The Deficit: Comparing 2010 to 2000 when we had a surplus

[Quantum Windbag]

Did the national debt go down or up during the Clinton years?

Having not read all of your rants, according to TreasuryDirect.gov the national debt did go up every year Clinton was in office. I fail to see how that negates his surplus though. You do know that debt can go up and we still have a surplus, right?

It's simple. She's trying to redefine 'budget surplus' in a way that no one outside of some fringies use.

The funniest part is, and it's funny EVERY time she pulls this, and this isn't the first time,

even if you use her own loony concoctions and loony math,

it still turns out that Clinton's numbers were FAR closer to balance than

Reagans, Bush Sr's, or GW's.

It's the same game as the wingnuts around here who try to switch to U-6 unemployment numbers when talking about UE under Obama to try to make it look like Obama's numbers are up in the high teens.

It's the standard practice of people like PC because they simply cannot debate on the facts.

If Bush had used the Medicare trust fund to balance the budget you would be screaming about it until hell froze over. Why does Clinton doing it get a pass?

 

[Toro]

humm ok, so, who is our "mutual fund mgt. company" investing in or with?

This is a difficult thing to conceptually understand. The answer is "the government." QW said that essentially we owe the funds to ourselves. That is true. Let me explain.

Let's say you, Mr. Trajan, start a retirement savings account, and you don't want the ups and downs of the stock market, you don't trust banks, and since your house fell by 50% in price, no way are you going into real estate. Instead, you decide to invest 100% in government bonds. You can call the Treasury and open account to buy government bonds. For the rest of your life, that's all you invest in, Treasury bonds. I wouldn't advise it, but hey, different strokes for different folks.

Now let's say you have the option of either doing it yourself or having someone else do it for you. You, for some odd reason, think the government is fabulous, so you select the government to do it for you. Instead of you calling the government every month and putting 6% into government bonds, the government just takes 6% off your paycheck and invests in government bonds for you.

What does the government do with that money that you've lent them? To you, you don't care. All you care about is that the government pays you back with the interest promised. The government will spend it anyway it wants. That's what it does now.

So you're following me here, right? Let's review.

1st option - you invest your money in government bonds yourself
2nd option - you have the government invest your money in government bonds for you.

In both options, the government spends that money in any way it sees fit. And in both options, you own an asset - a government bond - that is a liability of the government.

Now this is where it gets tricky, and this is where people generally get confused, like the people in this thread. Let's say the government approaches you and says "Mr. Trajan, I see that all you've ever done is buy government bonds. Government bonds have a cost. There are middle men that have to get paid. We have auctions. We have accounting for all these bonds. We have to pay a custodian. Let's make a deal. Instead of going to all the trouble of issuing these bonds that you buy every month, let's skip all the middle men and we'll debit your account the amount that you send to us every month. You will still compound the interest at the same rate but instead of owning the actual bond, we will pay you back your principal and accrued interest in the future when you need it." Thus, you have another option.

3rd option - you send the money directly to the government and the government enters into a contractual promise to pay you back in the future the amount of your investment plus accrued interest matching the rate of interest on government bonds.

And like the first two options, you have an asset - a contractual promise to pay you back plus interest - that is a liability of the government.

Economically, all three options are the same. In all three options, you are sending the government your savings and the government promises to pay you back plus interest. A bond is a contractual promise to pay you back plus interest in the future.

If you hadn't guessed, the third option most closely resembles how social security operates. Now take Mr. Trajan and 250 million other Americans and pool them all together in the third option and that's the SS trust fund. It's as if we are all buying government bonds together, but instead of going to the trouble of actually issuing the bonds, the government credits our accounts as if we were purchasing the bonds. And that pool of assets is run by the government, which is an asset credited against the liabilities of the Treasury.

Now, that's not how I would design a pension fund, but that's essentially how SS works.

