comes from the sale of T-bills to cash customers. The debt owed to OASI declines as benefits are paid and simultaneously the debt owed to public T-bill investors ('public debt') rises by the same amount. The effect on the NATIONAL DEBT is a wash. The term 'public debt' is just a convenient target for GOP supporters like CATO. It is otherwise a meaningless term that has no bearing on the Federal budget or NATIONAL DEBT.

yes. I've given you the links to the SSA and Treasury web sites that show CATO is wrong. Would you like to place a wager? What does my country of birth have to do with anything we've discussed? I lived in US and Canada about the same portion of my life. The simple facts: - intragovernmental loans are included in the NATIONAL DEBT. - the 'public debt' is that portion of the NATIONAL DEBT that is owned by private investors (70% of which is owned by US based investors) - it is the NATIONAL DEBT not the 'public debt' that cannot exceed the debt ceiling - the balance on these intragovernmental (primarily from OASI) loans has been decreasing since the FICA tax income fell below the SS benefit total - the NATIONAL DEBT increases due to overspending on the non-SSA departments - the SSA expenditures are NOT included in the Federal Budget for many years and therefor CANNOT increase the NATIONAL DEBT - CATO is confusing you by only discussing what is called 'public debt' instead of using the much more realistic total that most others use - the NATIONAL DEBT - in every post I have clearly stated that I am discussing the NATIONAL DEBT, not the 'public debt' - CATO is only an opinion based on their flawed interpretation of the data and misplaced priority on the 'public debt'

You are the one who seems to be married to the CATO institute and their attempt to mislead those befuddled by the relationship between OASI and the NATIONAL DEBT. Of course the US is borrowing more CASH from more public purchasers of T-bills. But that does not change the total national debt because simultaneously the debt to OASI is decreasing by the same amount as the shortfall in SS revenue. You can clearly see that the OASI total is declining. How do you suppose that is happening? The decline in OASI matches exactly the shortfall in income vs benefits paid. What is your theory of how the OASI balance (held in T-bills) is declining? Obviously the portion of the NATIONAL DEBT held by intragovernmental lenders is declining. The increase in the NATIONAL DEBT is due to the Federal government spending more than its revenue, not because SS spends more than it takes in. You seem to continuously overlook the Antideficiency Act, which makes it illegal to use Federal funds to cover any shortfall in appropriation by SSA. That makes it impossible for Social Security's shortfall to increase the NATIONAL DEBT. The so called 'public debt' IS increasing... and it is actually increasing FASTER than the more relevant figure that everyone calls the NATIONAL DEBT. The 'public debt' does NOT include intragovernmental borrowing.

Congress would have to repeal/amend the Antideficiency Act before covering SS's shortfall in 2033. Antideficiency Act: This act, specifically 31 U.S.C. § 1341, 1342, and 1517, is the cornerstone of preventing overspending. It prevents officers and employees from: - Making or authorizing expenditures or obligations in excess of available appropriations. - Involving the government in obligations without proper appropriation. Complete fabrication on your part. Many times I've provided the actual facts to you, but you insist on believing the biased opinions of right- leaning media. Here's a new look at your misconception. You claim that the government is just borrowing from itself which makes the OASI nothing but an accounting 'trick'. But, that is 100% false. There are two separate entities involved in the loan. The group that is on the hook to repay the loans from the OASI trust fund is comprised of ALL taxpayers since the government is borrowing on their behalf to fund all the services it provides. The distinct and separate group that provided the capital that is being loaned to the federal government is comprised of those workers that have funded the trust fund through FICA deductions. The most obvious distinction (that you cannot possible deny) is that corporations are included in the borrowing group but completely absent from the lending group. Your argument that the government is just borrowing from itself is disproven.

it's amazing that you failed the simplest of tasks......

That's my most trusted YTube nutrition and diet channel. I highly recommend his channel. He gives excellent interpretation of dozens of studies by pointing out their strengths and weaknesses. His reviews of the "hot" YTube nutrition influencers are polite but to the point.

Tracking would be possible at either the source or the destination. Which end of the transfer are you concerned about?

because it's more funny than some of the posts in the joke thread, don't worry your post is funny too.

I have been loyal to BBL since moving to Thailand in '20. They were the only bank who would open an account for me while I only had the 3 month O visa from LA consulate. But, now I'm dumping them because other banks offer services they don't. BBL stopped doing cash advances on foreign debit cards. They also don't have any account with better interest rate other than fixed deposit. I've switched to SCB EZ Savings and Krungsri Mee Tae Dai account for their better rate offerings and Krungsri still does cash advances on foreign debit cards. Also both of them do the letter and 12 month statements for Immigration in minutes. That SCB account has no passbook but that hasn't caused any problem with CM Imm. at extension time.

You're just imagining that I'm offended..... bzzzzzzzt! . better luck next time. I'm laughing at the two who wasted their time.

It's rather silly that a couple of emoji fans interpret my comment as anything other than an accurate observation of Photo Bug's responsiveness to a potential customer's inquiry. During construction of our house I emailed/messaged many potential suppliers. I got responses to about 20% of my attempts. Many responders earned my business.... none that ignored my query did. . .

