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.
If I make a personal budget, taking my total income and allocating money into each categorized expense. Then, about half way through the year, I have to spend 3000 more than my annual income allows because of a car repair. In your eyes, I am still "on budget" and the year can be deemed profitable?
Seriously. Does that make sense to you?
He clearly knows better, but the cognitive dissonance is really holding him back. Hey Einstein you really should learn about it, they teach it in Psych 101 and it's a fundamental problem with human logic.
Actually if you add the "on budget" results to the "off budget" results you get the total picture, which for Clinton's second term was a budget surplus and public debt declined.
WRONG.. If what you say is true, tell me why the TOTAL debt went up, not just THE PUBLIC DEbT.. I LOVE how you ONLY want to count public debt while ignoring EVERYTHING ELSE..
He ran a deficit, if you disagree, then tell the total debt continued to climb during the Clinton term?
That argument can be made for Texas, where the government claimed a $11B surplus in 2008. Yet, the state's gross public debt grew by about $10B (from $23.9B to $33.3B).
The "Public Debt" is what the government owes third parties. It excluded what the government owes itself. The Public Debt declined during Clinton's second term.
I used funding for Afghanistan and Iraq wars as an example. The war expense was not accounted for in the budgets so the trillion plus did not add to annual budget deficits, however they added to the national debt. Obama's first budget changed that (along with three other items, I can't recall that list now), and war funding is a part of the budget. So, the new deficits will include spending on the wars.
Which is why you need to examine the growth in debt under Bush, vs the growth in debt under Obama to get the real picture.
So far, the picture still doesnt look good.. (see chart above)
The "Public Debt" is what the government owes third parties. It excluded what the government owes itself. The Public Debt declined during Clinton's second term.
But the TOTAL debt is what needs to be paid back by taxpayers. The fact that the government owes itself money, if that money has been spent, doesnt mean there was a surplus. IT WAS SPENT, thereby it NEEDS PAID BACK by tax revenue.
What you are arguing is, If I took $100K home equity mortgage out against my home, and used it to buy 4 cars, that I made $100K doing so, which is absolutely ridiculous.. The fact that I now need to pay myself back $100K to reinburse my HELOC is a fact, and you cant ignore this..
The "Public Debt" is what the government owes third parties. It excluded what the government owes itself. The Public Debt declined during Clinton's second term.
I disagree. What the government owes itself should not be discounted. Borrowing money from social security to fund spending over the budget sure paints a pretty picture, but at the end of the day... that social security money is still gone.
If thats the case, lets assume ALL government agencies, and see if there is a deficit year to year.
Social security could get raped and pillaged by congress, and the feds could spend all of their money shutting down the entire program, yet we would still consider that a profitable year?
Lets use my little example again.
So my car breaks down, and I deciede to make the repairs that are $3000 more than my allowable budget by pulling money from my savings account. Is it fair or logical to ignore the reduction in savings to simply say "but yeah, but budget is still on track".
But the TOTAL debt is what needs to be paid back by taxpayers. The fact that the government owes itself money, if that money has been spent, doesnt mean there was a surplus. IT WAS SPENT, thereby it NEEDS PAID BACK by tax revenue.
What you are arguing is, If I took $100K home equity mortgage out against my home, and used it to buy 4 cars, that I made $100K doing so, which is absolutely ridiculous.. The fact that I now need to pay myself back $100K to reinburse my HELOC is a fact, and you cant ignore this..
What I'm saying is if you borrow $10,000 from your 401k plan to build an extra room on your house, you don't owe any third party any more money. You borrowed the money from yourself.
I disagree. What the government owes itself should not be discounted. Borrowing money from social security to fund spending over the budget sure paints a pretty picture, but at the end of the day... that social security money is still gone.
If thats the case, lets assume ALL government agencies, and see if there is a deficit year to year.
Social security could get raped and pillaged by congress, and the feds could spend all of their money shutting down the entire program, yet we would still consider that a profitable year?
Lets use my little example again.
So my car breaks down, and I deciede to make the repairs that are $3000 more than my allowable budget by pulling money from my savings account. Is it fair or logical to ignore the reduction in savings to simply say "but yeah, but budget is still on track".
Its all smoke and mirrors tactics.
You are confusing a asset/liability account with and income/expense account. You probably need some understanding of accounting to understand.
What I'm saying is if you borrow $10,000 from your 401k plan to build an extra room on your house, you don't owe any third party any more money. You borrowed the money from yourself.
They didnt borrow against money sitting in a bank, they borrowed against money which WILL BE coming in, meaning THEY SPENT IT..
If my internet company took and sold their accounts receivables to a 3rd party vendor, this does not mean I borrowed from myself, even though the money was mine to begin with. It means I gave up FUTURE earnings, to get the money NOW..
If I borrow against next years accounts receivables to get $1M now, this does not mean my company is
1) Profitable
2) Running a surplus
3) Does not need to pay it back
The money needs paid back NEXT YEAR.. Borrowing money is NEVER considered a surplus because of the liabilities it creates, even if its from oneself.
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.