In fairness to the critics, they have an implicit point - the capacity of the trust funds to pay off its obligations are a function of the productive capacity of the nation. Using an extreme example, if you promised everyone pensions 10x larger tomorrow, you would essentially bankrupt the nation since those promises could not be met. Countries such as Italy and Japan will be in trouble because they are not growing fast enough to meet their obligations. But SS isn't really in any serious trouble (unlike Medicare and Medicaid) since the population and the economy continues to grow. SS would be in much better shape if it were a real pension fund. Earning even an extra 1% would make an enormous difference over time.

 

[Toro]

Why is the government owing itself more money better than the government owing money to someone else? The way I see it that money the government borrows from itself is owed to us anyway, unless you think the SS trust fund is actually the governments money.

That's a different argument. SS should be run like a real pension fund, IMHO. You would fully fund SS and give people a tax cut if you did.

How they run SS is a different argument, but buying T-bills with government money and calling it revenue is lying. If that was all it took Congress could buy up $15 trillion in T-bills with new money and declare the debt eliminated.

They don't buy T-bills and call it revenue. They take in payroll taxes and call it revenue. Then they spend that money, which are called "expenses."

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's a different argument. SS should be run like a real pension fund, IMHO. You would fully fund SS and give people a tax cut if you did.

How they run SS is a different argument, but buying T-bills with government money and calling it revenue is lying. If that was all it took Congress could buy up $15 trillion in T-bills with new money and declare the debt eliminated.

They don't buy T-bills and call it revenue. They take in payroll taxes and call it revenue. Then they spend that money, which are called "expenses."

That is what they do with income taxes, the FICA funds are, in theory, not part of the general fund. The law requires those funds to be invested in T-bills and securities, and that is then counted as revenue. By law the SS trust fund cannot be counted as part of the general fund, nor can it borrow money, but treasuries are, as you pointed out, more or less, just as good as cash for the purposes of the trust fund. (That actually comes down to if the dollar goes bust everything is worthless.) SS is not the only fund that does this, and the T-bills are what is counted as revenue. I object to that because it gets around the letter, and the spirit, of the law.

 

[auditor0007]

Revenue's: Currently are down 5.7% as a percent of GDP compared to 2000
Not surprising. GDP is down, uneployment has doubled, gas prices have doubled, revenue has no where to go but down. Unfortunately your premise of taking more money from people to solve the problem is fundamentally flawed. Doing this only exacerbates the problem. People have less to spend on basic essentials, the cost of day to day living increases, savings decrease, and unemployment rises ever further higher as the cost to businesses has to be offset by smaller overhead.
That means fewer jobs.
Nice job, chief.

Defense: Currently up 1.75% as a percent of GDP compared to 2000
Perhaps Obama should go before Congress and the UN like George Bush did before arbitrarily deciding who we go to war with?

Medicare: Currently up 1.1% as a percentage of GDP compared to 2000
Perhaps you should look at expenditures BEFORE government got into the healthcare business. I know how shocking this must seem to those who love bloated government, but anytime government gets into business, the cost shoots up astronomically.

Unemployment compensation: Currently up .97% of GDP compared to 2000
That's because benefits keep getting extended. You can thank government regulations upon regulations for this problem.

Health: Currently up .82% of GDP compared to 2000
Speaking as someone in the healthcare industry, I can readily attest that government paperwork takes more than half of a doctors time in a single work day, thus he/she sees less patients. The nightmare will only get worse when Obama takes over the industry entirely.

Social Security: Currently up .70% of GDP compared to 2000
No idea what to do here. Should have been taken care of long ago.
Bush tried. Democrats response? There isn't a problem with Social Security. Those guys are so smart, ain't they?

It is hard to take someone seriously when they make statements that are complete untruths. GDP is down since 2000? What planet do you live on? GDP in 2000 was $9.8 trillion. In 2010 it was $14.6 trillion. That is a 49% increase in GDP. Now let's look at tax revenue. In 2000, it was just over $2 trillion; in 2010, it was just over $2.1 trillion. That is an increase of 5%. So while the economy grew by 49%, tax revenue increased by 5%.

