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.
And yet the government needed to increase the federal debt ceiling in 1995 from $5.7T to $7.3T, and again in 2000 from $7.3T to $9.6T, during all of these imaginary surpluses years..
Why again do you need to raise debt ceilings during a period of surpluses?
Still waiting for an answer to this from the spinmeister.
There you go again with saying something on one posting, while then calling your OWN posting a lie on another..
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
They aren't moving spending from anywhere. The spending in question simply doesn't happen because the price for Product-X goes down. By agreement between the buyer and the seller. Simple concept. How does it so easily and consistently escape you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista
Speaking of counterfeit, the proposed "cuts" to Medicare are not reductions in services, but reductions in the per unit cost of services. These have already been agreed to by hospitals and medical device and drug manufacturers who stand to see substantial new profits from having 95% of people insured instead of 85%, and they are willing to split the difference with the government if it helps them get acccess to those 30-35 million new patients.
They are moving money from medicare, to help fund a national healthcare reform plans. Thats a MOVING of money.
p.s. your premace is flawed, they arent getting access to 30-35 million new patients, they are getting access to PAYMENTS for proceedures from 30-35 million new patients.. The patients were always present..
Borrowing funds from other budgets dont equal a surplus, it equals future debt liabilities. The fact that you continue to ignore this on one thread, while admitting it on others proves that you dont care about facts, and want to keep repeating lies to those less informed.
There arent any "other budgets". There is just the one. But some programs -- Social Security and the Postal Service being the only two at the moment -- do not receive annual appropriations from Congress. They have independent authority to collect and expend funds for their established purposes and programs. These two programs have been in surplus every year since 1985, and because they don't receive appropriations, some people like to look at the budget numbers with those two programs excluded. That is, on an on-budget basis. It's a little bit like looking at CPI with food and energy excluded. It doesn't mean that those two things don't exist, it means that the number without them is an interesting one in and of itself. Sorry if this is all beyond you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
And you have the nerve to say I look foolish, when you cant even keep your story straight about simple things, like real surpluses vs imaginary ones, and the number of years involved..
It doesn't take any nerve at all. The story is perfectly straight-forward and is widely documented exactly as I have told it. You suffer from apparently permanent disability in the form of right-wing blender-like thinking that scrambles establsihed facts and purees the plainest of principles. All to avoid having to admit that someone you think of as liberal so thoroughly outclassed all manner of people you think of as conservative. It's all quite farcical, actually...
as individuals and as a nation the debting needs to stop now. congress controls $$$. the people that get them reelected are making them write rubber checks. you can stop it-- but you gota have more than 50% of americans voting.
Go back to Square-1. Take a course in public finance sometime. Pay particular attention to the materials relating to the federal government. If you think of the government in the same simple way that you think of your household, you will get nearly everything wrong.
There arent any "other budgets". There is just the one. But some programs -- Social Security and the Postal Service being the only two at the moment -- do not receive annual appropriations from Congress. They have independent authority to collect and expend funds for their established purposes and programs. These two programs have been in surplus every year since 1985, and because they don't receive appropriations, some people like to look at the budget numbers with those two programs excluded. That is, on an on-budget basis. It's a little bit like looking at CPI with food and energy excluded. It doesn't mean that those two things don't exist, it means that the number without them is an interesting one in and of itself. Sorry if this is all beyond you.
It doesn't take any nerve at all. The story is perfectly straight-forward and is widely documented exactly as I have told it. You suffer from apparently permanent disability in the form of right-wing blender-like thinking that scrambles establsihed facts and purees the plainest of principles. All to avoid having to admit that someone you think of as liberal so thoroughly outclassed all manner of people you think of as conservative. It's all quite farcical, actually...
there is indeed seperate budgets..
National defense budget, international affairs budgets, health budgets, medicare, income security, social security, all of these are seperate budgets but subsets of the complete budget, but also doesnt count the many of "off budget" items currently spent, which indeed have their own seperate budgets, but not accounted for in the complete budget.
Lets try simple math for you..
$500 Billion in medicare cuts
$100 Billion surplus estimated by healthcare reform by the CBO.
Means $400 Billion is MOVED and SPENT ELSEWHERE..
This of course ignores all of the NEW taxes to be created..
Stop pretending you are stupid and lying about facts and just admit you were wrong, cuts being spent ELSEWHERE and not a real cut..
And I guess the debts from 1965-1995 are meaningless, as well as the ones from 2006 on?
No, not meaningless, I'm just saying the Republicans had plenty of time to implement conservative agendas, but they implemented socialist agendas instead.
No, not meaningless, I'm just saying the Republicans had plenty of time to implement conservative agendas, but they implemented socialist agendas instead.
Since 1965, Republicans held Congress for 8 years (out of 44). Of those 8 years, Sag will tell you they balanced the budget and had surpluses for 4 of them. (1998-2001)
Thats quit an accomplishment, surpluses for 50% of their term.
How many years did Democrats holding Congress have surpluses? 0 out of 27... or 0% of the time..
Since 1965, Republicans held Congress for 8 years (out of 44). Of those 8 years, Sag will tell you they balanced the budget and had surpluses for 4 of them. (1998-2001)
Thats quit an accomplishment, surpluses for 50% of their term.
How many years did Democrats holding Congress have surpluses? 0 out of 27... or 0% of the time..
You keep going back to blaming Dems with every post. I am not trying to promote any Dem accomplishements, I simply said that Republicans have been in power since 1995, and all they did was push for expansion of Medicare, expansion of government and increased loan taking and increased spending. Exactly the opposite of what they always promise to do.
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.
