Alan Simpson Calls GOP Refusal To Raise Revenue ‘Absolute Bullshit’

[BenNatuf]

In 2007, the government had receipts of $2,567,985,000 and outlays of $2,728,686,000.

And the debt rose 500 billion. So the government borrowed 500 billion to cover their deficit spending.

09/30/2007 - $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 - $8,506,973,899,215.23

Why are you only showing one side of the balance sheet?

Here's the other.

Intragovernmental Holdings

09/28/2007 $3,958,347,869,336.00
09/29/2006 $3,663,853,163,022.80

Government - Public Debt Reports

What good is a ballance sheet going to do him when he can't grasp the concept of having $5 in his pockets?

 

[edthecynic]

Then why are you including the "debt" to the "trust fund"?

Because that is where the money was "borrowed" from to cover the 500 billion 2007 deficit, but if the deficit is only 161 billion, as you say, then there is no intent to ever pay it back. So there is nothing of value as collateral in the trust fund, just a worthless IOU backed by the full faith and credit of a GOP that wants to destroy SS.

You said it wasn't borrowed. I could explain the difference between an unfunded liability and a debt, but you wouldn't understand that either.

No value in the trust fund means the only debt is the debt held by the public.

How you get from the money WAS borrowed from the trust funds to saying I said the money WASN'T borrowed, Only makes sense to a CON$ervative.

This is the problem with CON$, words have no meaning.

 

[edthecynic]

Originally Posted by Toddsterpatriot If you want to say in 2006 Bush borrowed $500 billion and also put $340 billion in the bank, then you should say that.
Total government revenues were $160 billion less than total government spending.

LOL, its moved from one government account to another. The general fund exchanges a treasury or IOU to the trust fund for it which at some later time the general fund will give cash to the trust fund to get back. But the US government does not borrow it. It just collects it and then moves it from one pocket to the other. Or does it escape you the the SS trust fund is the US government?

An IOU means the general fund BORROWED the money.

You don't issue an IOU when you deposit money in the bank, as Toadstoolhateriot said was the equivalent of what happened to the money borrowed.

and an IOU sitting in the trust fund is an asset... that asset is not counted to offset when they report the "total debt"

Well then, if the IOUs in the trust funds are a government asset, then we can use that asset to pay down the national debt. So if we take the 4.6 trillion in intergovernmental "assets" and apply them to the national debt the national debt will then be 4.6 trillion below the debt ceiling.
Problem solved!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Because that is where the money was "borrowed" from to cover the 500 billion 2007 deficit, but if the deficit is only 161 billion, as you say, then there is no intent to ever pay it back. So there is nothing of value as collateral in the trust fund, just a worthless IOU backed by the full faith and credit of a GOP that wants to destroy SS.

You said it wasn't borrowed. I could explain the difference between an unfunded liability and a debt, but you wouldn't understand that either.

No value in the trust fund means the only debt is the debt held by the public.

How you get from the money WAS borrowed from the trust funds to saying I said the money WASN'T borrowed, Only makes sense to a CON$ervative.

This is the problem with CON$, words have no meaning.

"The gov spends the money in both pockets and borrows the other five. Your example is ridiculous"

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

An IOU means the general fund BORROWED the money.

You don't issue an IOU when you deposit money in the bank, as Toadstoolhateriot said was the equivalent of what happened to the money borrowed.

and an IOU sitting in the trust fund is an asset... that asset is not counted to offset when they report the "total debt"

Well then, if the IOUs in the trust funds are a government asset, then we can use that asset to pay down the national debt. So if we take the 4.6 trillion in intergovernmental "assets" and apply them to the national debt

Yes! So the real debt is the net debt! Finally!

the national debt will then be 4.6 trillion below the debt ceiling.
Problem solved!

For some reason, Congress counts the money in the "Trust Fund" in the debt ceiling number.

