|
Loco Loves Clinton & so did our 401Ks
|
Loco Loves Clinton
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message You're deluded. While your characteristic brevity is admirable, Jon, your lack of evidence to the contrary in your arguments leads one to believe you really are a clueless dogmatist. Max |
Loco Loves Clinton
Horvath wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 04:24:23 GMT, "Wolfie" wrote this crap: 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? Because government agencies were buying Government Account Series Securities, as I pointed out before. Social Security, for example, doesn't invest by buying stocks or other public issues. They invest by buying GAS securities. If they invested $1B by buying securities worth $1.2B at maturity, the government debt would rise by $0.2B at the time of purchase. Put it this way: Tax revenues for a year: $2T Total expenses for a year: $1.8T Budget surplus: $200B If it's all used to pay off existing public debt (Savings Bonds, T-Bills, whatever), the *public* part of the debt would go down by $200B *AND* the total debt would decline by the same $200B. What actually happens, though, is the government retires some public debt and invests the rest by buying GAS securities, something like this: $200B budget surplus $20B retirement of public debt $180B investments in GAS securities with a value at maturity of $250B. Public debt is lower by $20B. Government debt is higher by $70B Total debt increases by $50B. The government still ran a surplus and paid off debt. It's no secret *future* government obligations continue to rise -- and will as long as SS takes in more money than it pays out. |
Loco Loves Clinton
Dave wrote:
Wolfie" said: 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. Lesse...when was the last time they reduced benefits? Several times in the past few years, although not on Social Security payments. They do cut benefits, however. There really isn't any excuse for pay as you go accounting. Accounting is accounting -- it's just a way of keeping track. Regardless of the budget implications the problems with Social Security in the long-term are well-known and tracked effectively. The government publishes different views on the same overall financial situation -- so does pretty much everyone else. It's just that the view which "squeaks the loudest" contains a "pay-as-you-go" view of Social Security. |
Loco Loves Clinton
I prefer the brevity angle when confronting fools.
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Maxprop" wrote in message nk.net... "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message You're deluded. While your characteristic brevity is admirable, Jon, your lack of evidence to the contrary in your arguments leads one to believe you really are a clueless dogmatist. Max |
Loco Loves Clinton
Wow... you're an expert... several semesters.... I mean wow.
You're right anyway. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Maxprop" wrote in message link.net... "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 |
Loco Loves Clinton
He must have lost in in Whitewater.
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Horvath" wrote in message ... 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! |
Loco Loves Clinton
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message Wow... you're an expert... several semesters.... I mean wow. I had two semesters of German, too. Guess that makes me Teutonic, ja? Max |
Loco Loves Clinton
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message I prefer the brevity angle when confronting fools. And it tends to be effective, if less-than-convincing. Then again a few details of your rebuttal might be nice. Max |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:30 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com