Balance the Budget?

[Flopper]

We have not had a surplus since 1957

I can say I am paying down my credit card $1000 extra this year... but it really is not factual when I add an additional $2000 to the total

I have no ideas?? Hardly... I have tons of ideas on what should be cut... and as for bringing it about... I grind politicians I come in contact with about the rules of the constitution and about the wasteful government spending... and I only support candidates who have an agenda to bring about some of that change.. and they drop from my support if they do not follow through... and as for my ideas about what should be cut... you are right that an idiot progressive will say cut the military (though military is one of the things constitutionally charged as a responsibility of the Fed) while calling for more and more increased entitlement programs (which are not a charge of the Fed in the constitution)... I go strictly by the enumerated powers and stand for having a constitutional amendment to rightfully empower the FED with additional responsibilities or powers... and that if congressional justification is not directly shown, the agencies and programs need to be defunded and gotten rid of

I think we had a surplus in 1969 and 98-01.

History of Deficits and Surpluses In The United States

Not when using complete statistics with budget and intergovernmental spending

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual

I looked at your link but fail to see how intergovernmental spending would effect the deficit. If one branch of the government buys items from another branch of the government, it would be an asset transfer not an expense. I guess there is more to it than that. Can you explain?

 

[DiamondDave]

Hiding spending from the budget does not equal a surplus

when people refer to budget surpluses, they're referring to the congressional budget. there have been surpluses. the government has off-budget items, that is those which are determined automatically. there are surpluses and deficits (mostly surplus) off budget, and for that reason, congress is kept away from that cash. i'm not aware of the budgets in the late 90s having the sort of hiding that the iraq/afghanistan war budgets did. can you substantiate that?

I can say I am running in the black because I took money from my mother to offset the spending I have above my income.... it's a creative lie there just as it is a creative lie within our governmental reporting

When taking into account ALL governmental spending, we have not had a surplus since 1957.. period.. end of story

 

[DiamondDave]

I think we had a surplus in 1969 and 98-01.

History of Deficits and Surpluses In The United States

Not when using complete statistics with budget and intergovernmental spending

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual

I looked at your link but fail to see how intergovernmental spending would effect the deficit. If one branch of the government buys items from another branch of the government, it would be an asset transfer not an expense. I guess there is more to it than that. Can you explain?

Explained in my post above....

The government is still taking in less than it is spending in the big and total picture... it is just good press for someone like Clinton to claim a surplus

 

[Flopper]

Not when using complete statistics with budget and intergovernmental spending

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual

I looked at your link but fail to see how intergovernmental spending would effect the deficit. If one branch of the government buys items from another branch of the government, it would be an asset transfer not an expense. I guess there is more to it than that. Can you explain?

Explained in my post above....

The government is still taking in less than it is spending in the big and total picture... it is just good press for someone like Clinton to claim a surplus

True, but I still don't understand how intergovernmental spending adds to the deficit. If one agency buys an item from another agency, it is an expense to the buying agency and a revenue to the selling agency so the two cancel out. Correct? I'm not trying to pin you to the wall on this, I'm just trying to see if there is something I'm missing.

 

[antagon]

Hiding spending from the budget does not equal a surplus

when people refer to budget surpluses, they're referring to the congressional budget. there have been surpluses. the government has off-budget items, that is those which are determined automatically. there are surpluses and deficits (mostly surplus) off budget, and for that reason, congress is kept away from that cash. i'm not aware of the budgets in the late 90s having the sort of hiding that the iraq/afghanistan war budgets did. can you substantiate that?

I can say I am running in the black because I took money from my mother to offset the spending I have above my income.... it's a creative lie there just as it is a creative lie within our governmental reporting

When taking into account ALL governmental spending, we have not had a surplus since 1957.. period.. end of story

you've not substantiated 'hiding spending from the budget' with that link or your explanation above. as part of policy, the government converts (off-budget) surpluses from SS to debt because the money is trust-funded and owed to future budgets (like after 2017 when the system runs a deficit). it does not amount to spending, it is conversion to debt, and that is what is shown in the figures in your link. for this reason your 'creative lie' characterization is also inaccurate. the budget offset itself entirely from receipts not inclusive of borrowing (from auctions or from SS/other trusts), and inclusive of debt service in 99 and 2000, leaving a surplus which was largely contributed to debt service, according to the treasury's 2001 financial statement.

1999 statement

2000 statement

check it out for yourself.

it really does not change the definition of 'budget' in the way your position hopes it would. it is not the cliche shady accounting, either. instead of imagining that the government operates like you and your mom, you'd have to start by imagining it as a non-profit holding company moving owner's equity in and out of a trust with the recourse to lend externally and between constituent firms, where the trust is the tax payers, altogether... closer to reality that way at least. the typical non-profit cant print dollars.

 

[antagon]

I looked at your link but fail to see how intergovernmental spending would effect the deficit. If one branch of the government buys items from another branch of the government, it would be an asset transfer not an expense. I guess there is more to it than that. Can you explain?

Explained in my post above....

The government is still taking in less than it is spending in the big and total picture... it is just good press for someone like Clinton to claim a surplus

True, but I still don't understand how intergovernmental spending adds to the deficit. If one agency buys an item from another agency, it is an expense to the buying agency and a revenue to the selling agency so the two cancel out. Correct? I'm not trying to pin you to the wall on this, I'm just trying to see if there is something I'm missing.

you are not missing anything. intergovernmental debt would add to the debt, but intergovernmental spending is mostly off-budget, ie automatic operations independent from the congress' budget, which is what is referred to when people say budget and deficit. if spending balances out than it would be flush as you say. the treasury-direct numbers are gross debt, so receivables and assets, etc, are not balanced against those, only settled debts.