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.)

Dave wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 13:02:21 GMT, "Wolfie" said:

Meanwhile Social Security
(to name one) were buying federal securities because they were
collecting more money than they were spending

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

They'd still be collecting more than they pay out, yes.
That's not dependent upon accounting methods.
Social security -- and other entitlements -- don't match
too well with similar private sector plans anyway.
Congress can always increase or decrease benefits
whenever they want. "Pay-as-you-go" is, IMO,
more appropriate when you can't forecast any
future liabilities to any degree of accuracy.

Horvath wrote:
That's your story. I just showed the facts.

You showed a subset of the facts without understanding
them, yes. Any idea that Clinton could borrow money
to show a running surplus when only the Republican-led
Congress could appropriate money isn't factual in any
non-delusional reality...

You're deluded.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 08:41:13 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
said:

His "constituency" was the American people dumbass.

Nonsense. His constituency, like Kerry's, was primarily a specific group
of
subsets of the American people as a whole. Generally it consisted of
guvmint
bureaucrats, members of the teachers' union and other unions, trial
lawyers
to provide the money, academics, others who never had to make a living in
the private sector, members of minority groups, draft dodgers who've spent
their whole lives trying to justify their cowardice and, to some extent,
enviros. Put them all together and throw in a few more he was able to
attract and you have about half of the American people.

Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

Who goes duck hunting with Jamie Gorelick?

Horvath wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 12:58:47 GMT, "Wolfie" wrote
this crap:


As anyone can see, the debt increased every year. There never was a
surplus. It was another Clinton lie.

That's total debt, including both public and *government* owned
obligations. Only the public owned obligations reflect the budget
surplus (or deficit) -- the government owned ones reflect federal
agencies buying government securities as investments.

Public-owned debt was:

09/28/2001 3,339,310,176,094.74
09/29/2000 3,405,303,490,221.20
09/30/1999 3,636,104,594,501.81
09/30/1998 3,733,864,472,163.53
09/30/1997 3,789,667,546,849.60

Which clearly shows budget surpluses (from tax revenues being
greater than expenditures) in 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001.
It's now up to 4,218,409,719,114.26 (as of 6/25/04), an
increase of 879,099,543,019.52 for Bush's budgets so far.

That's your story.

No, it's the story of the site you cited. Not my fault you
didn't understand it.

At any rate your figures aren't accurate representations of
the budget process -- Clinton's last few budgets DID run
surpluses, more taxes being collected than the government
was spending. The difference between the *budget* and
the federal debt is government agencies -- trust funds, like
Social Security -- buying securities for investments.


Bull****. My figures showed TOTAL Debt. Your figures don't represent
total expenditures.

Right, since I didn't list expenditures. Want them? They're from
the Republican Chairman of the House Policy Committee, BTW.

1998 Revenues $2,100,658,000,000
1998 Expenses $2,030,621,000,000
1998 Surplus $70,037,000,000

1999 Revenues $2,222,239,000,000
1999 Expenses $2,099,496,000,000
1999 Surplus $122,743,000,000

2000 Revenues $2,420,109,000,000
2000 Expenses $2,183,194,000,000
2000 Surplus $236,915,000,000

2001 Revenues $2,405,034,000,000
2001 Expenses $2,277,867,000,000
2001 Surplus $127,167,000,000

More money received than spent.

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 03:42:45 GMT, "Wolfie" wrote
this crap:

Horvath wrote:
That's your story. I just showed the facts.

You showed a subset of the facts without understanding
them, yes. Any idea that Clinton could borrow money
to show a running surplus when only the Republican-led
Congress could appropriate money isn't factual in any
non-delusional reality...


That's your story. I'm just pointing out the facts.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

"Dave" wrote in message
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 02:12:03 GMT, "Maxprop" said:


Most folks have difficulty discerning the federal deficit (above) from an
annual budget deficit.

Including you. Deficit (as opposed to accumulated deficit) is an income
statement item. Debt, on the other hand, (which is what Horvath gave
numbers
for) is a balance sheet item. A number of things can affect debt,
including
what items are treated as capital expenditures rather than current
expense,
and what other items are subjected to the fiction that they aren't part of
the guvmint's expenditures at all (like social security).