While tax cuts can increase revenue, if taxes are cut too much and the economic growth does not materialize, all of a sudden, there is a dramatic reduction in revenue. This is exactly what happened with the Bush tax cuts. Revenues did increase through 2006 or 2007, but then the bottom dropped out. On top of that, even with the temporary increase in revenues, Bush along with the Republican Congress continued spending more and more so that the deficits grew larger and larger. Then when the economy turned upside down, we were left with these massive deficits.

What I find so humorous is that after watching all this happen, conservatives will now tell us we need to cut spending while cutting taxes on top of it. We had tax cuts on top of tax cuts on top of tax cuts, and yet the economy is going nowhere. According to the right, tax cuts are the way to get the economy moving again, even though we can see already see that it has not worked long term.

 

[Trajan]

humm ok, so, who is our "mutual fund mgt. company" investing in or with?

This is a difficult thing to conceptually understand. The answer is "the government." QW said that essentially we owe the funds to ourselves. That is true. Let me explain.

Let's say you, Mr. Trajan, start a retirement savings account, and you don't want the ups and downs of the stock market, you don't trust banks, and since your house fell by 50% in price, no way are you going into real estate. Instead, you decide to invest 100% in government bonds. You can call the Treasury and open account to buy government bonds. For the rest of your life, that's all you invest in, Treasury bonds. I wouldn't advise it, but hey, different strokes for different folks.

Now let's say you have the option of either doing it yourself or having someone else do it for you. You, for some odd reason, think the government is fabulous, so you select the government to do it for you. Instead of you calling the government every month and putting 6% into government bonds, the government just takes 6% off your paycheck and invests in government bonds for you.

What does the government do with that money that you've lent them? To you, you don't care. All you care about is that the government pays you back with the interest promised. The government will spend it anyway it wants. That's what it does now.

So you're following me here, right? Let's review.

1st option - you invest your money in government bonds yourself
2nd option - you have the government invest your money in government bonds for you.

In both options, the government spends that money in any way it sees fit. And in both options, you own an asset - a government bond - that is a liability of the government.

Now this is where it gets tricky, and this is where people generally get confused, like the people in this thread. Let's say the government approaches you and says "Mr. Trajan, I see that all you've ever done is buy government bonds. Government bonds have a cost. There are middle men that have to get paid. We have auctions. We have accounting for all these bonds. We have to pay a custodian. Let's make a deal. Instead of going to all the trouble of issuing these bonds that you buy every month, let's skip all the middle men and we'll debit your account the amount that you send to us every month. You will still compound the interest at the same rate but instead of owning the actual bond, we will pay you back your principal and accrued interest in the future when you need it." Thus, you have another option.

3rd option - you send the money directly to the government and the government enters into a contractual promise to pay you back in the future the amount of your investment plus accrued interest matching the rate of interest on government bonds.

And like the first two options, you have an asset - a contractual promise to pay you back plus interest - that is a liability of the government.

Economically, all three options are the same. In all three options, you are sending the government your savings and the government promises to pay you back plus interest. A bond is a contractual promise to pay you back plus interest in the future.

If you hadn't guessed, the third option most closely resembles how social security operates. Now take Mr. Trajan and 250 million other Americans and pool them all together in the third option and that's the SS trust fund. It's as if we are all buying government bonds together, but instead of going to the trouble of actually issuing the bonds, the government credits our accounts as if we were purchasing the bonds. And that pool of assets is run by the government, which is an asset credited against the liabilities of the Treasury.

Now, that's not how I would design a pension fund, but that's essentially how SS works.

In fairness to the critics, they have an implicit point - the capacity of the trust funds to pay off its obligations are a function of the productive capacity of the nation. Using an extreme example, if you promised everyone pensions 10x larger tomorrow, you would essentially bankrupt the nation since those promises could not be met. Countries such as Italy and Japan will be in trouble because they are not growing fast enough to meet their obligations. But SS isn't really in any serious trouble (unlike Medicare and Medicaid) since the population and the economy continues to grow. SS would be in much better shape if it were a real pension fund. Earning even an extra 1% would make an enormous difference over time.

ok so it appears to me that they are banking on future suckers errr, guys like me to do same give them my 6% and using that to pay me with......

IF that is right 2 questions-

1) what happens when they no longer receive the 6% in to match my 6% plus interest out? they tell me sorry we can only give you the say $ 100 we owe you we'll give you 80 ....


2) IF that is correct they then have to use direct ins from other sources than suckers like me who are no longer sending them money to 'invest', as in borrowing it from general funds/revenue or borrow it selling bonds to real investors or themselves ala QE1&2?

 

[Sactowndog]

it will have to be restructured. You would do that by raising the retirement age by a couple of years and claw back benefits to those who are wealthy and don't need it.
.

Obviously this is the political problem to implementing it. I won't comment on the rest because basically I completely agree.

I made a post about capital gains that I would like you to please look at an critique my analysis. I think you may be able to increase capital gains taxes and have local jobs increase as a result.

 

[Sactowndog]

Since SS is not fully funded - meaning there isn't enough money currently to fund all future obligations - it will have to be restructured. You would do that by raising the retirement age by a couple of years and claw back benefits to those who are wealthy and don't need it.
.

I think this is the real political problem. I won't comment on the rest since I basically agree with all of it.

I would ask that you look at my post on capital gains and critique my analysis. I believe you can increase taxes on capital gains and the result would be more jobs not less in the US. Let me know what you think...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Having not read all of your rants, according to TreasuryDirect.gov the national debt did go up every year Clinton was in office. I fail to see how that negates his surplus though. You do know that debt can go up and we still have a surplus, right?

It's simple. She's trying to redefine 'budget surplus' in a way that no one outside of some fringies use.

The funniest part is, and it's funny EVERY time she pulls this, and this isn't the first time,

even if you use her own loony concoctions and loony math,

it still turns out that Clinton's numbers were FAR closer to balance than

Reagans, Bush Sr's, or GW's.

It's the same game as the wingnuts around here who try to switch to U-6 unemployment numbers when talking about UE under Obama to try to make it look like Obama's numbers are up in the high teens.

It's the standard practice of people like PC because they simply cannot debate on the facts.

If Bush had used the Medicare trust fund to balance the budget you would be screaming about it until hell froze over. Why does Clinton doing it get a pass?

Bush cited the surplus as justification for cutting taxes, first of all. Are all you people now of the opinion that Bush was lying????

I haven't said ANYTHING other than pointing out that Clinton did in fact have balanced budgets near the end of his presidency.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why is the government owing itself more money better than the government owing money to someone else? The way I see it that money the government borrows from itself is owed to us anyway, unless you think the SS trust fund is actually the governments money.

That's a different argument. SS should be run like a real pension fund, IMHO. You would fully fund SS and give people a tax cut if you did.

How they run SS is a different argument, but buying T-bills with government money and calling it revenue is lying. If that was all it took Congress could buy up $15 trillion in T-bills with new money and declare the debt eliminated.

Social Security is a creditor to the US government. Social Security has its own revenue stream that it invests in the US government by loaning that money to the US government.

What the government owes Social Security 20 years from now when John Doe retires is not a 2011 budget item, nor was it a 2000 budget item.

 

[Sactowndog]

If you do not like my posts feel free to ignore them.

Actually you seem very intelligent and I would like to have an honest discussion with you as opposed to nitpicking over things that don't matter.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Down, according to the CBO, in 98, 99, 00, 01

http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf

Now, aren't you the dunce who screams "Liar! Liar!" is one slips up and makes a mistake?

Oh, yes...that would be you.

Well, that would entitle me to call you a "Liar! Liar!" - if I were so inclined. Why???

1. Your link does not in any column list national debt.

2. So...are you prepared to take your own medicine? Are you a liar...or simply wrong?


waiting.....



