Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #81   Report Post  
jim rozen
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Dave Hinz says...

The numbers are black and white, Ed. If you think you can spend allocated
funds twice, then yes, there was a surplus during the Clinton years. Me,
I don't think that it works that way.


OK, now this is the part where you go on to say that gunner's
right, it's a really really good thing that the rate of debt
increase has gone up under bush's term. Or, that the second
derivative isn't really going up at all.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================
  #82   Report Post  
Dave Hinz
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 16 Feb 2005 14:41:52 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says...

The numbers are black and white, Ed. If you think you can spend allocated
funds twice, then yes, there was a surplus during the Clinton years. Me,
I don't think that it works that way.


OK, now this is the part where you go on to say that gunner's
right, it's a really really good thing that the rate of debt
increase has gone up under bush's term. Or, that the second
derivative isn't really going up at all.


Actually, no, this is the part where I say "claims that Clinton had
a surplus are a lie", which was my original point, continues to
be my point, and isn't related to what Gunner says. He's more
than capable of making his own points, and doesn't need me to
try to make them for him.

Or is this one of those "you must agree with everyone I disagree
with on everything, since I disagree with you on this thing"
assumptions? But yes, on the whole, I usually agree with Gunner.

  #83   Report Post  
Larry Jaques
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 18:31:09 GMT, the inscrutable "Tom Gardner"
spake:

Jim, We can't go into NC...they might have WMD and use them!


Yeah, those North Carolinians are mean bastids, too.


--
"Giving every man a vote has no more made men wise and free
than Christianity has made them good." --H. L. Mencken
---
www.diversify.com Complete Website Development

  #84   Report Post  
Spehro Pefhany
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 17:51:11 -0800, the renowned Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 18:31:09 GMT, the inscrutable "Tom Gardner"
spake:

Jim, We can't go into NC...they might have WMD and use them!


Yeah, those North Carolinians are mean bastids, too.


WMD:
http://www.ncagr.com/markets/commodit/horticul/tobacco/
http://www.ncpreventionpartners.org/...ic/tsld013.htm



Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
  #85   Report Post  
jim rozen
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Dave Hinz says...

be my point, and isn't related to what Gunner says. He's more
than capable of making his own points,


We'll take that on faith.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================


  #86   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

The numbers are black and white, Ed. If you think you can spend allocated
funds twice, then yes, there was a surplus during the Clinton years. Me,
I don't think that it works that way.


Well, I don't have time to go into this in detail, so I'll just say my piece
briefly and move on.

When the SS finances and the rest of the federal budget were combined in
1969, any possibility of making unequivocal evaluations of the total budget
evaporated. The two SS funds that show up as current debt, when Treasury
bonds are bought for the fund, have an obligation that has nothing to do
with whether there are bonds to pay for it. It is, with or without the
bonds, a future debt upon the nation, one that will come due as SS needs
arise. Calling it an addition to "current debt" is an accounting slight of
hand.

So there is a strong argument that counting those bonds as part of the debt
is bogus. The obligation is statutory; whether it comes from buying the
bonds back, or directly from future revenues, IT HAS TO COME FROM THE SAME
FUTURE TAXES EITHER WAY! The bonds are really meaningless pieces of paper,
in other words. Both SS "trust funds" are a fiction.

At the same, the revenues used to buy them have to be balanced by a debt of
some kind, so it makes neat accounting to fold it all up in a
revenue/expense accounting balance by counting the bonds as debt. However,
the revenue has nothing to do with future debt, either. It is current
revenue, used to pay current expenses. So that part of the accounting
balance is bogus as well. The revenues are there; they came in; they are
real. Trying to relate them to future SS payments is the part that is not
real.

That's why the Congressional Budget Office says that these transfers of debt
amount to "reallocating costs from one part of the budget to another; they
do not change the deficit or the government's borrowing needs." [they] "have
no effect on the economy or the government's future ability to sustain
spending at the levels indicated by current policies."

And that's why, as I pointed out in my last message, the Treasury Dept. and
nearly everyone else doesn't count those bonds.

Now, you may still insist on counting them. That's fine, then you'd have to
say that the national debt accumulated *more slowly* during the late '90s
than at any time since 1972. That fact is true either way.

