Lamont Cranston wrote:
Gunner wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:28:46 -0700, "Lamont Cranston"
wrote:


Clinton ran budget surpluses for the last 4 years of his
presidency and used it to pay down the national debt held
by
the public as the following chart of federal revenues vs.
outlays clearly shows:

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

I had thought it was just three but what was important to
me was the
purposeful actions and the trend in the result.

The federal fiscal year ends on September 30. There was a
surplus for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001. Even
though Bush was in office at the end of the fiscal year, it
was Clinton's budget that covered the period, so I give him
credit for four years.

We need to get back to that.

Amen.


Just goes to show you are both a couple liars

http://www.letxa.com/articles/16

Gunner

Just goes to show you that you are a ****ing moron as well as a chronic
liar, Gummer.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/08s0455.pdf

Billions of dollars
--------------------------------
Fiscal Year Receipts Outlays Surplus or
Deficit(-)

1998 1,722.0 1,652.7 69.3
1999 1,827.6 1,702.0 125.6
2000 2,025.5 1,789.2 236.2
2001 1,991.4 1,863.2 128.2

You see how receipts exceeded outlays for these four years? That's
called a surplus, asshole.


Confirmation of above data:

www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf
delong.typepad.com/photos/brad_delongs_images/20071203_fed_spend_and_rev.html

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Fe...s+and+revenues

All of those cites have their own political agenda. Try using the
official numbers. ALL the numbers

The U.S. Treasury Dept. disagrees with your math, because it does not
take into account intergovernmental holdings. Basically, the treasury
borrowed from a Social Security surplus by using it to purchase treasury
bonds. The general fund eventually has to pay back the SS fund with your
tax money.
The U.S. treasury correctly computes the debt at over $500 Billion in
2001.

look it up yourself if you can get your blinders off:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway
TreasuryDirect is brought to you by the U.S. Department of the Treasury
Bureau of the Public Debt.

"RB" wrote in message
...
Lamont Cranston wrote:
Gunner wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:28:46 -0700, "Lamont Cranston"
wrote:


Clinton ran budget surpluses for the last 4 years of his
presidency and used it to pay down the national debt held
by
the public as the following chart of federal revenues vs.
outlays clearly shows:

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

I had thought it was just three but what was important to
me was the
purposeful actions and the trend in the result.

The federal fiscal year ends on September 30. There was a
surplus for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001. Even
though Bush was in office at the end of the fiscal year, it
was Clinton's budget that covered the period, so I give him
credit for four years.

We need to get back to that.

Amen.


Just goes to show you are both a couple liars

http://www.letxa.com/articles/16

Gunner

Just goes to show you that you are a ****ing moron as well as a chronic
liar, Gummer.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/08s0455.pdf

Billions of dollars
--------------------------------
Fiscal Year Receipts Outlays Surplus or
Deficit(-)

1998 1,722.0 1,652.7 69.3
1999 1,827.6 1,702.0 125.6
2000 2,025.5 1,789.2 236.2
2001 1,991.4 1,863.2 128.2

You see how receipts exceeded outlays for these four years? That's called
a surplus, asshole.


Confirmation of above data:

www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf
delong.typepad.com/photos/brad_delongs_images/20071203_fed_spend_and_rev.html
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Fe...s+and+revenues

All of those cites have their own political agenda. Try using the official
numbers. ALL the numbers

The U.S. Treasury Dept. disagrees with your math, because it does not take
into account intergovernmental holdings. Basically, the treasury borrowed
from a Social Security surplus by using it to purchase treasury bonds. The
general fund eventually has to pay back the SS fund with your tax money.

No it doesn't. The people who say this are the first to remark that SS is
pay-as-you-go, that there is no real "trust fund," and that sometime in the
future (pick your prognosticator, pick your year) SS revenues won't be able
to keep up with outlays.

Then they turn around and act as if the SS Trust Fund is an actual pool of
money, and that the government hides the fact that the revenues from the
Treasuries in the Trust Fund go into general revenues. At the same time they
count the Trust Fund securities as current debt, even though it won't be
touched until 2017 (most prognosticators, and their favorite year).

