wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 10:24:04 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

From where are you claiming he borrowed money? As they said, even if you
include the SS "borrowing," there was still a surplus.

--
Ever since 1940 the government has been borrowing the surplus from the
"trust fund". We put a similar treasury bond in there as we give the
Chinese. The question is only which one we will cash first if money
gets tight.
The major difference started in the last year of L:BJ when they
changed the bookkeeping rules to show that surplus as revenue for the
government and not a trust fund for the future SS recipients. (it was
put "on budget"). They still borrow it and spend it issuing a bond and
putting it on the debt but the money shows up as revenue when we
compute the deficit. It was a trick to hide the cost of the Vietnam
war. As I said, Nixon actually got a surplus ... for one year 1969.
The debt still went up.


I stand by my original statement and link.


I would expect no less ;-)

The fact still remains that when they spend the surplus it becomes
debt and by it being "on budget" it does not show up on the deficit.

"when they spend the surplus it becomes debt"???? Well, eventually. Again,
what's your point

Sleazy Vietnam era accounting trick that makes the budget look better
than it is. It is all academic anyway because in a year or two that
surplus will peak and be dropping, totally gone in 6 years or so. I
will be curious how they juggle the books to make the SS deficit, not
show up on the budget deficit. (the down side of it being "on
budget").

Clinton was well past the "Sleazy Vietnam era."

--
Nom=de=Plume