Also, you brushed off the idea of counting debt as a portion of GDP, as
nearly everyone does. They do it for a good reason: because debt has no
economic meaning whatsoever EXCEPT AS a portion of GDP. The percentage
burden upon the economy only has meaning as a portion of GDP. Period. There
is no other meaning to it at all.

So, I'm done. g You may accept these things or not; it doesn't matter,
because everyone who makes the key economic decisions that affect the
national debt, and SS, and so on know them perfectly well, and these are the
basis on which those decisions are being made. And that, I suppose, is as
close as we're going to get here to the bottom line.

--
Ed Huntress


  #87   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 00:05:36 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


So, I'm done. g You may accept these things or not; it doesn't matter,
because everyone who makes the key economic decisions that affect the
national debt, and SS, and so on know them perfectly well, and these are the
basis on which those decisions are being made. And that, I suppose, is as
close as we're going to get here to the bottom line.

--
Ed Huntress


http://www.worldfreeinternet.net/news/nws174.htm
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14771
http://www.fff.org/freedom/1199d.asp
http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/org/p...8-02-05/6.html


Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"
  #88   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 00:05:36 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


So, I'm done. g You may accept these things or not; it doesn't matter,
because everyone who makes the key economic decisions that affect the
national debt, and SS, and so on know them perfectly well, and these are

the
basis on which those decisions are being made. And that, I suppose, is as
close as we're going to get here to the bottom line.

--
Ed Huntress


http://www.worldfreeinternet.net/news/nws174.htm
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14771
http://www.fff.org/freedom/1199d.asp
http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/org/p...8-02-05/6.html


Gunner, let's see if you understand the b.s. you've dumped here in those
links. Tell us, in your own words, how issuing a Treasury bond to the Social
Security funds increases today's debt, or tomorrow's debt, or any debt at
all. It's simple, you can do it in one paragraph.

Or you could, if it were true. Try it. You'll find it enlightening.

--
Ed Huntress


  #89   Report Post  
Dave Hinz
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 00:05:36 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:

And that's why, as I pointed out in my last message, the Treasury Dept. and
nearly everyone else doesn't count those bonds.


Their website seems to show they do count those bonds, Ed.

Now, you may still insist on counting them. That's fine, then you'd have to
say that the national debt accumulated *more slowly* during the late '90s
than at any time since 1972. That fact is true either way.


Yes, that we can agree on, and it shows that there was no surplus during
Clinton's years, contrary to his habitual lying about it.

Also, you brushed off the idea of counting debt as a portion of GDP, as
nearly everyone does.


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.

They do it for a good reason: because debt has no
economic meaning whatsoever EXCEPT AS a portion of GDP.


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

So, I'm done. g You may accept these things or not; it doesn't matter,
because everyone who makes the key economic decisions that affect the
national debt, and SS, and so on know them perfectly well, and these are the
basis on which those decisions are being made. And that, I suppose, is as
close as we're going to get here to the bottom line.



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.
  #90   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 07:21:49 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 00:05:36 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


So, I'm done. g You may accept these things or not; it doesn't matter,
because everyone who makes the key economic decisions that affect the
national debt, and SS, and so on know them perfectly well, and these are

the
basis on which those decisions are being made. And that, I suppose, is as
close as we're going to get here to the bottom line.

--
Ed Huntress


http://www.worldfreeinternet.net/news/nws174.htm
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14771
http://www.fff.org/freedom/1199d.asp
http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/org/p...8-02-05/6.html


Gunner, let's see if you understand the b.s. you've dumped here in those
links. Tell us, in your own words, how issuing a Treasury bond to the Social
Security funds increases today's debt, or tomorrow's debt, or any debt at
all. It's simple, you can do it in one paragraph.

Or you could, if it were true. Try it. You'll find it enlightening.


I made no comment Ed. I left it up to the readers to make up their
own minds. I suspect you dont like it very much when folks do that.

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"


  #91   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 17 Feb 2005 15:58:01 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:


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.


Clintons "surplus" was largely based on expected revenues stretched
over a 15 yr period. The implosion of the dot.com bubble, and the
recession pretty well took care of that.

"Im a very rich man today, because of all the people that may give me
a check in the next 15 yrs"

Oddly enough..that doesnt sound particularly comfortable does it?

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"
  #92   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 00:05:36 -0500, Ed Huntress

wrote:

And that's why, as I pointed out in my last message, the Treasury Dept.

and
nearly everyone else doesn't count those bonds.


Their website seems to show they do count those bonds, Ed.


Their website shows you several columns of numbers, and then it explains
what they are. What they SAY about it is this:

"Debt held by the public is the most meaningful of these concepts and
measures the cumulative amount outstanding that the government has borrowed
to finance deficits."


Now, you may still insist on counting them. That's fine, then you'd have

to
say that the national debt accumulated *more slowly* during the late

'90s
than at any time since 1972. That fact is true either way.


Yes, that we can agree on, and it shows that there was no surplus during
Clinton's years, contrary to his habitual lying about it.


As the Treasury department said above, the way he (and almost everyone else)
counts the debt, he was exactly right.


Also, you brushed off the idea of counting debt as a portion of GDP, as
nearly everyone does.


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, the economy is growing, and inflation is
diminishing the value of your indebtedness -- which are the ways economists
say we "grow out of the debt."

It's like getting a 10% property-tax increase after 20 years, when your
income has increased by 20% and inflation has increased by 15%, and wringing
your hands over how you're getting killed by tax increases.

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."

None of those things -- national debt, tax amounts, or number of jobs --
mean anything as "growth," except as they relate to inflation, population
increases, or growth of the economy: GDP.


They do it for a good reason: because debt has no
economic meaning whatsoever EXCEPT AS a portion of GDP.


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.


So, I'm done. g You may accept these things or not; it doesn't matter,
because everyone who makes the key economic decisions that affect the
national debt, and SS, and so on know them perfectly well, and these are

the
basis on which those decisions are being made. And that, I suppose, is

as
close as we're going to get here to the bottom line.



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.

--
Ed Huntress


  #93   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 07:21:49 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 00:05:36 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


So, I'm done. g You may accept these things or not; it doesn't

matter,
because everyone who makes the key economic decisions that affect the
national debt, and SS, and so on know them perfectly well, and these

are
the
basis on which those decisions are being made. And that, I suppose, is

as
close as we're going to get here to the bottom line.

--
Ed Huntress

http://www.worldfreeinternet.net/news/nws174.htm
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14771
http://www.fff.org/freedom/1199d.asp
http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/org/p...8-02-05/6.html


Gunner, let's see if you understand the b.s. you've dumped here in those
links. Tell us, in your own words, how issuing a Treasury bond to the

Social
Security funds increases today's debt, or tomorrow's debt, or any debt at
all. It's simple, you can do it in one paragraph.

Or you could, if it were true. Try it. You'll find it enlightening.


I made no comment Ed. I left it up to the readers to make up their
own minds. I suspect you dont like it very much when folks do that.


In other words, you have no idea what it means, right? Then why did you post
the links, if you don't understand them?

--
Ed Huntress


  #94   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On 17 Feb 2005 15:58:01 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:


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.


Clintons "surplus" was largely based on expected revenues stretched
over a 15 yr period. The implosion of the dot.com bubble, and the
recession pretty well took care of that.


And here, I thought you had no comment. g

The surplus was on current accounts, Gunner. Look at the budgets. Explain
them away, if you can.

--
Ed Huntress


  #95   Report Post  
Dave Hinz
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.



  #96   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

snip


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.


Well, let's simplify this. The answer is, yes, he did.

Even the freaking Cato Institute, as anti-Clinton and anti-Social Security
as an institution can get, short of Richard Scaife's herd of farm-raised
journalists, has said so. Here's what they said in a white paper published a
few years ago:

"Over the last 40 years the non-Social
Security part of the budget was in deficit in
every year except 2-1999 and 2000. In most
years the Social Security surplus was not large
enough to compensate for the deficit in the
non-Social Security side of the budget. Thus,
of the past 40 years, the unified federal budget
was in deficit in all but 5 years: 1969 and
1998-2001."

And virtually every non-partisan economist will tell you the same thing.

You're reading the wrong column of numbers, in other words. Treasury bonds
issued to the SS trust funds do not represent a future obligation. They do
not represent debt. They are an accounting trick, a politically motivated
money-laundering scheme implemented by Congress in 1939 that gives the
illusion that there is some money there, and some actual, accrued debt. But
you should know that the federal government does not use accrual accounting.
It's all current accounts. Future obligations *within the government itself*
are strictly statutory. When one government unit issues a bond to another,
it's strictly accounting. There is no money involved, there is no debt
accrued. The money all comes from the same place: general revenues. In other
words, our taxes. It doesn't matter a whit whether there's a bond involved;
the bond has to be paid the same way the whole obligation has to be paid.
That's why Treasury bonds issued to SS are meaningless, and only show up in
the column that's a total of all outstanding Treasury securities: the first
column in that table you were looking at. As Treasury itself told you,
that's not the meaningful column, and it's for the reasons I've just
explained here.

The Treasury Dept. explains what those columns mean. You appear to prefer to
ignore them and you seem to want to make up your own definitions. That's
your business. Meanwhile, the institutions of taxation, budget-making,
private banking, world securities trading, and every other economic
institution do NOT ignore them. They know what they mean, and the people who
analyze the national debt and SS know what they mean, and they act
accordingly.

Any one of them will tell you the same thing that OMB and the Cato Institute
have said, as I've quoted here, that even without the SS surplus, the rest
of the budget was in surplus in 1999 and 2000. Counting the SS surplus, the
total, unified budget was in surplus in those years plus 1969, 1998, and
2001 (these are all fiscal years, BTW). So that's your answer.


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:


Word games? You mean, I care about what words MEAN, and you don't?


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


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.

Where's the problem? Do you need a further explanation?

I'll be glad to try. You may get it better if we actually follow the money,
from SS revenues to where it's actually spent. Those are the terms on which
the surplus is based.

--
Ed Huntress


  #97   Report Post  
Dave Hinz
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 15:52:13 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

snip


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.


Well, let's simplify this. The answer is, yes, he did.


Then why did the number go up, Ed?

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


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's the problem? Do you need a further explanation?


I can't see _any_ point, Ed.

  #98   Report Post  
jim rozen
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Ed Huntress says...

I made no comment Ed. I left it up to the readers to make up their
own minds. I suspect you dont like it very much when folks do that.


In other words, you have no idea what it means, right? Then why did you post
the links, if you don't understand them?


Damn Ed, if you expect him to understand it *all* he'll
never get anything posted.

Oh, wait...

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================
  #99   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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? 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.

--
Ed Huntress


  #100   Report Post  
Dave Hinz
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.



  #101   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress says...

I made no comment Ed. I left it up to the readers to make up their
own minds. I suspect you dont like it very much when folks do that.


In other words, you have no idea what it means, right? Then why did you

post
the links, if you don't understand them?


Damn Ed, if you expect him to understand it *all* he'll
never get anything posted.

Oh, wait...


Do you get the feeling this is deja vu all over again? Either that, or an
echo...

--
Ed Huntress


  #102   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
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".


No, it didn't say that at all. It listed columns of numbers. Then it
explained what those columns mean, in the quote I posted from the Treasury
Dept.'s website. It said the meaningful one was the second column. Which is
what virtually everyone else says.


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?


That's right. Now you're getting it!

If a bond is held by a private citizen, another government, or some
non-governmental institution, it's an obligation. If it's held by another
branch of the federal government, it is not. It's internal accounting, based
on statutory law, which does not represent an addition to debt -- or any
debt at all, in truth.

That's what all those explanations mean. I can post another 100 or so from
credible sources, if you want. g

Or, you could just follow the money. The revenue from SS comes in, it winds
up in general revenues, and it gets spent -- first, to pay current SS
obligations. Any remaining balance (there usually is one) goes to pay for
other things, out of the general fund. No additions to debt, anywhere.

That's what really happens. In those terms, there have been five years of
total surplus, including the four-year period of FY 1998 - 2001.

When you toss in a bond, the money changes hands a couple more times but the
same thing happens in the end: The revenue from SS comes in; current SS
obligations are paid; surplus is used to buy Treasury bonds; Treasury adds
that cash to revenues from selling bonds, where it goes into the general
fund and it gets spent. A piece of paper is created (the bond) but there is
nothing to back it up, and it becomes just as ethereal when it comes due.
When it's paid back the payment comes from general revenues. The payment
will be based on statutory obligations, not on the bonds. The bonds just
serve as a way-stop for money on its way back. Financially, it works exactly
the same as it would if the bonds never existed.