3. OK, Ok....due to your condition, I'll cut you some slack, and explain it to you:

There are, actually, two kinds of government debt, public debt, which we owe to bondholders and other investors, and intragovernmental debt, which is debt the government owes to itself. National debt is actually the total of the two.

Now, take a peek at the last column....yes, the one labeled "Debt Held By The Public."

See, that is also known as 'public debt.'

See "Debt Held By The Public." is actually 'public debt.'
And vice-versa!

Hey...did you just slap yourself on the forehead??

OK...See? It is not the national debt.

Get it?

Now, wipe that egg off your face......

I just love when your karma just bites you in the butt....don't you?

Folks like you are like the toy Slinky....not good for much, but they bring a smile to your face when you push 'em down the stairs.

You're wrong. Clinton had a budget surplus. A budget surplus is when your budget is less than the revenue you take in.

You don't include off-budget items in the budget.

The clue that most people use to figure that out is the term 'off-budget'.

Obfuscate much?

Oh, that means do you try to cloud the issue.....


You posted a link which, evidently, you thought dispositive.

1. I destroyed that 'dispositive' post by showing that it did not include the item under question, the national debt.

2. Clearly, you mistakenly believed that 'public debt' was the national debt. Your link did not have any reference to national debt, did it?
NO....it did not.

3. But more to the point, you had accused me of lying...something I never do...in making a similar simple mistake in another thread.

4. I asked you to either admit to 'lying' or to admit it was not a 'lie,' i.e., appologize for your earlier accusation.

5. You have done neither....

No honor? No guts? No integrity?

6. I explianed to you what national debt means. Why, not even a simple thank you!

No manners?

When I made the mistake in the prior thread, I immediatly sent a rep to the poster who caught it....

...but you now try to pretend that none of the above occurred, and simply post a 'did too, did too' post.....


Well, now that it is established that you lack the guts to admit you were wrong both in this thread and the earlier one, I officialy change your appellaton (which means title) from "Carby" to....

...."Barbie" 'cause you are a girly-man!

Barbie, 'cause you proved you were 'anatomically correct.'

Carry on, Barbie.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Did the national debt go down or up during the Clinton years?

Having not read all of your rants, according to TreasuryDirect.gov the national debt did go up every year Clinton was in office. I fail to see how that negates his surplus though. You do know that debt can go up and we still have a surplus, right?

Debt
Any money owed to an individual, company, or other organization. One acquires debt when one borrows money.
debt financial definition of debt. debt finance term by the Free Online Dictionary.

Surplus
The amount by which the revenue of a government from taxes, tariffs and other sources exceeds its expenditures. A surplus means that the budget is likely healthy, at least in the short-term, and in any case the government does not have to resort to borrowing.
Surplus financial definition of Surplus. Surplus finance term by the Free Online Dictionary.


And, by the way, try to use word that you underatand...it would make you look far less stupid:

Rant: : to talk in a noisy, excited, or declamatory manner
Rant - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary


In summary, there was no surplus, merely a word game meant to confuse and convince the simple minded....like you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Now, aren't you the dunce who screams "Liar! Liar!" is one slips up and makes a mistake?

Oh, yes...that would be you.

Well, that would entitle me to call you a "Liar! Liar!" - if I were so inclined. Why???

1. Your link does not in any column list national debt.

2. So...are you prepared to take your own medicine? Are you a liar...or simply wrong?


waiting.....



3. OK, Ok....due to your condition, I'll cut you some slack, and explain it to you:

There are, actually, two kinds of government debt, public debt, which we owe to bondholders and other investors, and intragovernmental debt, which is debt the government owes to itself. National debt is actually the total of the two.

Now, take a peek at the last column....yes, the one labeled "Debt Held By The Public."

See, that is also known as 'public debt.'

See "Debt Held By The Public." is actually 'public debt.'
And vice-versa!

Hey...did you just slap yourself on the forehead??

OK...See? It is not the national debt.

Get it?

Now, wipe that egg off your face......

I just love when your karma just bites you in the butt....don't you?

Folks like you are like the toy Slinky....not good for much, but they bring a smile to your face when you push 'em down the stairs.

You're wrong. Clinton had a budget surplus. A budget surplus is when your budget is less than the revenue you take in.

You don't include off-budget items in the budget.

The clue that most people use to figure that out is the term 'off-budget'.

Obfuscate much?

Oh, that means do you try to cloud the issue.....


You posted a link which, evidently, you thought dispositive.

1. I destroyed that 'dispositive' post by showing that it did not include the item under question, the national debt.

2. Clearly, you mistakenly believed that 'public debt' was the national debt. Your link did not have any reference to national debt, did it?
NO....it did not.

3. But more to the point, you had accused me of lying...something I never do...in making a similar simple mistake in another thread.

4. I asked you to either admit to 'lying' or to admit it was not a 'lie,' i.e., appologize for your earlier accusation.

5. You have done neither....

No honor? No guts? No integrity?

6. I explianed to you what national debt means. Why, not even a simple thank you!

No manners?

When I made the mistake in the prior thread, I immediatly sent a rep to the poster who caught it....

...but you now try to pretend that none of the above occurred, and simply post a 'did too, did too' post.....


Well, now that it is established that you lack the guts to admit you were wrong both in this thread and the earlier one, I officialy change your appellaton (which means title) from "Carby" to....

...."Barbie" 'cause you are a girly-man!

Barbie, 'cause you proved you were 'anatomically correct.'

Carry on, Barbie.

I know you're still smarting from my proving you a liar the other day, but really, get over it. Holding grudges is not conducive to intelligent debate.

Clinton had a budget surplus for 2 or 3 budgets. Period.

Question, which I know I won't get a straight answer from you on, but I'll ask anyway, because getting you to avoid the question makes almost as good a point as getting you to answer one:

Did Clinton use budgetary methods THAT NO OTHER PRESIDENT EVER USED, before or after, in order to falsely create the appearance of several annual budget surpluses?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Having not read all of your rants, according to TreasuryDirect.gov the national debt did go up every year Clinton was in office. I fail to see how that negates his surplus though. You do know that debt can go up and we still have a surplus, right?

It's simple. She's trying to redefine 'budget surplus' in a way that no one outside of some fringies use.

The funniest part is, and it's funny EVERY time she pulls this, and this isn't the first time,

even if you use her own loony concoctions and loony math,

it still turns out that Clinton's numbers were FAR closer to balance than

Reagans, Bush Sr's, or GW's.

It's the same game as the wingnuts around here who try to switch to U-6 unemployment numbers when talking about UE under Obama to try to make it look like Obama's numbers are up in the high teens.

It's the standard practice of people like PC because they simply cannot debate on the facts.

If Bush had used the Medicare trust fund to balance the budget you would be screaming about it until hell froze over. Why does Clinton doing it get a pass?

How could Clinton 'use' the Medicare trust fund to balance the budget when he didn't control any of the agencies/organizations who add up the numbers and determine whether or not any year's budget was balanced????

 

[PoliticalChic]

You're wrong. Clinton had a budget surplus. A budget surplus is when your budget is less than the revenue you take in.

You don't include off-budget items in the budget.

The clue that most people use to figure that out is the term 'off-budget'.

Obfuscate much?

Oh, that means do you try to cloud the issue.....


You posted a link which, evidently, you thought dispositive.

1. I destroyed that 'dispositive' post by showing that it did not include the item under question, the national debt.

2. Clearly, you mistakenly believed that 'public debt' was the national debt. Your link did not have any reference to national debt, did it?
NO....it did not.

3. But more to the point, you had accused me of lying...something I never do...in making a similar simple mistake in another thread.

4. I asked you to either admit to 'lying' or to admit it was not a 'lie,' i.e., appologize for your earlier accusation.

5. You have done neither....

No honor? No guts? No integrity?

6. I explianed to you what national debt means. Why, not even a simple thank you!

No manners?

