Lying again...
To be clear, surplus = positive cash flow.
Why did the national debt increase every year?
Because the national debt is split in two types of debt:
- public debt
- intragovernment debt
The budget can only offset the public debt, which did go down during that period.
So, not a lie, and your ignorance of how the national debt works is no excuse.
In the end, the debt never decreased during those surplus years, so calling them that is cheap marketing.
Did the gross national debt go up or down?
Do you know what a budget surplus is?
Yes.
What about off budget spending?
If we had an actual surplus, the debt would have decreased. Why did it increase?
What happens if I budget to spend 90% of my income, but then spend 105%?
I had a budget surplus, right?
Let me explain again for the 2nd time: The budget can only affect the public debt. Which DID go down during the surplus.
Intragovernment debt (debt accrued through Treasury securities issued, for example, for future Social Security payments) is unaffected by it.
It did decrease.
But you didn't spend 105%. You spent 90% and had a 10% surplus. The thing is, you also have a mortgage for $150,000 that you're paying down in 30 years. So you do have a 10% surplus, but you still owe $150,000.
Sorry kids.
The bottom line is the gross national debt increased. There was no decrease.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 09-05-2011 at 10:38 AM.
WC, how could the gross national debt have been decreased with a budget surplus? Honest question.
Strangely, you actually have a valid point to make, however surplus doesn't mean positive cash flow at all. Accrual accounting is a relatively new concept I know (compared with, say, the age of the earth) but try to keep up with recent developments.
The only way for the national debt not to increase is for the budget surplus to outdo the interest that would need to be paid on the various intragovernment trust funds in the future. If anything, the point to be made is that a balanced budget alone won't fix the debt problem, but it will also require working out mandatory debt obligations like Social Security.
Math is hard. Grammar is harder?
But sorry kiddo, ankle biter didn't say the debt decreased. He said Clinton handed a budget surplus to Bush. He didn't lie.
That's my point. Their was no surplus!
Yep, keep two books like the mafia does.
Why can you accept not taking this into account?
Bottom line is the debt did not decrease since 1969.
See table 7.1:
Historical tables: Budget of the U.S. government
I'm confused. There was no surplus right? So then what was the lockbox all about that gore was talking about? And Didn't Bush JR say that we should give tax cuts to offset the surplus?
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/159048-1
Bush talks about the surplus in this speach lol
You mean the "projected" surplus? You mean the surplus that the Clinton administration lied about, that once the budget was audited, didn't exist?
"tax cuts to offset the surplus"
annual budget surplus/deficit is different from national debt.
The surplus was a budgetary (annual) surplus, not a national deficit in the black.
In 2001, the Repugs didn't think the deficit was a problem (they thought it so inconsequential that they went on to double the debt in the next 8 years) so the TEMPORARY budget surplus was to be "spent" with PERMANENT tax cuts, favoring above all the UCA and wealthy, with some crummy tax cuts for everybody else.
When dubya arrived, deficit was about $5.6T, when he left, it was $10T+.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/r...ebt_histo5.htm
the Repug/VRWC strategy is starve the beast (with unfunded wars and tax cuts), then drown the beast, then come back for more tax cuts.
Repug presidentail contenders are talking about ZERO corporate taxes and ZERO capital taxes, aka, just more "starve the beast".
Hmm. Looks like an actual surplus and reduction of federal debt.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/69xx/doc6...ermOutlook.pdf
Compare that with table 7.1 of my link.
In Fig 1-1, you see light blue line(in's) sneaking above the dark blue (out's) about 2000-2001. That's the temporary surplus that dubya ( "It's Your Money" ) used as pretext for permanent tax cuts, which Repugs rammed through in 2001 with Senate reconciliation (which is cheating, unAmerican when Dems do it).
See table 1.1. Are you this dumb?
And no, the government doesn't have an option. Under the law they are mandated to turn the various contributions to trust funds into debt (via US Treasury securities).
They don't keep two books, BTW. At some point you need to realize you're too stupid to understand the numbers.
The two book thing was a joke since you insist they has a surplus when the end of year reconciliation shows more debt added, i.e. deficit.
Don't you get it?
It doesn't matter how they juggled the numbers to make it appear good. The bottom line is the national debt increased during those years of surplus.
The budget says they will spend "X" dollars. What about legislation the rest of the year that impacts spending?
If my monthly household budget has me saving $100, but then during the month, I had some car repairs totaling $250, do I still have a surplus of $100?
I can only speculate as to why they show two different numbers. Still, they don't jive, and we all know the debt increased. If the debt actually decreased, that would be really big news.
It doesn't. It shows a surplus in public debt, which is the only affected by the budget.
crofl
Of course it did. It had nothing to do with the budget though.
Trust funds do not impact spending. They're simply mandated debt issuing by the US. They have nothing to do with spending.
Well, no. But that's not an analogy to this situation either.
An analogy would be that you're required to return 10% of your salary with interest in 50 years. You just acquired debt now, but you won't be on the hook for it for another 50 years (where you'll need to pay that 10% + interest + adjustment for inflation). That still counts as debt. Notice you would be mandated to take on it. You get no option.
It's really not that complicated and it's not a secret either. It did go down and it was big news at the time.
Obama will just blame it on Bush.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote