kallend 2,150 #51 July 30, 2008 QuoteBoth sides share responsibility, as shown by lawrocket above - Congress and POTUS can play hot potato with the budget until public pressure makes them act - but it takes both. And BOTH were GOP while deficits rose during the first few years of Bushbaby's term.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #52 July 30, 2008 QuoteQuotehey, you stole that trick from Kallend. And that's the only impressive part about the post. Which trick? The intellectually honest argument or recognizing the strawman? The incredibly intellectually dishonest approach of waving your hands around and claiming this thread is about X (which you don't even bother to define), rather than Y, where you're getting beat like a mule. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #53 July 30, 2008 QuoteQuoteBoth sides share responsibility, as shown by lawrocket above - Congress and POTUS can play hot potato with the budget until public pressure makes them act - but it takes both. And BOTH were GOP while deficits rose during the first few years of Bushbaby's term. Yes, they were... and now it's not and the deficit is STILL climbing...you have a point, I presume?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #54 July 30, 2008 Quote Nope. Read. I'll help direct you a bit. In addition to page 17, the following excerpt is a nice little summary that should serve to enlighten you: … Congratulations, Vinny. You have highlighted a valid reason for the government to increase debt despite having the cash to pay as they went. From page 16 of your linked source (emphasis mine): "By law, trust fund surpluses generally must be invested in federal securities." How do you propose that be done without increasing debt, Vinny? BTW, did you read page 17 of your source? It has to do with the amount of federal debt outstanding and average interest rate of that debt, both of which are relevant only to your straw man argument, not the discussion at hand. Quote Apparently you think you know more than the Comptroller of the United States. Who, by the way, agrees that there was a BUDGET surplus. As do I. Why would I think I know more than he does? He said the same things I did. I am glad to see that we can all acknowledge that there was, in fact, a budget surplus (total in 1998-2001 and in each on budget & off budget in 1999-2000) in 1998-2001! I think you'll find that is what I have been claiming all along. Once again, I found that if I give you enough time, you'll seek out additional sources to corroborate my claim. You were half right, too, about the public debt. Of course, what should I expect from someone who posts (emphasis mine): A quick perusal of historical debt data collected by the government entity that tracks such things shows the public debt did not decrease at all during EJC's tenure - and certainly not under GWB or GHWB or the Great Ronald Reagan. Link to Post And then, in your very next post: The debt held by the public was decreased with the so-called surplus. Link to post Just covering all your bases, Vinny? Maybe the public debt increased, maybe it decreased, so you wanted to make both claims so you could be right? Quote Start looking in the mirror and say "The debt did not decrease under Clinton's tenure as President" a few times. I didn't claim it did and have reiterated that fact already. Nice strawman, though. Quote Then work you way up to "SS and military retirement trust funds were raided during Clinton's tenure as President and that money must be paid back someday" Right again. Six of eight years under Clinton saw on budget deficits which were covered by off budget surpluses in 1998 (and 2001 under Clinton's budget during Bush's first year). I have also acknowledged this all along. Quote then once you've practiced by yourself for a bit, come and see us and admit the same thing. Read my posts, Vinny. I've maintained these very things all along.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #55 July 30, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteBoth sides share responsibility, as shown by lawrocket above - Congress and POTUS can play hot potato with the budget until public pressure makes them act - but it takes both. And BOTH were GOP while deficits rose during the first few years of Bushbaby's term. Yes, they were... and now it's not and the deficit is STILL climbing...you have a point, I presume? Yes, once you thought the Sun shone out of Bush's ass, but now you have to resort to claiming that the other side is nearly as bad. Take a look at deficits vs party controlling the White House, and deficits vs party controlling Congress, over the past 40 years, and see which correlates better.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #56 July 30, 2008 QuoteThe incredibly intellectually dishonest approach of waving your hands around and claiming this thread is about X (which you don't even bother to define), rather than Y, where you're getting beat like a mule. Let me spell it out for you, since you have apparently missed it every other time I've made the statement. Clinton's budget surplus in 1999 and 2000 were surpluses both on budget and off budget. They were not, as lawrocket originally claimed, total surpluses with on budget deficits covered by off budget surpluses. If you can find one post in this thread that provides evidence to the contrary then perhaps you might be justified claiming I've been "beat like a mule". Else, you should try a reading comprehension class (as well as a class or two on economics and interest theory).Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #57 July 30, 2008 QuoteYes, once you thought the Sun shone out of Bush's ass, Show my posts claiming that, thanks. Do I think Bush was the better choice of the two candidates? Yes, I do. Quotebut now you have to resort to claiming that the other side is nearly as bad And you, after being shown that the Dems are every bit as bad as you claim the Reps are, resort to saying "but the Reps do it WORSE" - again, I'm assuming you have a point? QuoteTake a look at deficits vs party controlling the White House, and deficits vs party controlling Congress, over the past 40 years, and see which correlates better. Looking at historical data? The Dems overtax everything and the economy goes in the crapper. The Reps cut taxes and the economy starts to come back, then the Dems get back in and overtax everything again. Meanwhile, BOTH sides of the aisle in Congress spend money like a drunken sailor in an Olongapo whorehouse - unfortunately.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sfc 1 #58 July 30, 2008 You said QuoteQuoteTry making one regarding the economy under Clinton. The man kept outlays less than receipts on and off budget for 25% of his tenure, and total outlays under total receipts much longer. It's been a long time since we've had a president as fiscally responsible as he was. Yes, let's make some HONEST statements - perhaps you should do some research on WHO forced that budget from 95 on. Here's a hint - it wasn't POTUS. and then you said QuoteBoth sides share responsibility, as shown by lawrocket above - Congress and POTUS can play hot potato with the budget until public pressure makes them act - but it takes both. So when it is a democratic POTUS it is the GOP congress that gets credit for the best fiscal policy for decades, but when it is a GOP POTUS. You are so partisan and inconsistent, not that I didn't know that already but this is a really good demonstration, maybe you will believe it, they are your words after all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #59 July 30, 2008 Again - work on your reading comprehension. 'Debt held by the public' is not used interchangeably with 'the public debt. The public's debt (that would be the government's debt) is held by both the public and the government. If you were familiar with it, you'd realize that (you're not). Bureau of the Public Debt's website does a great job explaining this - highly recommended reading. The debt increased under EJC's tenure - period. Face that fact whenever you so desire. How 'bout that surplus [sic]? The gov't in 1999/2000 was borrowing from itself to reduce the debt held by the public. Face it whenever you so desire. ("But...but...but...we had a SURPLUS! We did! We did!") Or - don't face either of them. Facts they do remain. Maybe some more entitlement programs will make the mean ole facts go away, eh? Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #60 July 30, 2008 QuoteSo when it is a democratic POTUS it is the GOP congress that gets credit for the best fiscal policy for decades, but when it is a GOP POTUS. You are so partisan and inconsistent, not that I didn't know that already but this is a really good demonstration, maybe you will believe it, they are your words after all. Incorrect yet again - What part of "hot potato" has you confused? Where am I saying anything about a GOP POTUS, since we're speaking of partisanship (quite humorous coming from you, btw)? The Rep congress kept sending Clinton a balanced budget until he finally signed it - that's the only credit I give them.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #61 July 30, 2008 Quote 'Debt held by the public' is not used interchangeably with 'the public debt. The public's debt (that would be the government's debt) is held by both the public and the government. Sorry, I misunderstood the ramblings of your post. It appears you were correct about something that wasn't in dispute. Quote The debt increased under EJC's tenure - period. Face that fact whenever you so desire. I've never denied that fact, as you know if you've been paying attention. Quote The gov't in 1999/2000 was borrowing from itself to reduce the debt held by the public. Wrong. The numbers do not support that assertion. If you performed some basic arithmetic, you would see that. (Yes, I realize tequila and arithmetic don't go well together.) Still, facts are facts, and sooner or later you'll have to face them. Or not.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #62 July 30, 2008 Wrong again. As per the Comptroller: "Intragovernmental holdings represent balances of Treasury securities held by individual funds, primarily trust funds, that typically have an obligation to invest their excess annual receipts over disbursements in federal securities. Most federal trust funds invest in special U.S. Treasury securities that are guaranteed for principal and interest by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. These securities are nonmarketable, however, they represent a priority call on future budgetary resources. Certain of these trust funds such as the Social Security and federal civilian employee and military retirement trust funds, have been running annual surpluses, which are loaned to the Treasury and reduce the current need for the government to borrow from the public. Primarily as a result of such trust fund surpluses, intragovernmental holdings have increased by approximately $637 billion since September 30, 1997, with about $247 billion of this increase occurring in fiscal year 2000. The transactions relating to the use of the funds’ surpluses net out on the government’s consolidated financial statements because, in effect, they represent loans from one part of the government to another." Here - let me repeat in case making it bold didn't work: $247 billion increase in the gov't borrowing from itself in FY2000. Fact: The debt did not decrease under EJC Fact: The government borrowed money from itself to operate under EJC (as it has during many administrations) Running from either, won't make them go away. 