On 29 Jun 2004 21:32:28 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 19:16:31 GMT, felton said:

And would that be the case if social security were operating on an accrual
basis, rather than a cash basis?

Are you suggesting that the Reagan and Bush deficits were the result
of more conservative accounting policies?

What lead you to that conclusion? The accounting policies for OSDI haven't
changed for years, if ever. They operate on a so-called pay as you go
accounting basis that counts only outlays as costs, rather than presently
accruing for current service cost payable in the future. Even an accountant
would recognize that this doesn't come close to matching revenue with
expense g.

I was just trying to address the red herring that you tossed into the
discussion. Instead of denying that Clinton's time in office produced
a surplus, you guys should be expressing your appreciation for giving
the Bush administration something to **** away. Brought back a bit of
the old Reagan deja vu...the deficit should be cut in half in only xxx
years. (Usually scheduled to occur after the current Republican is out
of office.)