wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010 13:44:06 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

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

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

It becomes debt but because of the LBJ trick it does not show up in
the deficit.

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."

True but he still got the $105 billion extra in his budget from that
sleazy accounting trick in 1999 to show a surplus.


You act like the debt is something that's so horrible we're going to shrivel
up at any moment. What do you think the consequences would be of not doing
that? The gov't runs out of money and throws people out of their jobs among
other nasty things. Your solution?

--
Nom=de=Plume