Democrats: The Modern 'Know-Nothing' Party

[Toro]

i have no agenda. and i am not bending the meaning of the words.

but i think that having a budget surplus and not using it to decrease the debt is not responsible.

so, what happened with the surplus?

This is a topic that confuses people unfamiliar with government accounting.

A surplus is simply the excess of cash inflows, i.e. taxes, relative to cash outflows, i.e. expenditures. A surplus is when more money comes into the government than is paid out. That's it. No more.

For four years, the US government ran a surplus, i.e. it collected more in taxes and revenues than it paid out in expenditures. That money was used to pay down publicly traded debt and the total amount of publicly traded US federal government debt fell. That is a fact. It is not debatable. It is true that the operating budget, i.e. excluding social security and Medicare and Medicaid, of the US government was never in surplus but the unified budget, i.e. including social security and Medicare and Medicaid, was.

People get confused because the total debt rose and think that because the total debt rose, there couldn't be a surplus. This is wrong. Total debt rose because total debt includes the liabilities of the social security and medicare and medicaid trusts. But the liabilities for SS and Medicare/Medicaid are not necessarily affected by cash flows of the Treasury.

Government accounting is designed to confuse.


Publicly traded companies are bound by accounting rules known as “Generally Accepted Accounting Principles,” GAAP, which account for revenue, expenses, assets, and liabilities. So, can we count on government figures with the same degree of certainty?

a. Not exactly: the government uses the rules of the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board, FASAB. The rules are set by Congress and the White House.

b. “The government's record-keeping was in such disarray 15 years ago that both parties agreed drastic steps were needed. Congress and two presidents took a series of actions from 1990 to 1996 that: Created the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board to establish accounting rules, a role similar to what the powerful Financial Accounting Standards Board does for corporations.” USATODAY.com - What's the real federal deficit?


The system was summarized by Dickens:
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, ...


or...Figures Don’t Lie, But Liars Do Figure

You have to understand the figures first before you can understand if the figures are a lie.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is a topic that confuses people unfamiliar with government accounting.

A surplus is simply the excess of cash inflows, i.e. taxes, relative to cash outflows, i.e. expenditures. A surplus is when more money comes into the government than is paid out. That's it. No more.

For four years, the US government ran a surplus, i.e. it collected more in taxes and revenues than it paid out in expenditures. That money was used to pay down publicly traded debt and the total amount of publicly traded US federal government debt fell. That is a fact. It is not debatable. It is true that the operating budget, i.e. excluding social security and Medicare and Medicaid, of the US government was never in surplus but the unified budget, i.e. including social security and Medicare and Medicaid, was.

People get confused because the total debt rose and think that because the total debt rose, there couldn't be a surplus. This is wrong. Total debt rose because total debt includes the liabilities of the social security and medicare and medicaid trusts. But the liabilities for SS and Medicare/Medicaid are not necessarily affected by cash flows of the Treasury.

Government accounting is designed to confuse.


Publicly traded companies are bound by accounting rules known as “Generally Accepted Accounting Principles,” GAAP, which account for revenue, expenses, assets, and liabilities. So, can we count on government figures with the same degree of certainty?

a. Not exactly: the government uses the rules of the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board, FASAB. The rules are set by Congress and the White House.

b. “The government's record-keeping was in such disarray 15 years ago that both parties agreed drastic steps were needed. Congress and two presidents took a series of actions from 1990 to 1996 that: Created the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board to establish accounting rules, a role similar to what the powerful Financial Accounting Standards Board does for corporations.” USATODAY.com - What's the real federal deficit?


The system was summarized by Dickens:
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, ...


or...Figures Don’t Lie, But Liars Do Figure

You have to understand the figures first before you can understand if the figures are a lie.

And the language, before that.

 

[starcraftzzz]

Obama inherited a trillion dollar deficit. But what is he doing to fix it?

THis is what hes done to fix it
Reports // News Room // Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi
^List of bills passed by Democrats that reduce the long term Deficit.
1) ACA cuts the deficit by 150 billion in first ten years and a trillion in the next ten.
2) Two anti-offshoring jobs bills reduces the deficit each by several billion.
3) A food safety bill that reduces the deficit by several billion
4) Financial reform that sets up an alternative to government bailouts and sets regulations to prevent housing bubble/crises reduces the deficit by tens of billions.
5) Obamas administration has increased fines for pollution violations, wage theft, tax cheats, and companies that commit fraud,
6) Obama has reduces deportation of immigrants who are in college or in the military which will reduce the deficit by 1.4 billion.
7) Increased IRS funding to track down tax cheats which will reduce the deficit by 10 billion.
8) Began collecting royalties from oil companies which will reduce the deficit by 10 billion.
9) Removed student loan subsidies to big banks which will reduce the deficit by around 19 billion a year.
10) Increased funding for anti-fraud and abuse in government which has a cost benefit ratio of $1-$1.5.
11) Passed the improve acquisition act which cleans up wasteful military spending reduces the deficit by 20 billion a year.
12) Invested billions into more energy efficient government buildings and cars.
13) Passed the smoking prevention act which reduces the deficit by a billion.
14) Reauthorized CHIP making it cut the deficit by several billion.
15) The American Clean Energy and Security Act which, according to CBO, will cut the deficit by $9 billion over the next 10 years.
16) Total deficit reduced over 20 years over 2 trillion

 

[Nic_Driver]

The NYTimes verifies that the Obama economic plan is less beneficial than the Ryan Plan

Beneficial to whom?

Imaginary numbers produce facts? Only to Republicans I guess.

I don't know about anyone else but I'm tired of more tax breaks for the wealthy and more corporate welfare while they forget ours is a government 'for the people'.

Republicans are still trying to further their class warfare and it is well past time to stop them.

You trolls are the only ones fighting the class war.

Normal people laugh at you.

The GOP has overseen the biggest swing in wealth in our nation’s history, reallocating wealth to the top by the truck load. The GOP continues to attack the working poor and what's left of our middle class.

That you're too stupid to get it is of no concern to me and has no effect on the truth of the statement.

99% of American's are embarrassed for you.

 

[boilermaker55]

1. In "Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One," Dr. Thomas Sowell points out that many politicians do not think beyond Stage One because they will be praised (and elected) for the short term benefits but will not be held accountable much later when the long term consequences appear.


The truth can be clearly seen in the economic policy that will be voted on in November.

2. The NYTimes verifies that the Obama economic plan is less beneficial than the Ryan Plan:

a. Deficit in 2016
Obama: $529 billion
Ryan Plan $241 billion

b. Added debt over the next ten years:
Obama $6.4 trillion
Ryan $3.1 trillion

c. Balances the budget:
Obama: never
Ryan: by 2040
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/21/us/politics/house-republicans-release-budget-blueprint.html


Not even close!
To vote for the Obama economic plan, one would have to subscribe to 'I know nothing...I vote Democrat.'


Obama: When you find yourself in a hole.....stop digging.

You forgot to factor the cost of two(2) wars that were not on the books during the bush time in office.
But as the political hack job you seem to be this should not really be a surprise to anyone.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. In "Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One," Dr. Thomas Sowell points out that many politicians do not think beyond Stage One because they will be praised (and elected) for the short term benefits but will not be held accountable much later when the long term consequences appear.


The truth can be clearly seen in the economic policy that will be voted on in November.

2. The NYTimes verifies that the Obama economic plan is less beneficial than the Ryan Plan:

a. Deficit in 2016
Obama: $529 billion
Ryan Plan $241 billion

b. Added debt over the next ten years:
Obama $6.4 trillion
Ryan $3.1 trillion

c. Balances the budget:
Obama: never
Ryan: by 2040
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/21/us/politics/house-republicans-release-budget-blueprint.html


Not even close!
To vote for the Obama economic plan, one would have to subscribe to 'I know nothing...I vote Democrat.'


Obama: When you find yourself in a hole.....stop digging.

You forgot to factor the cost of two(2) wars that were not on the books during the bush time in office.
But as the political hack job you seem to be this should not really be a surprise to anyone.

All data directly from the NYTimes.

Makes you look like an idiot, huh?

 

[boilermaker55]

1. In "Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One," Dr. Thomas Sowell points out that many politicians do not think beyond Stage One because they will be praised (and elected) for the short term benefits but will not be held accountable much later when the long term consequences appear.


The truth can be clearly seen in the economic policy that will be voted on in November.

