Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
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 | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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". |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Party Wall notice: Advice sought on surveyors | UK diy | |||
New Sylvania goes too easily into Service Mode with 3rd party remotes | Electronics Repair | |||
Concerns over party wall and chimney breast | UK diy | |||
Leader equip. software and compatibility | Electronics Repair |