 

[edthecynic]

You said it wasn't borrowed. I could explain the difference between an unfunded liability and a debt, but you wouldn't understand that either.

No value in the trust fund means the only debt is the debt held by the public.

How you get from the money WAS borrowed from the trust funds to saying I said the money WASN'T borrowed, Only makes sense to a CON$ervative.

This is the problem with CON$, words have no meaning.

"The gov spends the money in both pockets and borrows the other five. Your example is ridiculous"

Now that was a comment about YOUR moronic example, that you now take out of context by editing the whole post which pointed out that the error in your example was that the money in one pocket was someone else's money. So one pocket had the person's money, one pocket had someone else's money, and the third sum of money was borrowed from another source.
Try again.

 

[edthecynic]

and an IOU sitting in the trust fund is an asset... that asset is not counted to offset when they report the "total debt"

Well then, if the IOUs in the trust funds are a government asset, then we can use that asset to pay down the national debt. So if we take the 4.6 trillion in intergovernmental "assets" and apply them to the national debt

Yes! So the real debt is the net debt! Finally!

the national debt will then be 4.6 trillion below the debt ceiling.
Problem solved!

For some reason, Congress counts the money in the "Trust Fund" in the debt ceiling number.

Could it be that the money that is supposed to be there was borrowed to pay down the yearly deficit spending and therefore cannot be used to pay down the debt?????

So that brings us back to the fact that there was $500 billion in deficit spending in 2007 that was financed with both public and private borrowing.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Well then, if the IOUs in the trust funds are a government asset, then we can use that asset to pay down the national debt. So if we take the 4.6 trillion in intergovernmental "assets" and apply them to the national debt

Yes! So the real debt is the net debt! Finally!

the national debt will then be 4.6 trillion below the debt ceiling.
Problem solved!

For some reason, Congress counts the money in the "Trust Fund" in the debt ceiling number.

Could it be that the money that is supposed to be there was borrowed to pay down the yearly deficit spending and therefore cannot be used to pay down the debt?????

The money has always been taken and spent. Same as it ever was.

So that brings us back to the fact that there was $500 billion in deficit spending in 2007 that was financed with both public and private borrowing.

Private borrowing? What's that?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How you get from the money WAS borrowed from the trust funds to saying I said the money WASN'T borrowed, Only makes sense to a CON$ervative.

This is the problem with CON$, words have no meaning.

"The gov spends the money in both pockets and borrows the other five. Your example is ridiculous"

Now that was a comment about YOUR moronic example, that you now take out of context by editing the whole post which pointed out that the error in your example was that the money in one pocket was someone else's money. So one pocket had the person's money, one pocket had someone else's money, and the third sum of money was borrowed from another source.
Try again.

I'm sorry if my moronic example still went over your head.
All the money the government collected came from taxpayers.
Some of it was from payroll taxes and some was from income taxes.
Most of it was used for wasteful spending.
The money collected wasn't enough to cover all the spending (the shortfall was $160 billion), so the government sold bonds to the public. $160 billion worth.
The shortfall between receipts and spending is called the deficit.
I can try to use smaller words if you're still confused.

 

[edthecynic]

Yes! So the real debt is the net debt! Finally!
For some reason, Congress counts the money in the "Trust Fund" in the debt ceiling number.

Could it be that the money that is supposed to be there was borrowed to pay down the yearly deficit spending and therefore cannot be used to pay down the debt?????

The money has always been taken and spent. Same as it ever was.

So that brings us back to the fact that there was $500 billion in deficit spending in 2007 that was financed with both public and private borrowing.

Private borrowing? What's that?

The CON$ervative dumb act again. I got tired of typing "intergovernmental" so I typed "private" to distinguish it from public borrowing.

Nice deflection though from the fact that there was $500 billion in deficit spending in 2007 that had to be financed by borrowing money from somewhere.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Could it be that the money that is supposed to be there was borrowed to pay down the yearly deficit spending and therefore cannot be used to pay down the debt?????