'But...we HAD a surplus! We DID! We DID!' Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #63 July 30, 2008 You are entitled to your opinion, but not to your own facts.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #64 July 30, 2008 Quote Wrong again. As per the Comptroller: "Intragovernmental holdings represent balances of Treasury securities held by individual funds, primarily trust funds, that typically have an obligation to invest their excess annual receipts over disbursements in federal securities. Most federal trust funds invest in special U.S. Treasury securities that are guaranteed for principal and interest by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. These securities are nonmarketable, however, they represent a priority call on future budgetary resources. Certain of these trust funds such as the Social Security and federal civilian employee and military retirement trust funds, have been running annual surpluses, which are loaned to the Treasury and reduce the current need for the government to borrow from the public. Primarily as a result of such trust fund surpluses, intragovernmental holdings have increased by approximately $637 billion since September 30, 1997, with about $247 billion of this increase occurring in fiscal year 2000. The transactions relating to the use of the funds’ surpluses net out on the government’s consolidated financial statements because, in effect, they represent loans from one part of the government to another." Here - let me repeat in case making it bold didn't work: $247 billion increase in the gov't borrowing from itself in FY2000. Fact: The debt did not decrease under EJC Fact: The government borrowed money from itself to operate under EJC (as it has during many administrations) Running from either, won't make them go away. 'But...we HAD a surplus! We DID! We DID!' The extreme poverty of your position is shown by your nitpicking over whether there was an on or off budget surplus under Clinton. The big picture shows that once GWB took over the administration, with continued GOP control of Congress, the deficit grew to record levels in short order after having declined steadily for several years under the Clinton administration.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #65 July 30, 2008 Quote Wrong again. As per the Comptroller: "Intragovernmental holdings represent balances of Treasury securities held by individual funds … That doesn't contradict anything I've claimed, Vinny. Quote Here - let me repeat in case making it bold didn't work: $247 billion increase in the gov't borrowing from itself in FY2000. And let me repeat, since you seem to be quite fearful of actual numbers. The debt increased by a smaller amount than the holdings of the government increased. In 1999, the amount of the difference was $88.7 billion. In 2000 the amount of the difference was $222.5 billion. If you read your source, you would know know that the government is required by law to invest trust funds in government backed securities. That does not explain how cash holdings of the government increased by a greater amount than the debt. The only way that could occur, given proper accounting (which appears to be the case), is for there to have been a surplus. Quote Fact: The debt did not decrease under EJC No Vinny, I never said it did. Why do you keep bringing up this straw man? Quote Fact: The government borrowed money from itself to operate under EJC (as it has during many administrations) Negative, sailor. The government borrowed money from itself in order to fulfill legislated requirements regarding investments of trust funds. The cash holdings of the government increased by a greater amount than these loans. Quote 'But...we HAD a surplus! We DID! We DID!' Yes, Vinny, we did.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #66 July 30, 2008 Quote You are entitled to your opinion, but not to your own facts. Like DC crime being different because they don't have a Senator, perhaps? Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #67 July 31, 2008 Newsflash: the federal government purchasing federally backed securities IS the gov't borrowing $$ from itself. Odd that the comptroller states this then, eh? "Certain of these trust funds such as the Social Security and federal civilian employee and military retirement trust funds, have been running annual surpluses, which are loaned to the Treasury and reduce the current need for the government to borrow from the public. Primarily as a result of such trust fund surpluses, intragovernmental holdings have increased by approximately $637 billion since September 30, 1997, with about $247 billion of this increase occurring in fiscal year 2000." So you're right and the comptroller is wrong, eh? Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure. Keep dreaming. Your hero, EJC, accomplished a budget surplus that didn't really do a damned thing. Only when ALL entitlement programs are placed on the table for possible cancellation and everyone faces the fact that our current system of entitlements are fiscally unsustainable can the impending budget disaster start to be addressed. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #68 July 31, 2008 Quote Newsflash: the federal government purchasing federally backed securities IS the gov't borrowing $$ from itself. True. I never said otherwise. Quote Odd that the comptroller states this then, eh? Not at all. Why would you think it would be? Quote "Certain of these trust funds such as the Social Security and federal civilian employee and military retirement trust funds, have been running annual surpluses, which are loaned to the Treasury and reduce the current need for the government to borrow from the public. Primarily as a result of such trust fund surpluses, intragovernmental holdings have increased by approximately $637 billion since September 30, 1997, with about $247 billion of this increase occurring in fiscal year 2000." Yes, Vinny Boy. I've read the quote each time you posted it. It's still not relevant to the discussion. Quote So you're right and the comptroller is wrong, eh? Nope. The comptroller and I are not contradicting one another. You just seem to be unable to deal with the reality of WJC being a fiscally responsible President, so you keep posting the same irrelevant quote. Quote Your hero, EJC, accomplished a budget surplus that didn't really do a damned thing. Except bring in more revenue than was spent, something that hadn't happened both on and off budget since 1957. BTW, WJC (you'd better work on those reading skills some more, Vinny Boy; you repeatedly get his initial incorrect, which is not very professional for a military officer, even if it is only the navy ) is not my hero, not by a long shot. He was, however, the most fiscally responsible President the US had seen since Eisenhower and Truman.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #69 July 31, 2008 Work on your own reading comprehension a bit. You are incapable of dealing with the fact that El Jefe Clintonista didn't reduce the debt a damned bit with a BUDGET surplus and executed a fiscal loss every year in office - despite doing a better job than his predecessors. Use whatever accounting tricks you like, the debt has increased every single year for decades. Chortle 'Clinton left a budget surplus' until the cows come home if you like. THE DEBT INCREASED along with gov't IOUs to itself. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #70 July 31, 2008 QuoteWork on your own reading comprehension a bit. You are incapable of dealing with the fact that El Jefe Clintonista [sic] didn't reduce the debt a damned bit with a BUDGET surplus and executed a fiscal loss every year in office - despite doing a better job than his predecessors. Use whatever accounting tricks you like, the debt has increased every single year for decades. Please, Vinny, show us one post in this thread where I have claimed otherwise. Just one. Else, work on those reading skills. By the way, if you understood GAAP, you would be able to understand these simple concepts. There are no accounting tricks necessary to show that receipts were greater than outlays. QuoteChortle 'Clinton left a budget surplus' until the cows come home if you like. THE DEBT INCREASED along with gov't IOUs to itself. The government IOU's are debt, Vinny. The cash on hand in federal accounts increased by amounts greater than the debt increased, in total for four years and without an on or off budget deficit. The latter had not happened in the US since 1956-1957. Four consecutive years of such fiscal responsibility had not occurred since before WWII.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #71 July 31, 2008 Quote Quote You are entitled to your opinion, but not to your own facts. Like DC crime being different because they don't have a Senator, perhaps? Only you have claimed that. And you have tried to claim that DC is a state.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #72 July 31, 2008 Quote Quote Quote You are entitled to your opinion, but not to your own facts. Like DC crime being different because they don't have a Senator, perhaps? Only you have claimed that. And you have tried to claim that DC is a state. He did not, no matter how many times you claim it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #73 July 31, 2008 What I find so INCREDIBLY amazing... is how much you continually SCREAM about Clinton and his administrations policies ( which is now 7 years+ in the past) on nearly everything...such as this about the budget... Yet nary a peep out of you at the record deficits war profiteering... and all the OTHER abuses that George and his band of merry men have bent over the american people with for the last 7 years. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #74 July 31, 2008 Quote What I find so INCREDIBLY amazing... is how much you continually SCREAM about Clinton and his administrations policies ( which is now 7 years+ in the past) on nearly everything...such as this about the budget... Yet nary a peep out of you at the record deficits war profiteering... and all the OTHER abuses that George and his band of merry men have bent over the american people with for the last 7 years. With his imaginative accounting techniques, I'm surprised he even acknowledges that there's a budget deficit under W. at all.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #75 July 31, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote You are entitled to your opinion, but not to your own facts. Like DC crime being different because they don't have a Senator, perhaps? Only you have claimed that. And you have tried to claim that DC is a state. He did not, no matter how many times you claim it. www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3045634#3045634... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