The Treasury bond has no current value. The value is in the future revenues
that will pay for it when the *real* obligation, the statutory obligation to
pay SS recpients -- comes due. As I said, it works exactly the same way
whether there is a bond involved or not.

But, historically, the "national debt" has been the sum of all Treasury
bonds. A significant portion of them (something like half of the total
national debt) are now these intra-governmental bonds, which is purely an
accounting artifact, and it always is involved in some accounting which is
based on statutory obligations, anyway. Mixing up the real debt -- debt held
by the public -- and intragovernmental debt produces a cockamamie number
that is in the left column of the table you linked to. As Treasury itself
says, it is not the meaningful number. It includes bonds that do not
actually add to the debt; the intra-governmental bonds that are mere
accounting notes for statutory obligations.


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.


The truth of it is that you're cooking the numbers (or, more likely, just
repeating numbers that you haven't examined closely enough) to make a
positive look like a negative. You assume that all Treasury securities are
additions to debt. As I hope you realize by now, they are not.

I don't see any chance that
either of us are going to change the other's mind about this in
specific...


I have hope for you. g You are intelligent, and surely the facts are
beginning to sink into your head by now. Maybe not today, or next week, but
sometime in the future when the issue comes up again you'll know that there
is a curveball in here, and you'd better look at it again before making
unequivocal statements.

... or Clinton's history of lying in general.


Aha. I thought you were being objective. g But of course I knew all along
you were not. Nobody who knows what he's doing comes up with a figure that
includes intra-governmental Treasury securities and says that number
"proves" that there were no surpluses during the Clinton years. The only way
you come up with that is by a really queer accident, or if your sources are
anti-Clinton polemics that cherry-pick the data sources to try to show that
white is black.

Which is exactly what I said in the beginning of this conversation, and why
I asked where you got your numbers. I know where Gunner gets his, but I was
curious about whether you really knew enough about the subject that you had
some reason for saying the same thing that he's saying. What he's saying is
a crock of bull, because his sources are all about making every positive
thing that might be associated with any Democrat, and Clinton in particular,
look like a negative. That's what Gunner does with most of his online life.

--
Ed Huntress


  #103   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 13:54:22 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 07:21:49 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 00:05:36 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


So, I'm done. g You may accept these things or not; it doesn't

matter,
because everyone who makes the key economic decisions that affect the
national debt, and SS, and so on know them perfectly well, and these

are
the
basis on which those decisions are being made. And that, I suppose, is

as
close as we're going to get here to the bottom line.

--
Ed Huntress

http://www.worldfreeinternet.net/news/nws174.htm
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14771
http://www.fff.org/freedom/1199d.asp
http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/org/p...8-02-05/6.html

Gunner, let's see if you understand the b.s. you've dumped here in those
links. Tell us, in your own words, how issuing a Treasury bond to the

Social
Security funds increases today's debt, or tomorrow's debt, or any debt at
all. It's simple, you can do it in one paragraph.

Or you could, if it were true. Try it. You'll find it enlightening.


I made no comment Ed. I left it up to the readers to make up their
own minds. I suspect you dont like it very much when folks do that.


In other words, you have no idea what it means, right? Then why did you post
the links, if you don't understand them?


It means I posted them without comment Eddy boyo.

Sometimes a cigar is simply a cigar.

Your not liking them is notable, though not unusual as they tend to be
at odds with your claims.

But then..so many things are....

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"
  #104   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 13:55:52 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On 17 Feb 2005 15:58:01 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:


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.


Clintons "surplus" was largely based on expected revenues stretched
over a 15 yr period. The implosion of the dot.com bubble, and the
recession pretty well took care of that.


And here, I thought you had no comment. g

The surplus was on current accounts, Gunner. Look at the budgets. Explain
them away, if you can.


Cites?

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"
  #105   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 13:54:22 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 07:21:49 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 00:05:36 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


So, I'm done. g You may accept these things or not; it doesn't

matter,
because everyone who makes the key economic decisions that affect

the
national debt, and SS, and so on know them perfectly well, and

these
are
the
basis on which those decisions are being made. And that, I suppose,

is
as
close as we're going to get here to the bottom line.