When I made the mistake in the prior thread, I immediatly sent a rep to the poster who caught it....

...but you now try to pretend that none of the above occurred, and simply post a 'did too, did too' post.....


Well, now that it is established that you lack the guts to admit you were wrong both in this thread and the earlier one, I officialy change your appellaton (which means title) from "Carby" to....

...."Barbie" 'cause you are a girly-man!

Barbie, 'cause you proved you were 'anatomically correct.'

Carry on, Barbie.

I know you're still smarting from my proving you a liar the other day, but really, get over it. Holding grudges is not conducive to intelligent debate.

Clinton had a budget surplus for 2 or 3 budgets. Period.

Question, which I know I won't get a straight answer from you on, but I'll ask anyway, because getting you to avoid the question makes almost as good a point as getting you to answer one:

Did Clinton use budgetary methods THAT NO OTHER PRESIDENT EVER USED, before or after, in order to falsely create the appearance of several annual budget surpluses?

Barbie, now that it has been proven that both your character and your knowledge have both reached their nadir, on what possible basis would I entertain any questions from you?

Henceforth, Barbie, you will merely be relegated to the pigeon hole of comic relief/human piñata.

 

[8537]

Did the national debt go down or up during the Clinton years?

It is irrelevant whether or not the national debt went up as it pertains to whether or not there was a surplus. A surplus is when receipts exceed expenses.

Tradable debt fell.
Net debt fell.
Gross debt rose.

The net balance of the United States financial condition improved at the end of the 90s.

Why is the government owing itself more money better than the government owing money to someone else? The way I see it that money the government borrows from itself is owed to us anyway, unless you think the SS trust fund is actually the governments money.

Because the money the government owes the public is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. Failing to pay that money would cause a dramatic decline in our credit rating and send interest rates through the roof.

The money the government owes itself is almost exclusively in special-issue treasuries that can be cancelled at any time with no bearing on our credit. Congress can simply decide not to repay the trusts - and in fact, most plans to "reform" Social Security in order to make it solvent involve some level of "defaulting" on those treasuries.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Obfuscate much?

Oh, that means do you try to cloud the issue.....


You posted a link which, evidently, you thought dispositive.

1. I destroyed that 'dispositive' post by showing that it did not include the item under question, the national debt.

2. Clearly, you mistakenly believed that 'public debt' was the national debt. Your link did not have any reference to national debt, did it?
NO....it did not.

3. But more to the point, you had accused me of lying...something I never do...in making a similar simple mistake in another thread.

4. I asked you to either admit to 'lying' or to admit it was not a 'lie,' i.e., appologize for your earlier accusation.

5. You have done neither....

No honor? No guts? No integrity?

6. I explianed to you what national debt means. Why, not even a simple thank you!

No manners?

When I made the mistake in the prior thread, I immediatly sent a rep to the poster who caught it....

...but you now try to pretend that none of the above occurred, and simply post a 'did too, did too' post.....


Well, now that it is established that you lack the guts to admit you were wrong both in this thread and the earlier one, I officialy change your appellaton (which means title) from "Carby" to....

...."Barbie" 'cause you are a girly-man!

Barbie, 'cause you proved you were 'anatomically correct.'

Carry on, Barbie.

I know you're still smarting from my proving you a liar the other day, but really, get over it. Holding grudges is not conducive to intelligent debate.

Clinton had a budget surplus for 2 or 3 budgets. Period.

Question, which I know I won't get a straight answer from you on, but I'll ask anyway, because getting you to avoid the question makes almost as good a point as getting you to answer one:

Did Clinton use budgetary methods THAT NO OTHER PRESIDENT EVER USED, before or after, in order to falsely create the appearance of several annual budget surpluses?

Barbie, now that it has been proven that both your character and your knowledge have both reached their nadir, on what possible basis would I entertain any questions from you?

Henceforth, Barbie, you will merely be relegated to the pigeon hole of comic relief/human piñata.