2. The NYTimes verifies that the Obama economic plan is less beneficial than the Ryan Plan:

a. Deficit in 2016
Obama: $529 billion
Ryan Plan $241 billion

b. Added debt over the next ten years:
Obama $6.4 trillion
Ryan $3.1 trillion

c. Balances the budget:
Obama: never
Ryan: by 2040
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/21/us/politics/house-republicans-release-budget-blueprint.html


Not even close!
To vote for the Obama economic plan, one would have to subscribe to 'I know nothing...I vote Democrat.'


Obama: When you find yourself in a hole.....stop digging.

You forgot to factor the cost of two(2) wars that were not on the books during the bush time in office.
But as the political hack job you seem to be this should not really be a surprise to anyone.

All data directly from the NYTimes.

Makes you look like an idiot, huh?

Not even close. All it does is make your statement not factual.
But then what else can we expect from a political hack who only sees the one side.

 

[L.K.Eder]

I understand fully.
I simply do not agree to allow you to bend the meaning of the words to suit a Left wing agenda.


And....just what do you mean by 'behave'???

There are laws you know!

i have no agenda. and i am not bending the meaning of the words.

but i think that having a budget surplus and not using it to decrease the debt is not responsible.

so, what happened with the surplus?

This is a topic that confuses people unfamiliar with government accounting.

A surplus is simply the excess of cash inflows, i.e. taxes, relative to cash outflows, i.e. expenditures. A surplus is when more money comes into the government than is paid out. That's it. No more.

For four years, the US government ran a surplus, i.e. it collected more in taxes and revenues than it paid out in expenditures. That money was used to pay down publicly traded debt and the total amount of publicly traded US federal government debt fell. That is a fact. It is not debatable. It is true that the operating budget, i.e. excluding social security and Medicare and Medicaid, of the US government was never in surplus but the unified budget, i.e. including social security and Medicare and Medicaid, was.

People get confused because the total debt rose and think that because the total debt rose, there couldn't be a surplus. This is wrong. Total debt rose because total debt includes the liabilities of the social security and medicare and medicaid trusts. But the liabilities for SS and Medicare/Medicaid are not necessarily affected by cash flows of the Treasury.

the bolded is where pc is confused or confusing.

where i am confused is this:

if you have a budget surplus and use all of the surplus to pay down debt, will the overall debt decrease?

 

[PoliticalChic]

You forgot to factor the cost of two(2) wars that were not on the books during the bush time in office.
But as the political hack job you seem to be this should not really be a surprise to anyone.

All data directly from the NYTimes.

Makes you look like an idiot, huh?

Not even close. All it does is make your statement not factual.
But then what else can we expect from a political hack who only sees the one side.

New York Times provided the data.

You must have a brain the size of a watch battery.

How is it that I provide data from the Left-wing house organ and you decry it as being one sided.....

...the only possible conclusion is that I was correct: you are an idiot, complete with the assurance that arises from the affirmation of absurdity.

 

[PoliticalChic]

i have no agenda. and i am not bending the meaning of the words.

but i think that having a budget surplus and not using it to decrease the debt is not responsible.

so, what happened with the surplus?

This is a topic that confuses people unfamiliar with government accounting.

A surplus is simply the excess of cash inflows, i.e. taxes, relative to cash outflows, i.e. expenditures. A surplus is when more money comes into the government than is paid out. That's it. No more.

For four years, the US government ran a surplus, i.e. it collected more in taxes and revenues than it paid out in expenditures. That money was used to pay down publicly traded debt and the total amount of publicly traded US federal government debt fell. That is a fact. It is not debatable. It is true that the operating budget, i.e. excluding social security and Medicare and Medicaid, of the US government was never in surplus but the unified budget, i.e. including social security and Medicare and Medicaid, was.

People get confused because the total debt rose and think that because the total debt rose, there couldn't be a surplus. This is wrong. Total debt rose because total debt includes the liabilities of the social security and medicare and medicaid trusts. But the liabilities for SS and Medicare/Medicaid are not necessarily affected by cash flows of the Treasury.

the bolded is where pc is confused or confusing.

where i am confused is this:

if you have a budget surplus and use all of the surplus to pay down debt, will the overall debt decrease?

Andrew Jackson.

Hummingbird?

 

[rightwinger]

Beneficial to whom?

Imaginary numbers produce facts? Only to Republicans I guess.

