On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 17:30:07 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...


And, as Cato, Treasury, OMB, and every other source that knows what it's
talking about says, there was a financial surplus in those years I
listed
above. Current-accounts surplus, and a decline in the national debt.
Net,
actual, real-money surplus.

Odd that the treasury says the national debt went up during those years.

Where does it say that, Dave?

In the initial link I showed you, where you said the same as Clinton,
"Yabut, you can count SS money as income even though it's already spent".

As I've quoted here a couple of times,
Treasury tells you what the meaningful column is. It appears you're reading
the one that is essentially meaningless -- the one that includes Treasury
bonds that are not additions to debt.

Right, because a bond doesn't represent debt now?

I'm sure there's some real subtle bookkeeping scam that I'm not seeing here,
and I really, really don't care how you cook the numbers to make a negative
look like a positive. You believe it, I don't. I don't see any chance that
either of us are going to change the other's mind about this in
specific, or Clinton's history of lying in general.

Feel free to have the last word, though.