The money has always been taken and spent. Same as it ever was.

So that brings us back to the fact that there was $500 billion in deficit spending in 2007 that was financed with both public and private borrowing.

Private borrowing? What's that?

The CON$ervative dumb act again. I got tired of typing "intergovernmental" so I typed "private" to distinguish it from public borrowing.

Great idea! Whenever government borrows from government, call it private borrowing. LOL!

Nice deflection though from the fact that there was $500 billion in deficit spending in 2007 that had to be financed by borrowing money from somewhere.

Except deficit spending was $160 billion.

 

[edthecynic]

"The gov spends the money in both pockets and borrows the other five. Your example is ridiculous"

Now that was a comment about YOUR moronic example, that you now take out of context by editing the whole post which pointed out that the error in your example was that the money in one pocket was someone else's money. So one pocket had the person's money, one pocket had someone else's money, and the third sum of money was borrowed from another source.
Try again.

I'm sorry if my moronic example still went over your head.
All the money the government collected came from taxpayers.
Some of it was from payroll taxes and some was from income taxes.
Most of it was used for wasteful spending.
The money collected wasn't enough to cover all the spending (the shortfall was $160 billion), so the government sold bonds to the public. $160 billion worth.
The shortfall between receipts and spending is called the deficit.
I can try to use smaller words if you're still confused.

No the shortfall was $500 billion. 160 billion of the shortfall was financed by public borrowing and 340 billion of the shortfall was financed by "intergov" borrowing. $500 billion was borrowed and that is called debt. Deficit is a meaningless and misleading accounting term.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Now that was a comment about YOUR moronic example, that you now take out of context by editing the whole post which pointed out that the error in your example was that the money in one pocket was someone else's money. So one pocket had the person's money, one pocket had someone else's money, and the third sum of money was borrowed from another source.
Try again.

I'm sorry if my moronic example still went over your head.
All the money the government collected came from taxpayers.
Some of it was from payroll taxes and some was from income taxes.
Most of it was used for wasteful spending.
The money collected wasn't enough to cover all the spending (the shortfall was $160 billion), so the government sold bonds to the public. $160 billion worth.
The shortfall between receipts and spending is called the deficit.
I can try to use smaller words if you're still confused.

No the shortfall was $500 billion. 160 billion of the shortfall was financed by public borrowing and 340 billion of the shortfall was financed by "intergov" borrowing. $500 billion was borrowed and that is called debt. Deficit is a meaningless and misleading accounting term.

$500 billion shortfall?
Perhaps you could show the revenue and spending numbers that differ by $500 billion?

 

[edthecynic]

The money has always been taken and spent. Same as it ever was.
Private borrowing? What's that?

The CON$ervative dumb act again. I got tired of typing "intergovernmental" so I typed "private" to distinguish it from public borrowing.

Great idea! Whenever government borrows from government, call it private borrowing. LOL!

Nice deflection though from the fact that there was $500 billion in deficit spending in 2007 that had to be financed by borrowing money from somewhere.

Except deficit spending was $160 billion.

The government would not have needed to borrow $500 billion if the deficit was only 160 billion, and the gov DID borrow 500 billion.

 

[edthecynic]

I'm sorry if my moronic example still went over your head.
All the money the government collected came from taxpayers.
Some of it was from payroll taxes and some was from income taxes.
Most of it was used for wasteful spending.
The money collected wasn't enough to cover all the spending (the shortfall was $160 billion), so the government sold bonds to the public. $160 billion worth.
The shortfall between receipts and spending is called the deficit.
I can try to use smaller words if you're still confused.

No the shortfall was $500 billion. 160 billion of the shortfall was financed by public borrowing and 340 billion of the shortfall was financed by "intergov" borrowing. $500 billion was borrowed and that is called debt. Deficit is a meaningless and misleading accounting term.