I get that sort of thing from lots of posters who can't debate me on the facts. It must be in the rightwing handbook.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Now, aren't you the dunce who screams "Liar! Liar!" is one slips up and makes a mistake?

Oh, yes...that would be you.

Well, that would entitle me to call you a "Liar! Liar!" - if I were so inclined. Why???

1. Your link does not in any column list national debt.

2. So...are you prepared to take your own medicine? Are you a liar...or simply wrong?


waiting.....



3. OK, Ok....due to your condition, I'll cut you some slack, and explain it to you:

There are, actually, two kinds of government debt, public debt, which we owe to bondholders and other investors, and intragovernmental debt, which is debt the government owes to itself. National debt is actually the total of the two.

Now, take a peek at the last column....yes, the one labeled "Debt Held By The Public."

See, that is also known as 'public debt.'

See "Debt Held By The Public." is actually 'public debt.'
And vice-versa!

Hey...did you just slap yourself on the forehead??

OK...See? It is not the national debt.

Get it?

Now, wipe that egg off your face......

I just love when your karma just bites you in the butt....don't you?

Folks like you are like the toy Slinky....not good for much, but they bring a smile to your face when you push 'em down the stairs.

You're wrong. Clinton had a budget surplus. A budget surplus is when your budget is less than the revenue you take in.

You don't include off-budget items in the budget.

The clue that most people use to figure that out is the term 'off-budget'.

Obfuscate much?

Oh, that means do you try to cloud the issue.....


You posted a link which, evidently, you thought dispositive.

1. I destroyed that 'dispositive' post by showing that it did not include the item under question, the national debt.

The only obfuscation here was your dishonest attempt to use the irrelevant figure of the national debt make a fallacious argument that Clinton did not balance the budget.

Since the national debt includes off-budget items, it CANNOT accurately reflect the budget, therefore it is a number that is of no use in making any argument concerning the balancing of the budget.

The only claim anyone has made is that Clinton balanced the BUDGET. Which is a fact.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Obfuscate much?

Oh, that means do you try to cloud the issue.....


You posted a link which, evidently, you thought dispositive.

1. I destroyed that 'dispositive' post by showing that it did not include the item under question, the national debt.

2. Clearly, you mistakenly believed that 'public debt' was the national debt. Your link did not have any reference to national debt, did it?
NO....it did not.

3. But more to the point, you had accused me of lying...something I never do...in making a similar simple mistake in another thread.

4. I asked you to either admit to 'lying' or to admit it was not a 'lie,' i.e., appologize for your earlier accusation.

5. You have done neither....

No honor? No guts? No integrity?

6. I explianed to you what national debt means. Why, not even a simple thank you!

No manners?

When I made the mistake in the prior thread, I immediatly sent a rep to the poster who caught it....

...but you now try to pretend that none of the above occurred, and simply post a 'did too, did too' post.....


Well, now that it is established that you lack the guts to admit you were wrong both in this thread and the earlier one, I officialy change your appellaton (which means title) from "Carby" to....

...."Barbie" 'cause you are a girly-man!

Barbie, 'cause you proved you were 'anatomically correct.'

Carry on, Barbie.

I know you're still smarting from my proving you a liar the other day, but really, get over it. Holding grudges is not conducive to intelligent debate.

Clinton had a budget surplus for 2 or 3 budgets. Period.

Question, which I know I won't get a straight answer from you on, but I'll ask anyway, because getting you to avoid the question makes almost as good a point as getting you to answer one:

Did Clinton use budgetary methods THAT NO OTHER PRESIDENT EVER USED, before or after, in order to falsely create the appearance of several annual budget surpluses?

Barbie, now that it has been proven that both your character and your knowledge have both reached their nadir, on what possible basis would I entertain any questions from you?

Henceforth, Barbie, you will merely be relegated to the pigeon hole of comic relief/human piñata.

NYC, walk away dude you look really bad in this exchange. I dont know what went on in the other thread but you look really bad in light of all that has been said in this thread.

And yes clinton still added to the national debt every year and yes clintons budgets had a surplus.