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.
Thats the 2nd time I've asked you which you didnt answer. Why is that? Because you dont want to admit the answer? Lets go for 3...
You see I do understand very well, you just dont want to admit that it was spent, with an IOU as the result, which = debt..
He can't admit it. It would rock his little world. But we all know the answer - right there in the actual, factual numbers from treasury.
Notice the link he put up was just a google search - I can see why he doesn't want to go to the actual source - it would flush his argument right down the crapper...where it belongs.
does not matter who is in the oval office the rubber checks continue.
hard right is on mr obama for a different agenda. they are after that DOD gravy train. they dont wana turn off the faucet.
You have been proven wrong time after time, the numbers just don't add up to your spin, whether it is the debt, deficit, or that chart of obama's that has come in so handy and will be even more fodder come next year.
He can't admit it. It would rock his little world. But we all know the answer - right there in the actual, factual numbers from treasury.
These actual, factual numbers from Treasury are for the public debt. They have nothing to do with the budget.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene
Notice the link he put up was just a google search - I can see why he doesn't want to go to the actual source - it would flush his argument right down the crapper...where it belongs.
Notice that the search criteria were to Historical Budget Receipts and Outlays. ALL of the dozens of hits that actually lead to historical budget data show the surpluses. I wonder why <pghquest> chose to report on one that talks about debt instead...
DING DING DING.. We have a winner.. after how many postings?
Here is sag admitting I was right, without admitting I was right, and proving that she mislead this whole thread on discussion. Of course she'll come back and proclaim she didnt. Odd that now sag is all for manipulating numbers that are "off budget" for Clinton but one of the biggest opponents of this taking place during the "Bush" years. (and yes, Bush did the same thing)
For the rest of the class, here is how Clintons pretend surplus was generated.
1) General budget generating losses
2) Social Security generating profits
3) Clinton took the social security funds (like many presidents do) and has the SS buy US Treasury IOU's, which basicly means that the general budget owes SS money, but is now sitting on cash.
4) Since SS buys more Treasury Securities (IOUs) than the "general fund losses", Clinton was able to claim that he had surpluses because the SS budgets are not counted for "surpluses/deficits"
But the lie is this.
The US Treasury department now owes the SS the money that they received for the securities. At some point this needs to be paid back not only from the general fund to the SS fund and ultimately to the SS recipients.
ITS A LIE and completely dishonest.. You know sag, I'd have more respect for you if you'd stop flip flopping from one posting criticizing Bush for keeping things off Budget, to another, supporting Clinton for doing the same, to the point that you have to lie about surpluses/deficits that didnt take place..
...the numbers just don't add up to your spin, whether it is the debt, deficit, or that chart of obama's that has come in so handy and will be even more fodder come next year.
When you don't know which numbers to look at or what the ones you do look at actually mean, there's very little chance of your coming up with anything actually rational in the way of conclusions. One would think that the old blind squirrel theory would come into play once in a while...
DING DING DING.. We have a winner.. after how many postings?
Here is sag admitting I was right, without admitting I was right, and proving that she mislead this whole thread on discussion. Of course she'll come back and proclaim she didnt, but for the record, here is how Clinton was able to pretend he had surpluses... Odd that now sag is all for manipulating numbers that are "off budget" but one of the biggest opponents of this taking place during the "Bush" years. (and yes, Bush did the same thing)
For the rest of the class, here is how Clintons pretend surplus was generated.
1) General budget generating losses
Deficits, not losses. That happened in FY1998 and FY 2001, but not in FY1999 or FY2000. In those two years what you are calling the general budget was in surplus all by itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
2) Social Security generating profits
Surpluses, not profits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
3) Clinton took the social security funds (like many presidents do) and has the SS buy US Treasury IOU's, which basicly means that the general budget owes SS money.
Clinton had nothing to do with it. The process is mandated by law. SS must invest its surpluses to earn a competitive, market-based rate of return, and it must do so with a primary investment objective of conservation of principal. With the dollar volumes that have been flowing into the Trsut Fund as the result of the 1983 SS reforms, the US Treasury securities market is the only market that is presently qualified.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
4) Since SS buys more IOUs than the "losses" Clinton was able to claim that he had surpluses because the SS budgets are not counted for "surpluses/deficits"
LOL. The subsequent investment of SS surpluses has no effect on the budget at all. The budget surplus exists because payroll taxes received exceeded SS benefits paid out. End of story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
But the lie is this. The US Treasury department now owes the SS the money that they received for the securities. At some point this needs to be paid back not only from the general fund, but to the SS recipients.