In other words, they want the accounting to work both ways to make their
point. They neglect to note that the SS recipients in 2017 will be drawing
100% of their funds from current revenues in that year, just as they do
every year. Nothing will actually come from the "Trust Fund," which was
never designed like a private retirement fund, even when it was started
before WWII. It's just a way of accounting for excess SS revenues. Period.

The accounting for debt in the federal budget is a mess, as is the
accounting for the national debt. If you want a more sensible picture of how
we're doing NOW, look at current receipts and current expenditures. Then
decide how you want to plan the future. It's still up to us how we'll deal
with demographic changes in the US population in 2017, and 2049, and all of
the other years when some financial change will become current.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"RB" wrote in message
...
Lamont Cranston wrote:
Gunner wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 12:28:46 -0700, "Lamont Cranston"
wrote:

Clinton ran budget surpluses for the last 4 years of his
presidency and used it to pay down the national debt held
by
the public as the following chart of federal revenues vs.
outlays clearly shows:

www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf
I had thought it was just three but what was important to
me was the
purposeful actions and the trend in the result.
The federal fiscal year ends on September 30. There was a
surplus for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001. Even
though Bush was in office at the end of the fiscal year, it
was Clinton's budget that covered the period, so I give him
credit for four years.

We need to get back to that.
Amen.

Just goes to show you are both a couple liars

http://www.letxa.com/articles/16

Gunner
Just goes to show you that you are a ****ing moron as well as a chronic
liar, Gummer.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/08s0455.pdf

Billions of dollars
--------------------------------
Fiscal Year Receipts Outlays Surplus or
Deficit(-)

1998 1,722.0 1,652.7 69.3
1999 1,827.6 1,702.0 125.6
2000 2,025.5 1,789.2 236.2
2001 1,991.4 1,863.2 128.2

You see how receipts exceeded outlays for these four years? That's called
a surplus, asshole.


Confirmation of above data:

www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf
delong.typepad.com/photos/brad_delongs_images/20071203_fed_spend_and_rev.html
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Fe...s+and+revenues
All of those cites have their own political agenda. Try using the official
numbers. ALL the numbers

The U.S. Treasury Dept. disagrees with your math, because it does not take
into account intergovernmental holdings. Basically, the treasury borrowed
from a Social Security surplus by using it to purchase treasury bonds. The
general fund eventually has to pay back the SS fund with your tax money.

No it doesn't. The people who say this are the first to remark that SS is
pay-as-you-go, that there is no real "trust fund," and that sometime in the
future (pick your prognosticator, pick your year) SS revenues won't be able
to keep up with outlays.

Then they turn around and act as if the SS Trust Fund is an actual pool of
money, and that the government hides the fact that the revenues from the
Treasuries in the Trust Fund go into general revenues. At the same time they
count the Trust Fund securities as current debt, even though it won't be
touched until 2017 (most prognosticators, and their favorite year).

Debt is debt. It's all pushed to the next generation. this is no different.

"RB" wrote in message
...

snip


The U.S. Treasury Dept. disagrees with your math, because it does not
take into account intergovernmental holdings. Basically, the treasury
borrowed from a Social Security surplus by using it to purchase treasury
bonds. The general fund eventually has to pay back the SS fund with your
tax money.

No it doesn't. The people who say this are the first to remark that SS is
pay-as-you-go, that there is no real "trust fund," and that sometime in
the future (pick your prognosticator, pick your year) SS revenues won't
be able to keep up with outlays.

Then they turn around and act as if the SS Trust Fund is an actual pool
of money, and that the government hides the fact that the revenues from
the Treasuries in the Trust Fund go into general revenues. At the same
time they count the Trust Fund securities as current debt, even though it
won't be touched until 2017 (most prognosticators, and their favorite
year).

Debt is debt. It's all pushed to the next generation. this is no
different.

Except when it's not. The future obligation is already there, regardless of
how many Treasury bonds are bought with the SS and Medicare excess; and the
purchase of those bonds doesn't add or subtract one iota to the obligation,
nor to our ability to pay it when it comes due. It's an accounting shell
game, and your mistake is in assuming it's like bonds that you or I might
hold. The future obligations have to be paid off exactly at the same time
and in the same amounts, whether there are Treasury bonds involved or not.

They're just a device to balance entries in the balance sheets, RB. You
could lift all three shells and you wouldn't find the pea.

--
Ed Huntress