On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 13:22:32 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

You're either taking in more than you're spending, or you're not. What
the rest of the economy is doing doesn't change a red number into a
black number.

Again, it's a question of whether you understand the numbers and want to say
something sensible about them, or you want to ignore the facts that the
population is increasing,

Not relevant to the outgo being more than the income.

the economy is growing,

Not relevant to the outgo being more than the income.

and inflation is
diminishing the value of your indebtedness

Cost of the dollars isn't relevant - the spending and income for that year
are in the same dollars.

Or it's like having the population grow by 2% and the economy grow by 3%,
and having Bush say that a 1% increase in the number of jobs is "job
growth."

Depends on what that's in proportion to. And it's not the same as
"is this number bigger than that number, or not?". We're not talking
about percentages, we're talking about spending more than you take in.

The polarity of the number is what's in question here, Ed, not the
proportion.

No, Dave, debt as a percentage of GDP is the only meaningful way to measure
it.

That's insane. You've either got a surplus, or you don't. Did Clinton
have a surplus in those years? Yes or no question, Ed.

All I can tell you, Ed, is that Clinton claimed to have a surplus,
and in each of those years the amount of debt went up. If my checkbook
balance gets more negative on any given month, I don't call that a
surplus.

Your checkbook isn't about debt. It's about current accounts. If you want to
look at current accounts, look at current surpluses or deficits, not at
accumulated debt. Debt shows up in your statement of net assets, not in your
checkbook.

Bloody. ****ing. Hell. It's word-games with you, Ed, just like Clinton.
I'll try it again:

If, in any given month, I spend more than I earn, I have not produced
a financial surplus during that month.