Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-02-2010, 08:55 AM
 
1,503 posts, read 1,153,273 times
Reputation: 321

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
In what year? Here is the chart of EVERY year going back to 1940.. What year was there a surplus?
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/USbudget/fy10/sheets/hist07z1.xls
Column D Rows 63-67

3,772,344
3,721,099
3,632,363
3,409,804
3,319,615

Public Debt declines

Now here's the Republican story:

3,540,427
3,913,443
4,295,544
4,592,212
4,828,972
5,035,129
5,802,725
8,531,367

See that's an increase.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-02-2010, 08:57 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,001,245 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhinestone View Post
And the sun comes up in the East..... [yawn]
Usual response when you lose an argument. Deflect and ignore

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhinestone View Post
Actual CBO and OMB agree with me. That's enough.
no, the CBO says the debt went down as a percentage of GDP, Not in REAL dollars.

The OMB, the ones that work for the White House? Ooh the humor..

Why dont you try the Treasury Department, you know the ones that actually have to HOLD the money?
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999 up to 1999 and
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2009 up to 2009.

What YEAR did the debt go down?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhinestone View Post
Yada Yada Yada. The Republicans controlled Congress and the White House for six years and ran horrendous deficits. Clinton proposed balanced budgets.
Clintons "balanced budget" methods were ruled illegal by the US Supreme Court, who outlaws things like, line item vetos, etc.. In addition, what six years are you speaking of, because Republicans took over Congress in 1995, and YOU are now saying that 1997-2001 resulted in SURPLUSES (your claim).. Now you are claiming they were horrendous deficits.. Make up your mind, will you?
http://www.heritage.org/budgetchartbook/Images/federal-spending_01-850.jpg (broken link)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2010, 09:03 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,001,245 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhinestone View Post
Column D Rows 63-67

3,772,344
3,721,099
3,632,363
3,409,804
3,319,615

Public Debt declines

Now here's the Republican story:

3,540,427
3,913,443
4,295,544
4,592,212
4,828,972
5,035,129
5,802,725
8,531,367

See that's an increase.
I see you failed accounting. This is like arguing,
"look at ONLY my expenses, I couldnt possibly have made a profit and owe taxes this year".. AND
"Look at ONLY my income, I made so much dam money this year to afford that new $5M home I wanted."

You do realise you just validated OUR argument right? Because your ONLY looking at debt "held by the public", and IGNORING debt "not held by the government"..

You are going out of your way to ignore debt, to pretend it doesnt exist.. Monthly budgeting at your house must be histerical..

hustand: "I want to buy a new porsche"
wife reply: "thats ok dear, we can do that provided I get my vacation home"

There, you both got what you want so the debt didnt exist right? Oooh the humor..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2010, 09:03 AM
 
2,229 posts, read 1,682,842 times
Reputation: 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhinestone View Post
You didn't answer the question. Where does the $1B debt show up on GE's consolidated statement. (Maybe you don't know much accounting after all)
On the consolidated statement, it would show a liability on one of the companies subsidiaries and it would show an asset on the other. Which at the end of the day will wash.

However, we aren't looking at a consolidated budget from the feds. We are looking at the budget of one part of the government, the one claiming they had a surplus. The feds claimed that they had a surplus, when infact they created a liability by borrowing from SS.

What do you think the SS statement looked like after they recieved intergovernmental holdings from the fed? They show a few million dollars gone, but no asset?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2010, 09:15 AM
 
2,229 posts, read 1,682,842 times
Reputation: 623
"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Congressional Budget Office said Friday that the projected U.S. budget surplus will exceed $200 billion for this fiscal year, up from its previous estimate of $179 billion.

The CBO, the nonpartisan budget analysis arm of Congress, also said that the portion of the surplus excluding Social Security reserves should top $40 billion, up from its previous $26 billion estimate for fiscal 2000, which ends September 30.

Republicans and Democrats have agreed that Social Security reserves should be used solely to pay down debt until they are needed for retiring baby boomers, and should be put off-limits in the budget battle over tax cuts versus spending."

Congressional Budget Office projects higher 2000 budget surplus - May 12, 2000

Hmmm. So, what happened that that "other" left over 40 billion? It was spent plus some, which increased the deficit. Additionally, what happened to the last paragraph. How could the debt possibly had risen?

Its a suplus as long as you forget that the 40 billion dollars is gone.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2010, 09:15 AM
 
1,503 posts, read 1,153,273 times
Reputation: 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
I see you failed accounting. This is like arguing,
"look at ONLY my expenses, I couldnt possibly have made a profit and owe taxes this year".. AND
"Look at ONLY my income, I made so much dam money this year to afford that new $5M home I wanted."

You do realise you just validated OUR argument right? Because your ONLY looking at debt "held by the public", and IGNORING debt "not held by the government"..

You are going out of your way to ignore debt, to pretend it doesnt exist.. Monthly budgeting at your house must be histerical..

hustand: "I want to buy a new porsche"
wife reply: "thats ok dear, we can do that provided I get my vacation home"

There, you both got what you want so the debt didnt exist right? Oooh the humor..
I already have the Porsche, thanks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2010, 09:17 AM
 
1,503 posts, read 1,153,273 times
Reputation: 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
I see you failed accounting. This is like arguing,
"look at ONLY my expenses, I couldnt possibly have made a profit and owe taxes this year".. AND
"Look at ONLY my income, I made so much dam money this year to afford that new $5M home I wanted."

You do realise you just validated OUR argument right? Because your ONLY looking at debt "held by the public", and IGNORING debt "not held by the government"..

You are going out of your way to ignore debt, to pretend it doesnt exist.. Monthly budgeting at your house must be histerical..

hustand: "I want to buy a new porsche"
wife reply: "thats ok dear, we can do that provided I get my vacation home"

There, you both got what you want so the debt didnt exist right? Oooh the humor..
Get your accounting 101 textbook out and look up "Inter-Company Eliminations"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2010, 09:49 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,001,245 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhinestone View Post
I already have the Porsche, thanks.
You must of obtained it by borrowing against your HELOC, thereby it was FREE
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhinestone View Post
Get your accounting 101 textbook out and look up "Inter-Company Eliminations"
I dont need to, I know all about accounting which includes intercompany borrowing but what you are IGNORING is..

If company A takes on a liability to loan to company B, this does not mean company B is having a SURPLUS. I dont give a crap how you word it, its a debt obligation which NEEDS PAID BACK, therefor it creats an asset and a liability for company A and an accounts receivable and a debt for company B..

Its ONLY a wash for company B who creates a liability and an accounts receivable, but it is NOT for company A who receives money and a liability because company A SPENT THE MONEY.. Its GONE, KAPUT. It would ONLY be a wash if company A STILL HAD THE MONEY, or invested it to create receivables, but the government does NOT INVEST..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2010, 10:06 AM
 
1,503 posts, read 1,153,273 times
Reputation: 321
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
You must of obtained it by borrowing against your HELOC, thereby it was FREE
No I paid cash for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
I dont need to, I know all about accounting which includes intercompany borrowing but what you are IGNORING is..

If company A takes on a liability to loan to company B, this does not mean company B is having a SURPLUS. I dont give a crap how you word it, its a debt obligation which NEEDS PAID BACK, therefor it creats an asset and a liability for company A and an accounts receivable and a debt for company B..

Its ONLY a wash for company B who creates a liability and an accounts receivable, but it is NOT for company A who receives money and a liability because company A SPENT THE MONEY.. Its GONE, KAPUT. It would ONLY be a wash if company A STILL HAD THE MONEY, or invested it to create receivables, but the government does NOT INVEST..
Great you want to talk about revenue and expense.

GE Power systems has a loss(deficit) $3.5 Billion
GE Capital has a profit(surplus) $7.8 Billion
GE Corporate has a profit(surplus) of $5.3 Billion

It's all simple accounting.

During the second Clinton Administration the government ran slight deficits in the "on budget" items and surpluses in the "off budget" items. The net was a surplus.

It's all simple accounting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2010, 10:14 AM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,001,245 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhinestone View Post
Great you want to talk about revenue and expense.

GE Power systems has a loss(deficit) $3.5 Billion
GE Capital has a profit(surplus) $7.8 Billion
GE Corporate has a profit(surplus) of $5.3 Billion

It's all simple accounting.

During the second Clinton Administration the government ran slight deficits in the "on budget" items and surpluses in the "off budget" items. The net was a surplus.

It's all simple accounting.
And using YOUR example, if GE Capital LOANS GE Power system $5B, does GE Power Systems have a SURPLUS?

NO THEY DONT.. They have operating funds, but NOT a surplus..

Yes, very simple accounting, which you seem to be ignoring.

p.s. GE Corporation would have $4.3B not $5.3B, but the other flaw with your example is GE Capital is not getting their surplus from DEBT, they are getting their surplus from PROFITS.. Social Security gets their surplus from DEBTS, they are IOUS which need to be paid back!! IF GE Capital BORROWED $8B to get their $7.8B "surplus", then there was NO surplus, just an $8B debt and $7.8B operating capital..

Using your accounting methods, many corporations would have their board in prison for accounting fraud.

Enron and Madoff are two such names that come to mind.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:20 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top