I had thought of that. I'd rather pay for the service of hopefully experienced workers than pay for the equipment and gamble that I can produce a good result. I culled my collection so my slide/negative count is low. The equipment would not get much use.

Another example of a Thai company that lists but does not respond to email.

Here's what nobody says: AI Overview To upgrade fluorescent tubes to LED, you can either replace the entire fixture with an LED fixture, or retrofit your existing fixture to accommodate LED tubes. Retrofitting involves replacing the fluorescent tubes and potentially the ballast with LED-compatible components. 1. Replacing the Entire Fixture: This is the most straightforward option, especially if your existing fixtures are old or damaged. You can purchase new LED fixtures designed to replace fluorescent fixtures. Installation involves removing the old fixture and wiring the new LED fixture. 2. Retrofitting the Existing Fixture: Determine the type of LED tubes: Type A (ballast compatible) tubes are designed to work with existing ballasts, while Type B (ballast bypass) tubes require the ballast to be removed and the fixture rewired. Choose the appropriate LED tubes: Consider factors like lumen output, color temperature, and compatibility with your existing fixture. Prepare the fixture: Turn off the power to the circuit and remove the existing fluorescent tubes and starters. If using Type A tubes: Simply replace the fluorescent tubes with the new LED tubes. If using Type B tubes: You'll need to remove the ballast and rewire the fixture to connect the LED tubes directly to the power source. This may involve cutting wires and using wire connectors. Test the installation: Turn the power back on and test the new LED tubes.

I fully agree. When the OASI trust fund is fully depleted in 2032/2033 the FICA tax income is projected to cover only about 79% of the full benefits. So.... the FICA tax income would need to be raised by 21/.79 or about 26.6% from current levels to fully cover benefits payable. If the FICA taxes were raised by 27% immediately, the OASI trust fund would only increase by a small amount between now and 2033. Based on projections, in 2033 the reserve fund would then stop growing because benefits payable would equal FICA income.

I see and hear that the Russians are paying good money for internet trolls. Many obvious examples here on AN. I'm hoping that in 7 years l'll still be able to read and respond with the appropriate nonsense.

We got married 26 years ago in US and consider ourselves 'married' but actually are legally divorced in USA. It was a strategic divorce that was financially beneficial at the time. The financial benefits are now over so we wish to re-marry to make things easier when one of us dies. Unbeknownst to us our marriage was registered for us when my wife needed to get a modern Thai ID many years ago. She had moved to US in '72 and the modern Thai ID system was set up in '85. She had never had one. After several office visits, the lazy/incompetent local officials in my wife's hometown were still not helping to get her a Thai ID. As a last resort she asked her retired high ranking BIL to assist. The BIL called upon his good friend who was a sitting governor and they set it all up for her. She just had to show up, sign some documents and get her picture taken. Done and dusted in minutes so off to a local restaurant under police escort to celebrate. That happened around 2005 or thereabouts. Fast forward to a couple of months ago when I went to the amphoe trying to get a yellow book for myself and to check into re-marrying in Thailand. They asked for my wife's ID (I had a copy with me) and checked her record and told me that we were already married in their system. They printed a KR22 to prove it. So, it turns out that the governor who assisted with the Thai ID just told the staff to register our marriage at the same time without bothering with all the rigmarole normally associated with that process. It is possible that they mentioned the marriage registration, but neither my wife nor I recall it. When I asked how to register our USA divorce so that we could re-marry.... my eyes probably rolled up. Rube Goldberg doesn't hold a candle to the ridiculous contortions that process would require. Now we're considering just going through an uncontested Thai divorce to bring the US and Thai systems into sync and then in a month or two get re-married to simplify the inheritance process. Is it legal to have one marriage terminated twice? Advice, thoughts and warnings, anyone?

Just like your general health, brain 'health' depends on what you feed it. The results are made obvious here on AN.

Thanks.... I've sent them an email in English + Thai (using AI translation) and with Google maps I have found both their locations.

I hope to find a photo service to digitize some 35mm slides and some negatives both color and B&W. Does anyone have a recommendation?

.... if they know what's good for them! (the unvoiced portion).

Yeah.... how the IRS taxes gambling winnings for non-professionals is very unfair. On top of that, if you do file your gambling winnings correctly, some untrained IRS employee may not know that your filing is correct. I suggest you PM me for some advice on taxes and gambling. Remember you only have 3 years to correct filing mistakes by filing a 1040-X. Here's a homework assignment for you to learn about filing taxes for gambling winnings: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-counsel/am2008011.pdf

I also like it... but for a different reason. There are a few AN outliers that believe and post utter nonsense on many subjects. I often criticize those posts and I'm pretty sure they give me the 👎🏼 on even my most helpful posts. I prefer to see them waste their time doing that than posting their misinformation.

lol.... lots of collateral damage to innocents from Putin's poisonous pastime. None so far from poisoning by Ukraine.

They were just using Putin's favorite ploy except they didn't put it in the soldier's underwear like Putin did for Navalny. https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national-international/nerve-agents-poison-and-window-falls-a-list-of-putins-critics-that-have-been-attacked-or-killed/4623578/