Save your bean-counting pedantry for someone else, Dave. I took several
semesters of accounting in college and know the difference. As the terms
are commonly used by the media and politicians, they are inaccurate. Big
****ing deal. The point I was making was that some actually believe that
Clinton wiped out the federal accumulated deficit (or debt, if you prefer).
Which of course he didn't, nor has or will any president.

Max

"Dave" wrote in message

On 29 Jun 2004 02:33:01 GMT, (Bobsprit) said:

Then Bush LIED. He payed out those refunds with the surplus he said was
there.
Gore said the surplus should be protected for a rainy day.

Only in the strange world inside the Beltway is a smaller increase in
spending than you projected deemed a "cut" in expenditures. Gore, of
course,
wanted to make sure that our taxes go to his constituency--the guvmint
bureaucrats, rather than back to the people who earned the money. They
might, after all, do something irresponsible like deciding that giving
more
tax money to the bureaucrats isn't a good idea, and then where would we
be?

Smaller government? What a concept.

Max

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 04:24:23 GMT, "Wolfie" wrote:

Horvath wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 12:58:47 GMT, "Wolfie" wrote
this crap:


As anyone can see, the debt increased every year. There never was a
surplus. It was another Clinton lie.

That's total debt, including both public and *government* owned
obligations. Only the public owned obligations reflect the budget
surplus (or deficit) -- the government owned ones reflect federal
agencies buying government securities as investments.

Public-owned debt was:

09/28/2001 3,339,310,176,094.74
09/29/2000 3,405,303,490,221.20
09/30/1999 3,636,104,594,501.81
09/30/1998 3,733,864,472,163.53
09/30/1997 3,789,667,546,849.60

Which clearly shows budget surpluses (from tax revenues being
greater than expenditures) in 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001.
It's now up to 4,218,409,719,114.26 (as of 6/25/04), an
increase of 879,099,543,019.52 for Bush's budgets so far.

That's your story.

No, it's the story of the site you cited. Not my fault you
didn't understand it.

At any rate your figures aren't accurate representations of
the budget process -- Clinton's last few budgets DID run
surpluses, more taxes being collected than the government
was spending. The difference between the *budget* and
the federal debt is government agencies -- trust funds, like
Social Security -- buying securities for investments.


Bull****. My figures showed TOTAL Debt. Your figures don't represent
total expenditures.

Right, since I didn't list expenditures. Want them? They're from
the Republican Chairman of the House Policy Committee, BTW.

1998 Revenues $2,100,658,000,000
1998 Expenses $2,030,621,000,000
1998 Surplus $70,037,000,000

1999 Revenues $2,222,239,000,000
1999 Expenses $2,099,496,000,000
1999 Surplus $122,743,000,000

2000 Revenues $2,420,109,000,000
2000 Expenses $2,183,194,000,000
2000 Surplus $236,915,000,000

2001 Revenues $2,405,034,000,000
2001 Expenses $2,277,867,000,000
2001 Surplus $127,167,000,000

More money received than spent.

While you are to be commended for attempting to simplify this topic to
the level that it can be understood by poor Horvath, just remember the
old saying...

"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the
pig. "

On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 04:24:23 GMT, "Wolfie" wrote
this crap:



Bull****. My figures showed TOTAL Debt. Your figures don't represent
total expenditures.

Right, since I didn't list expenditures. Want them? They're from
the Republican Chairman of the House Policy Committee, BTW.

1998 Revenues $2,100,658,000,000
1998 Expenses $2,030,621,000,000
1998 Surplus $70,037,000,000

1999 Revenues $2,222,239,000,000
1999 Expenses $2,099,496,000,000
1999 Surplus $122,743,000,000

2000 Revenues $2,420,109,000,000
2000 Expenses $2,183,194,000,000
2000 Surplus $236,915,000,000

2001 Revenues $2,405,034,000,000
2001 Expenses $2,277,867,000,000
2001 Surplus $127,167,000,000

More money received than spent.

Then why did the debt go up? Slick Willie pocketing the extra money?





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!