--
Ed Huntress

http://www.worldfreeinternet.net/news/nws174.htm
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14771
http://www.fff.org/freedom/1199d.asp
http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/org/p...8-02-05/6.html

Gunner, let's see if you understand the b.s. you've dumped here in

those
links. Tell us, in your own words, how issuing a Treasury bond to the

Social
Security funds increases today's debt, or tomorrow's debt, or any debt

at
all. It's simple, you can do it in one paragraph.

Or you could, if it were true. Try it. You'll find it enlightening.

I made no comment Ed. I left it up to the readers to make up their
own minds. I suspect you dont like it very much when folks do that.


In other words, you have no idea what it means, right? Then why did you

post
the links, if you don't understand them?


It means I posted them without comment Eddy boyo.

Sometimes a cigar is simply a cigar.

Your not liking them is notable, though not unusual as they tend to be
at odds with your claims.

But then..so many things are....


As usual, Gunner, you've posted some complete idiocy that you neither
understand nor could defend.

But you're welcome to try.

--
Ed Huntress




  #106   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 13:55:52 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On 17 Feb 2005 15:58:01 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:


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.

Clintons "surplus" was largely based on expected revenues stretched
over a 15 yr period. The implosion of the dot.com bubble, and the
recession pretty well took care of that.


And here, I thought you had no comment. g

The surplus was on current accounts, Gunner. Look at the budgets. Explain
them away, if you can.


Cites?


You can use the Treasury Dept. data that Dave and I have been discussing.

First, go to this site and see what the terms mean:

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/faq...onal-debt.html

Note their comment, after you see the definitions, "Debt held by the public
is the most meaningful of these concepts and measures the cumulative amount
outstanding that the government has borrowed to finance deficits."

The reason they say that is that the debt represented by bonds held in the
SS trust funds is not addition to debt. The debt has already been accrued by
statute. The bonds add nothing more, they're just notes that make it look
like there's some money stored somewhere to pay them off. Haha!

Then go to this Treasury site and look at the data itself:

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm#years

Note that the "debt held by the public" went down during the later Clinton
years.

Next question?

--
Ed Huntress



  #107   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 22:06:49 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 13:54:22 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 07:21:49 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 00:05:36 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


So, I'm done. g You may accept these things or not; it doesn't
matter,
because everyone who makes the key economic decisions that affect

the
national debt, and SS, and so on know them perfectly well, and

these
are
the
basis on which those decisions are being made. And that, I suppose,

is
as
close as we're going to get here to the bottom line.

--
Ed Huntress

http://www.worldfreeinternet.net/news/nws174.htm
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14771
http://www.fff.org/freedom/1199d.asp
http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/org/p...8-02-05/6.html

Gunner, let's see if you understand the b.s. you've dumped here in

those
links. Tell us, in your own words, how issuing a Treasury bond to the
Social
Security funds increases today's debt, or tomorrow's debt, or any debt

at
all. It's simple, you can do it in one paragraph.

Or you could, if it were true. Try it. You'll find it enlightening.

I made no comment Ed. I left it up to the readers to make up their
own minds. I suspect you dont like it very much when folks do that.

In other words, you have no idea what it means, right? Then why did you

post
the links, if you don't understand them?


It means I posted them without comment Eddy boyo.

Sometimes a cigar is simply a cigar.

Your not liking them is notable, though not unusual as they tend to be
at odds with your claims.

But then..so many things are....


As usual, Gunner, you've posted some complete idiocy that you neither
understand nor could defend.

But you're welcome to try.


The readers are welcome to make up their own minds. Or they simply can
not read them and go on about their business. Their choice. Not
yours, not mine.

Get over it. You are almost starting to sound like a totalitarian with
a hard on for the First Amendment.

But then...most Libs are...

Shrug

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"
  #108   Report Post  
Dave Hinz
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 19:04:40 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

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.


The truth of it is that you're cooking the numbers (or, more likely, just
repeating numbers that you haven't examined closely enough) to make a
positive look like a negative. You assume that all Treasury securities are
additions to debt. As I hope you realize by now, they are not.


If you say so, Ed.

I have hope for you. g You are intelligent, and surely the facts are
beginning to sink into your head by now. Maybe not today, or next week, but
sometime in the future when the issue comes up again you'll know that there
is a curveball in here, and you'd better look at it again before making
unequivocal statements.