I don't know about anyone else but I'm tired of more tax breaks for the wealthy and more corporate welfare while they forget ours is a government 'for the people'.

Republicans are still trying to further their class warfare and it is well past time to stop them.

You trolls are the only ones fighting the class war.

Normal people laugh at you.

The GOP has overseen the biggest swing in wealth in our nation’s history, reallocating wealth to the top by the truck load. The GOP continues to attack the working poor and what's left of our middle class.

That you're too stupid to get it is of no concern to me and has no effect on the truth of the statement.

99% of American's are embarrassed for you.

Mission accomplished

 

[L.K.Eder]

This is a topic that confuses people unfamiliar with government accounting.

A surplus is simply the excess of cash inflows, i.e. taxes, relative to cash outflows, i.e. expenditures. A surplus is when more money comes into the government than is paid out. That's it. No more.

For four years, the US government ran a surplus, i.e. it collected more in taxes and revenues than it paid out in expenditures. That money was used to pay down publicly traded debt and the total amount of publicly traded US federal government debt fell. That is a fact. It is not debatable. It is true that the operating budget, i.e. excluding social security and Medicare and Medicaid, of the US government was never in surplus but the unified budget, i.e. including social security and Medicare and Medicaid, was.

People get confused because the total debt rose and think that because the total debt rose, there couldn't be a surplus. This is wrong. Total debt rose because total debt includes the liabilities of the social security and medicare and medicaid trusts. But the liabilities for SS and Medicare/Medicaid are not necessarily affected by cash flows of the Treasury.

the bolded is where pc is confused or confusing.

where i am confused is this:

if you have a budget surplus and use all of the surplus to pay down debt, will the overall debt decrease?

Andrew Jackson.

Hummingbird?

what happened with the clinton surplus?

 

[Listening]

So, we should trust the party that ran UP the deficits to stop doing so in only 28 years.


Are you serious or is this a joke?

Are you going to address the data ?

 

[Toro]

And the language, before that.

It depends.

It's true that government accounting isn't the same as GAAP, but accounting is subjective. GAAP is accrual accounting and is designed to measure the changes in economic value. Government accounting is cash accounting, closer to The Cash Flow Statement under GAAP. There are a lot of interpretations in GAAP, it is subject to debate and at times it can be misleading. I prefer GAAP, theoretically, especially when it comes to corporations, but government accounting isn't "wrong." In fact, when I used to analyze financial statements when I picked stocks, I preferred to look at the Cash Flow Statement - which is the closest representation to government accounting in GAAP - than the Income Statement - which is a GAAP construct - because it is more difficult to hide fraud in the Cash Flow Statement and gives a better snapshot of the cash economics of the firm.

 

[daveman]

1. In "Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One," Dr. Thomas Sowell points out that many politicians do not think beyond Stage One because they will be praised (and elected) for the short term benefits but will not be held accountable much later when the long term consequences appear.


The truth can be clearly seen in the economic policy that will be voted on in November.

2. The NYTimes verifies that the Obama economic plan is less beneficial than the Ryan Plan:

a. Deficit in 2016
Obama: $529 billion
Ryan Plan $241 billion

b. Added debt over the next ten years:
Obama $6.4 trillion
Ryan $3.1 trillion

c. Balances the budget:
Obama: never
Ryan: by 2040
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/21/us/politics/house-republicans-release-budget-blueprint.html


Not even close!
To vote for the Obama economic plan, one would have to subscribe to 'I know nothing...I vote Democrat.'


Obama: When you find yourself in a hole.....stop digging.

You forgot the part about what Obama inherited. Did you do that on purpose?

Obama inherited a trillion dollar deficit. But what is he doing to fix it?

Make it bigger.

How's that working out for you, Big Ears?

 

[Toro]

the bolded is where pc is confused or confusing.

where i am confused is this:

if you have a budget surplus and use all of the surplus to pay down debt, will the overall debt decrease?

Yeah, I get it. It is confusing. It is because it is a measurement of gross debt. I explained why this occurs here.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...administration-was-a-myth-13.html#post3128137

Why did the national debt rise when there was a surplus?