$500 billion shortfall?
Perhaps you could show the revenue and spending numbers that differ by $500 billion?

Obviously the revenue and spending numbers are meaningless if they don't show that 500 billion was borrowed to cover the 500 billion shortfall that had to be financed with borrowed money.

Total National Debt by Year
09/30/2007 - $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 - $8,506,973,899,215.23

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The CON$ervative dumb act again. I got tired of typing "intergovernmental" so I typed "private" to distinguish it from public borrowing.

Great idea! Whenever government borrows from government, call it private borrowing. LOL!

Nice deflection though from the fact that there was $500 billion in deficit spending in 2007 that had to be financed by borrowing money from somewhere.

Except deficit spending was $160 billion.

The government would not have needed to borrow $500 billion if the deficit was only 160 billion, and the gov DID borrow 500 billion.

The government didn't borrow $500 billion.
Receipts were $2,567,985,000 and outlays were $2,728,686,000.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No the shortfall was $500 billion. 160 billion of the shortfall was financed by public borrowing and 340 billion of the shortfall was financed by "intergov" borrowing. $500 billion was borrowed and that is called debt. Deficit is a meaningless and misleading accounting term.

$500 billion shortfall?
Perhaps you could show the revenue and spending numbers that differ by $500 billion?

Obviously the revenue and spending numbers are meaningless if they don't show that 500 billion was borrowed to cover the 500 billion shortfall that had to be financed with borrowed money.

Total National Debt by Year
09/30/2007 - $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 - $8,506,973,899,215.23

Your debt numbers are meaningless, if you ignore assets.
Try again.
Go to the White House site and get the revenue and outlay numbers for any year you choose.
The deficit (or surplus) is the difference of those two numbers.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No the shortfall was $500 billion. 160 billion of the shortfall was financed by public borrowing and 340 billion of the shortfall was financed by "intergov" borrowing. $500 billion was borrowed and that is called debt. Deficit is a meaningless and misleading accounting term.

$500 billion shortfall?
Perhaps you could show the revenue and spending numbers that differ by $500 billion?

Obviously the revenue and spending numbers are meaningless if they don't show that 500 billion was borrowed to cover the 500 billion shortfall that had to be financed with borrowed money.

Total National Debt by Year
09/30/2007 - $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 - $8,506,973,899,215.23

U.S. Government National Debt: What they Won't Tell You

The above is a silly site, but it shows net debt, just over $10.2 trillion.

 

[edthecynic]

$500 billion shortfall?
Perhaps you could show the revenue and spending numbers that differ by $500 billion?

Obviously the revenue and spending numbers are meaningless if they don't show that 500 billion was borrowed to cover the 500 billion shortfall that had to be financed with borrowed money.

Total National Debt by Year
09/30/2007 - $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 - $8,506,973,899,215.23

U.S. Government National Debt: What they Won't Tell You

The above is a silly site, but it shows net debt, just over $10.2 trillion.

The below is not a silly site and it shows the total PUBLIC debt at $14+ trillion.

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Current Debt Held by the Public Intragovernmental Holdings Total Public Debt Outstanding
07/14/2011 9,750,503,934,099.81 4,592,449,951,542.17 14,342,953,885,641.98

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Obviously the revenue and spending numbers are meaningless if they don't show that 500 billion was borrowed to cover the 500 billion shortfall that had to be financed with borrowed money.

Total National Debt by Year
09/30/2007 - $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 - $8,506,973,899,215.23

U.S. Government National Debt: What they Won't Tell You

The above is a silly site, but it shows net debt, just over $10.2 trillion.

The below is not a silly site and it shows the total PUBLIC debt at $14+ trillion.

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Current Debt Held by the Public Intragovernmental Holdings Total Public Debt Outstanding
07/14/2011 9,750,503,934,099.81 4,592,449,951,542.17 14,342,953,885,641.98

You can ignore $4.592 trillion if you'd like.