Thanks for the lecture, Dad.

... or Clinton's history of lying in general.


Aha. I thought you were being objective. g


That Clinton is a liar, even YOU can't disagree with.

But of course I knew all along
you were not. Nobody who knows what he's doing comes up with a figure that
includes intra-governmental Treasury securities and says that number
"proves" that there were no surpluses during the Clinton years.


Yawn.

The only way
you come up with that is by a really queer accident, or if your sources are
anti-Clinton polemics


Yeah, the treasury department is pretty damn suspect, Ed.

Obvously you've got a hard-on about this because I agree with Gunner on
something, and apparently you go way back disagreeing with him. Whatever
you say Ed, you're absolutely right about everything, blah blah blah,
you win, yadda yadda. Happy now?

But, I still believe the figures showing the total debt going up.


  #109   Report Post  
Dave Hinz
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 02:42:06 GMT, Gunner wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 13:55:52 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

The surplus was on current accounts, Gunner. Look at the budgets. Explain
them away, if you can.


Cites?


Gosh, Gunner, he _gave_ you the cites. "Look at the budgets".
  #110   Report Post  
John Chase
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 16:40:16 GMT, Gunner
wrote:


Still more signs the Dems will be a extinct group soon.

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/gue...jm_02141.shtml

Gunner, laughing because they simply don't get it.



Here brainiac, read this and when you are capable of dealing with the
issues let me know (although I won't hold my breath)

http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/conservatism.html


OK, "King rule" (conservatism) vs. "mob rule" (democracy)....

If those are the only choices, I think I'd prefer "king rule" because it should
be easier to depose a king than to disperse a mob....

-jc-


  #111   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

The readers are welcome to make up their own minds. Or they simply can
not read them and go on about their business. Their choice. Not
yours, not mine.


But why did you choose those particular sites? Do you agree with them, or
not?


Get over it. You are almost starting to sound like a totalitarian with
a hard on for the First Amendment.


You get over it, Gunner. You either have a point, or you're just spamming.
It appears you don't have a point, eh?

--
Ed Huntress


  #112   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

But, I still believe the figures showing the total debt going up.


Well, they are now. But they weren't then.

It isn't a matter of "belief," Dave. That's for religion. This is fairly
simple finance, and it isn't something about which you need to revert to
"belief." You can just look into it and find out what the facts are.

But it's a lot easier just to say, "Clinton's a liar, so I don't believe the
budget figures for the late '90s."

Remember, you were the one who made the assertion that it was all a lie, and
who quoted Treasury Dept. figures to assert your point. The problem is that
the Treasury Dept. itself explains that you were looking at the wrong
figures. You just didn't dig deep enough.

'No need to get annoyed about it. I was polite with you until you suggested
I was "insane." After that, I felt no compunction about pointing out the
fact that you don't understand what you're making claims about.

--
Ed Huntress


  #113   Report Post  
The Independent of Clackamas County
 
Posts: n/a
Default

John Chase wrote:
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 16:40:16 GMT, Gunner
wrote:


Still more signs the Dems will be a extinct group soon.

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/gue...jm_02141.shtml

Gunner, laughing because they simply don't get it.




Here brainiac, read this and when you are capable of dealing with the
issues let me know (although I won't hold my breath)

http://polaris.gseis.ucla.edu/pagre/conservatism.html



OK, "King rule" (conservatism) vs. "mob rule" (democracy)....

If those are the only choices, I think I'd prefer "king rule" because it
should be easier to depose a king than to disperse a mob....

-jc-


They had a debate here in Portland tonight between Howard (The Duck)
Dean and Richard Perl. Well Portland Oregon lived up to its rep as
little Beirut. Just as Richard Pearl started speaking some Democratic
Activist charged the stage and hit him whit a thrown Shoe. As the
police were taking him down he was screaming that next time it would be
a bomb. The arrested him for Disorderly conduct just like the other 738
demonstrators against Republicans in the last 6 years.

The only thing is all the charges have been dropped and no one has ever
spent a night in Jail.

Oh the joys of living in a Socialist Dictatorship of Oregon.

--

The Independent of Clackamas County


"What experience and history teach is this -- That people and
governments never have learned anything from history, or acted
on principles deduced from it"

George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel
1770-1831
  #114   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 18 Feb 2005 03:45:17 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 02:42:06 GMT, Gunner wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 13:55:52 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

The surplus was on current accounts, Gunner. Look at the budgets. Explain
them away, if you can.


Cites?


Gosh, Gunner, he _gave_ you the cites. "Look at the budgets".


I did. And I agree with you. As do the 4 links I provided.

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"
  #115   Report Post  
Gunner
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 00:00:42 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

The readers are welcome to make up their own minds. Or they simply can
not read them and go on about their business. Their choice. Not
yours, not mine.


But why did you choose those particular sites? Do you agree with them, or
not?


Get over it. You are almost starting to sound like a totalitarian with
a hard on for the First Amendment.


You get over it, Gunner. You either have a point, or you're just spamming.
It appears you don't have a point, eh?


Evidently the point was lost on you. But then, those with closed minds
tend to not be able to comprehend things in conflict with their world
views.

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"


  #116   Report Post  
Cliff
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 00:24:43 -0800, The Independent of Clackamas
County wrote:

Just as Richard Pearl started speaking some Democratic
Activist charged the stage and hit him whit a thrown Shoe.


Guess they were out of WMDs, right?

The arrested him for Disorderly conduct just like the other 738
demonstrators against Republicans in the last 6 years.


Any clues yet why they are so despised in Oregon?
How many did the other guys have arrested?

Been to a "free speach zone" lately? Have the neocons
ever actually seen one? ANY of them?
How about a torture camp?
--
Cliff
  #117   Report Post  
Dave Hinz
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 00:32:54 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

But, I still believe the figures showing the total debt going up.


Well, they are now. But they weren't then.


Broken record, Ed.

But it's a lot easier just to say, "Clinton's a liar, so I don't believe the
budget figures for the late '90s."


No, Clinton is a liar _AND_ I don't believe his (or your) claims about
how a number getting bigger really is a number getting smaller. Not
a cause-effect, it's additive.

Remember, you were the one who made the assertion that it was all a lie, and
who quoted Treasury Dept. figures to assert your point. The problem is that
the Treasury Dept. itself explains that you were looking at the wrong
figures. You just didn't dig deep enough.


If you say so, Ed.

'No need to get annoyed about it. I was polite with you until you suggested
I was "insane." After that, I felt no compunction about pointing out the
fact that you don't understand what you're making claims about.


If you say so, Ed.

  #118   Report Post  
Ed Huntress
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 00:00:42 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

The readers are welcome to make up their own minds. Or they simply can
not read them and go on about their business. Their choice. Not
yours, not mine.


But why did you choose those particular sites? Do you agree with them, or
not?


Get over it. You are almost starting to sound like a totalitarian with
a hard on for the First Amendment.


You get over it, Gunner. You either have a point, or you're just

spamming.
It appears you don't have a point, eh?


Evidently the point was lost on you.


You made no point. You said so yourself. You said, "without comment." You
didn't even suggest why one would want to read those polemics.

--
Ed Huntress


  #119   Report Post  
Chris Lasdauskas
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:37:59 UTC, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress says...

And so on. It's quite a long list. As Bush said before his second
inauguration, he has a big agenda, and not much time to do it. By the

time
conservative Americans wake up to the implications and consequences, it

will
be too late.


It's sort of odd that most elederly count themselves as 'conservatives,'
probably based more on fiscal conservatisim more than anything else.


The older they get, the less most people like change. That's their idea of
"conservatism." For example, my AARP newsletter tells me that most older
people don't want privatization of Social Security.


And actually quite a good one
"Real Conservatives" (tm) believe that you don't change things unless
they really need changing, not just because someone else changed it in
another country etc. What most americans seem to call conservative is
more like 'reactionary' ie back to the past, or 'radical right'; oh,
and you also (mostly) misuse 'liberal'

Cheers,
Chris
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Party Wall notice: Advice sought on surveyors JL UK diy 14 January 7th 05 05:42 PM
New Sylvania goes too easily into Service Mode with 3rd party remotes jeff Electronics Repair 7 December 24th 04 07:25 AM
Concerns over party wall and chimney breast Phöènix UK diy 3 December 31st 03 07:59 PM
Leader equip. software and compatibility Chris Electronics Repair 0 November 19th 03 02:09 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:50 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"