Counter-intuitively, the reason why the national debt rose was because the economy was doing well. When the economy is doing better than expected, payroll taxes flowing into the SS trust funds are greater than expected. The SS trust funds can only "buy" special issuance nonmarketable government bonds. Thus, when payroll tax revenues are greater than expected, issuance of these special issuance government bonds rises and the national debt rises. Likewise, when the economy is doing poorly, payroll tax inflows are less than expected. The amount of funds in the SS trusts is lower, the SS trusts buy fewer special-issue government bonds and the national debt is less than expected.

Understand, though, that this is merely an accounting function. It affects assets and liabilities of the government and trust fund recipients. It does not affect cash flows, and thus does not affect the budgetary balance.

For a numerical example, click on the link.

 

[PoliticalChic]

the bolded is where pc is confused or confusing.

where i am confused is this:

if you have a budget surplus and use all of the surplus to pay down debt, will the overall debt decrease?

Andrew Jackson.

Hummingbird?

what happened with the clinton surplus?

OMG!

What a cute little chick!

Givin' out cigars?

 

[Too Tall]

1. In "Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One," Dr. Thomas Sowell points out that many politicians do not think beyond Stage One because they will be praised (and elected) for the short term benefits but will not be held accountable much later when the long term consequences appear.


The truth can be clearly seen in the economic policy that will be voted on in November.

2. The NYTimes verifies that the Obama economic plan is less beneficial than the Ryan Plan:

a. Deficit in 2016
Obama: $529 billion
Ryan Plan $241 billion

b. Added debt over the next ten years:
Obama $6.4 trillion
Ryan $3.1 trillion

c. Balances the budget:
Obama: never
Ryan: by 2040
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/21/us/politics/house-republicans-release-budget-blueprint.html


Not even close!
To vote for the Obama economic plan, one would have to subscribe to 'I know nothing...I vote Democrat.'


Obama: When you find yourself in a hole.....stop digging.

Good grief, one more ridiculous and fully partisan fishing exhibition by the resident troll.

There are two sides to 'central planning' and neither will prevail. A budget is a compromise and a budget is a plan. Since no compromise is on the horizon the plan is to point fingers at the other side.

Hopefully sane heads will prevail and the Congress will eventually send a budget to the White House which President Obama will sign. Congress has an approval rating of 12%; I can't imagine why it is so 'high'.

When was the last time the Congress sent a budget to the President?

Just asking.

 

[daveman]

It is already well established that the Republican Party is a party of liars and crooks.

You just keep pretending Democrats are all angels. It makes you look even stupider, if that's possible.

Liars as in......"The smoking gun will be a mushroom cloud"
And Crooks as in....."I am not a crook"

"I did not have sex with that woman Monica Lewinsky."

Oh, wait...that's different. Somehow.

Oh, and lest we forget, you lie all the time. "Rightwinger" my ass.

Now, with this thread, we are trying to establish once and for all that Republicans are also the Know-Nothing Party. Now, I have clearly established that Political Chics messiah, George Bush admitted there was indeed a Clinton Surplus......but PC refuses to attribute

Now, in establishing their Know-Nothing credentials, we already know their disdain for higher learning, science, economics and historical accuracy.

Mindless repetition of leftist lies does not mean the horseshit is accurate.

It means you're mindless. And a liar.

But then, we already knew that, your petulant foot stamping and pouting aside.

But are the Alinsky tactics...

Oh, look, there's one of your lies now. Alinsky a conservative?

Retard.

...of Political Chic and her new toady daveman...

She doesn't need a toady. She's kicking your ass all over the place, liarwinger.

...effective in switching the label to Democrats?

Not even close

There you go again. "Accuse your opponent of doing exactly what you're doing."

Your Uncle Saul would be proud of you, liarradicalwinger.

 

[daveman]

Beneficial to whom?

Imaginary numbers produce facts? Only to Republicans I guess.

I don't know about anyone else but I'm tired of more tax breaks for the wealthy and more corporate welfare while they forget ours is a government 'for the people'.

Republicans are still trying to further their class warfare and it is well past time to stop them.

You trolls are the only ones fighting the class war.

Normal people laugh at you.

The GOP has overseen the biggest swing in wealth in our nation’s history, reallocating wealth to the top by the truck load. The GOP continues to attack the working poor and what's left of our middle class.

That you're too stupid to get it is of no concern to me and has no effect on the truth of the statement.

99% of American's are embarrassed for you.

Really? You asked them all?

Bugger off, loser. Get a job and quit your damn whining.