Yes, that's how US Treasury securities (not to mention every other form of securities ever invented) operate. You borrow the money. You pay interest on it for a while. Then you pay it back. The SS surpluses are in fact invested primarily in a series of laddered ten-year notes payable at maturity. This month, the Treasury is paying back the notes that SS bought ten years ago. It is also selling SS new notes that will mature ten years from now. Next month, it will do the same. This is nothing new. The Treasury has been doing this sort of thing since 1791.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
ITS A LIE and completely dishonest.. You know sag, I'd have more respect for you if you'd just call it factual instead of one posting criticizing Bush for keeping things off Budget, but then supporting Clinton for doing the same, to the point that you have to lie about surpluses/deficits that didnt take place..
No, everything I have said has been accurate, but you prattle on from the aether anyway. Bush had nothing to do with SS being off-budget during his eight years -- Congress decides that -- but he did have everything to do with deliberately not putting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq into his annual budget requests, then coming along later and requesting emergency supplemental appropriations for them, as if he'd had no idea that any of these expenses were going to come along. You want dishonest? THAT was dishonest.
Clinton's surpluses are meanwhile just as real as Obama's deficits. Anyone who bothered to look at actual budget data for the years 1998-2001 would see them as plain as day.
Deficits are losses, they are just losses of the federal government due to overspending. Dont look at me, I didnt do the spending..
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
That happened in FY1998 and FY 2001, but not in FY1999 or FY2000. In those two years what you are calling the general budget was in surplus all by itself.
Jees, those budget surpluses were done with the national debt going up right? Translation it wasnt a surplus. True surpluses would pay down debt, something you guys in Washington seem to know nothing about. Must be that tricky math again seperating 1998/2001, from 1999/2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
Surpluses, not profits.
If you bring in more than you spend, and dont pay down debt, its profit. You just dont want it called that because we wouldnt want to compare the government to a business, would we?
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
Clinton had nothing to do with it. The process is mandated by law. SS must invest its surpluses to earn a competitive, market-based rate of return, and it must do so with a primary investment objective of conservation of principal. With the dollar volumes that have been flowing into the Trsut Fund as the result of the 1983 SS reforms, the US Treasury securities market is the only market that is presently qualified.
Right, its so much better to buy our own debt instead of paying it down, which NEVER seems to be an option for you guys in Washington. This way you can cry and bemoan those other people running defficits while pretending you had surpluses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
CliLOL. The subsequent investment of SS surpluses has no effect on the budget at all. The budget surplus exists because payroll taxes received exceeded SS benefits paid out. End of story.
Which means you AGAIN didnt answer the question, what happened to the money from SS after they bought the securities?
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
Yes, that's how US Treasury securities (not to mention every other form of securities ever invented) operate. You borrow the money. You pay interest on it for a while. Then you pay it back. The SS surpluses are in fact invested primarily in a series of laddered ten-year notes payable at maturity. This month, the Treasury is paying back the notes that SS bought ten years ago. It is also selling SS new notes that will mature ten years from now. Next month, it will do the same. This is nothing new. The Treasury has been doing this sort of thing since 1791.
Fantastic, remind me again why you think citizens cant do this for themself again? I know, it would limit the "tricky accounting" that you guys do to pretend debt isnt as bad as it is, or godforbid, surpluses existed that didnt..
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
No, everything I have said has been accurate, but you prattle on from the aether anyway. Bush had nothing to do with SS being off-budget during his eight years -- Congress decides that --
Thats funny because you are the very one who proclaimed that the president writes budgets, not Congress.. Now you are telling me its Congress. (btw, for the rest of the class, it is indeed Congress that does both)
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
but he did have everything to do with deliberately not putting the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq into his annual budget requests, then coming along later and requesting emergency supplemental appropriations for them, as if he'd had no idea that any of these expenses were going to come along. You want dishonest? THAT was dishonest.
So now YOU think you are more qualified than the president to decide whats is honest and what isnt honest about whats on/off the books? Wow, you have some gall.. Off budget items go back to the 1970's, including things from the Social Security trust fund, to the US Post office. In the 1980s the petroleum funding was kept off budget, and even the S&L from the 1990's contained vast funding off budget.
If it was up to me, I'd put it all on budget, but I dont pretend to be the authority like you to be able to decide what should be off vs on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
Clinton's surpluses are meanwhile just as real as Obama's deficits. Anyone who bothered to look at actual budget data for the years 1998-2001 would see them as plain as day.
No they arent, but if it helps you sleep better, you are welcome to pretend that he did. You however disagree with Clintons assistant for Economic Policy who then became the Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin under Clinton who admitted it was all a shell game.
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.
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.
