Reply With Quote
Again...
If it was a surplus, then why did the debt increase?
Isn't that a simple enough question?
But that's not the case here. The actual budget is included in those figures, and in some cases it went over and in some cases it went under.
The point is that if you write down your income and your outlays and the former is bigger than the latter, you effectively have a surplus. You might still have debt to pay in the future, and interest on that debt that would make that debt grow. But you still have a surplus. You might choose to start paying off the debt with that surplus, or you might choose to spend it on hookers. It doesn't change the fact that you still have more money coming in than coming out. That's called a surplus.
Please point out what I cherry picked? We were talking about a budget surplus, and you brought up the debt. Who was cherry picking?
The bottom line is that DoK was spot on when he said that Bush was handed a budget surplus, which he even acknowledged receiving. You didn't answer the question: Was Bush Jr a liar too?
Again...
If it was a surplus, then why did the debt increase?
Isn't that a simple enough question?
Wild Cobra, do you in know how basic accrual accounting works? A positive income doesn't automatically mean debt goes down.
So you agree, there was no actual surplus, right?
It really is, and I already explained why. Multiple times. I have to assume the topic is way over your head. Unfortunately, I can't seem to come up with a good analogy for parts-changers.
He has no clue
Hey...
I don't care what terminology you want to use. In my world, if you have a budget surplus, your debt is less than before. Not more. I don't care what you want to believe from your government school indoctrination. A debt is a debt.
What planet are you two from?
This is just accounting practices. Not real indications outside of mathematical lies.
Understanding Similarities and Differences between Accrual and Cash Deficits
No. If you've ever taken even the most basic intro level accounting course, you'd know income (or in this case a surplus) is based on more than debt/cash balance. You can increase your debt/liabilities but still be generating a positive income.
Under both Accrual and Cash accounting there were surpluses on those years.
But even under accrual accounting, the annual reports showed surpluses of $69.2 billion in fiscal 1998, $76.9 billion in fiscal 1999, and $46 billion for fiscal year 2000.
Your lack of understanding of how government operates and the different kind of debts is pretty appalling. Any surpluses in trust funds such as Social Security are automatically translated into US bonds and becomes intra-government debt (money the government owes itself). The president has no say in it. Obviously, by doing so, you're turning in a surplus into more longer-term debt. When people like you about deficit spending, you're talking about annual government financing: revenue vs outlays. The president has no say on long term commitments like Social Security. Only Congress can reform those.
As DoK said, a positive income doesn't mean you use it all to pay down debt. As a matter of fact, while a good chunk of public debt was paid down with the Clinton surpluses, not all of it was spent on that (i.e.: in fiscal year 2000, there was a $23.5 billion differential between money coming in from trust funds vs public debt paid down). That doesn't mean you didn't have a surplus.
It was either parts-changer class or basic accounting class... you know what he picked...
Yes I know. Accounting tricks. It putting a bill off till the next reporting cycle. The debt is still real.
Bull . Not under both accounting systems, because the gross debt never decreased.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions