Clinton Surplus Myth...

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by saganista

You do NOW, because I just told you about them. Either you were A) utterly unaware of them previously, or B) guilty of massive intellectual fraud in this and no doubt dozens of other threads for having made claims that you had perfectly good means to know were totally false.

Ahh no.. I'm well aware of their existance, they are just meaningless to the topic. They always sell off bonds and treasuries.. This INCREASES debts.. not decreases them..

Can you ever discuss facts or is attacking posters and putting them down all you are capable of doing? Typical "I am smart, you are stupid" response we've come to expect from saggy while pretending things are related that arent..

Fact: Treasuries being auctioned off lowered the interest rate being offered, but it didnt lower the outlining debt, nor would it create a surplus. It would lower FUTURE deficits but it wouldnt eliminate them.

Go play your superior complex on someone who has less knowledge of elementary accounting.. Heck.. one doesnt even need to be a full fledged public accountant to find the flaws in your argument...

[saganista]

Originally Posted by pghquest

Ahh no.. I'm well aware of their existance, they are just meaningless to the topic. They always sell off bonds and treasuries.. This INCREASES debts.. not decreases them..

ZOMG. Reverse-auctions involve the Treausry BUYING existing notes back from current public debt holders for cash. As the notes are no longer outstanding, the debt GOES DOWN. Prior to Clinton's budget surpluses, reverse-auctions had not been conducted since the 1920's.

Originally Posted by pghquest

Can you ever discuss facts or is attacking posters and putting them down all you are capable of doing? Typical "I am smart, you are stupid" response we've come to expect from saggy while pretending things are related that arent..

You can feel free to take all that back now.

Originally Posted by pghquest

Fact: Treasuries being auctioned off lowered the interest rate being offered, but it didnt lower the outlining debt, nor would it create a surplus. It would lower FUTURE deficits but it wouldnt eliminate them.

Please repost after having it translated by someone competent in public finance. This is gibberish as it stands.

Originally Posted by pghquest

Go play your superior complex on someone who has less knowledge of elementary accounting.. Heck.. one doesnt even need to be a full fledged public accountant to find the flaws in your argument...

It isn't a complex. You are devoid of relevant understanding of this matter.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by saganista

ZOMG. Reverse-auctions involve the Treausry BUYING existing notes back from current public debt holders for cash. As the notes are no longer outstanding, the debt GOES DOWN. Prior to Clinton's budget surpluses, reverse-auctions had not been conducted since the 1920's.

Old thread that came alive again, just so I can laugh at saggy once more.

The buying of existing notes back took place using BORROWED MONEY. If you borrow from A to pay back B, you dont generate a surplus