Alan Simpson Calls GOP Refusal To Raise Revenue ‘Absolute Bullshit’

[CrusaderFrank]

It's fun to watch Jakey melt down. I never thought I was capable of laughing at the suffering of others, but fuck it, this is just too funny.

 

[whitehall]

Simpson was a "tame" republican, the kind democrats keep and feed in cages and visit from time to time. Now he is in the Obama stable. What do you expect him to say?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You use Righty Extremist Fascist code talk to try to force sensible Republicans, like me, out of the GOP. Two words, roadie: fuck on. Two more: I'm staying. Two final: you lose.

"Sensible Republican" is a liberal euphemism meaning "lying moron."

Yes, you Righty Extremist Facists who pretend to be GOP are liars. No doubt about it.

No doubt about it, your just a dyed in the wool true blue progressive liberal.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It's fun to watch Jakey melt down. I never thought I was capable of laughing at the suffering of others, but fuck it, this is just too funny.

Yes it is.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Again that's pure BULLSHIT. Many many times on this board I was against both the Obama ending of the Bush tax cuts and the CON$ervative making them permanent. I said even when CON$ might be right about cutting taxes they are wrong about the taxes they want to cut.

What I said to do to stimulate the economy and create AMERICAN jobs is to REPLACE each of Bush's American job killing tax cuts when they expire, DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR, with a cut in the job killing payroll taxes.
This would give the American wage earner an immediate increase in take home pay to spend on a regular basis without costing the employer a single penny thus stimulating demand, and the businesses that employ Americans would have an immediate cut in the cost of labor without downsizing or outsourcing a single American job as well as saving the cost of compliance. The businesses that employ the most AMERICANS will get the most benefit from my tax cuts, exactly the group of people you would want to benefit most from tax cuts.

Tycoons who increased profits by outsourcing American jobs for cheaper foreign labor, were rewarded by Bush with a tax cut on top of the profit gained at the expense of American jobs. I say their increased profit is reward enough, they don't deserve a tax cut on profit earned at the expense of the American worker. My tax cuts reward people who work and businesses that employ Americans instead.

Bush's tax cuts killed jobs? Can you explain how exactly?

And then, if you get a chance, please show me where in the Bush tax cuts there was a tax cut for outsourcing American jobs.

Spell it out. Be specific. Link to the section of the bill if you can.

Again, another CON$ervative playing dumb, but at least you didn't edit my post.

My post clearly says the tax cut was on the profit earned from outsourcing American jobs. Since you can't understand that, let me put it this way. When tycoons outsourced American jobs they increased their profits. Bush cut taxes on all profits, so therefore Bush cut the taxes on the profits made by outsourcing American jobs.

My tax substitution rewards only businesses that employ Americans, and the businesses that employ the most Americans benefit the most. I do not punish the outsourcing tycoons, but I don't give them a tax cut on the profit made by outsourcing American jobs either.
Get it?

"My post clearly says the tax cut was on the profit earned from outsourcing American jobs"

It says it, but it offers no proof.

"When tycoons outsourced American jobs they increased their profits. Bush cut taxes on all profits"

So there was no tax cut on outsourcing. Thanks. LOL!
Does the tax cut count if the profits aren't repatriated? LOL!

"Tycoons who increased profits by outsourcing American jobs for cheaper foreign labor, were rewarded by Bush with a tax cut"

Foreign tycoons who increased profits by insourcing into America were also rewarded with a tax cut.
Foreign bastards employing Americans! LOL!

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

It's amazing how it is that when a former Rep is no longer in Congress, he finally feels free to say the kind of things he would have felt completely constrained from saying while still in office due to the blowback in party retribution that invariably would have come his way for speaking his mind.

Good observation.

Indeed, it's amazing how some idiots squander years of their lives pretending to be something they're not, leave office and then come out of the closet spewing the nonsense they knew would be denigrated, and rightly so, by the majority of the members in the more sane and sensible Party.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Righty Extremist Fascists like you guys make me sick. Ronald Reagan would tell you bozos to beat it if you can't along with the rest of us. You are a disgrace to the party. You will cost us many, many elections next year, and possible the House. You are such losers.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Righty Extremist Fascists like you guys make me sick. Ronald Reagan would tell you bozos to beat it if you can't along with the rest of us. You are a disgrace to the party. You will cost us many, many elections next year, and possible the House. You are such losers.

It's true, conservatives will cost liberals like you many elections next year.

 

[BenNatuf]

Table 1.1—SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS (&#8722: 1789–2016
(in millions of dollars)
Year Total......................................On-Budget............................Off-Budget
year Gov Receipts Outlays Deficit (&#8722 Receipts Outlays Deficit (&#8722 Receipts Outlays Deficit (&#8722
2001 1,991,082 1,862,846 128,236
2002 1,853,136 2,010,894 -157,758
2003 1,782,314 2,159,899 -377,585
2004 1,880,114 2,292,841 -412,727
2005 2,153,611 2,471,957 -318,346
2006 2,406,869 2,655,050 -248,181
2007 2,567,985 2,728,686 -160,701
2008 2,523,991 2,982,544 -458,553
2009 2,104,989 3,517,677 -1,412,688
2010 2,162,724 3,456,213 -1,293,489

Your chart shows "off budget" spending but NOT off budget supplemental appropriations.

Here is the actual national debt for the years you posted earlier. Subtract one year from the next and you get the real deficit for that year including the off budget SUPPLEMENTAL spending. As you can see the deficit for the year you chose in the above post, 2007, was $500 billion, not the $161 billion you claim.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2010
Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2010
Includes legal tender notes, gold and silver certificates, etc.
The first fiscal year for the U.S. Government started Jan. 1, 1789. Congress changed the beginning of the fiscal year from Jan. 1 to Jul. 1 in 1842, and finally from Jul. 1 to Oct. 1 in 1977 where it remains today.
To find more historical information, visit The Public Debt Historical Information archives.
Date - Dollar Amount
09/30/2010 - $13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 - $11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 - $10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 - $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 - $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 - $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 - $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 - $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 - $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 - $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 - $5,674,178,209,886.86

What kind of fucking moron are you? Off budget include ALL off budget spending including supplemental appropriations. You guys and you ignorant assed denial is just plain stupid. You are aware that treasuries outstanding that have matured are still fucking owed aren't you, the money to redeem them is budgetted. You cannot look at the total debt to figure out what the deficit was, to figure the deficit you look at outlays vs reciepts. And the total fucking deficit for 2007 including ALL on and off budget items was 161B. The other 340B has NOTHING whatever to do with outlays or reciepts in 2007. it could be money owed to the government from 2006 that was not paid in 2007, it could be unredeemed trasuries still on the books, it could be a combination of both, neither of which has a damned thing to do with 2007. What it is NOT is any "hidden" spending on any supplemental appropriation, those are INCLUDED in the final deficit number. No matter how much you want to believe otherwize. My god you fucking liberals are stupid.

BULLSHIT!
That $340 billion has everything to do with the debt racked up in 2007. What ever its source it is not part of the budget numbers posted for the 2007 debt, yet it is part of the 2007 debt. So if you don't like the words "off budget" then how about "Off Accountability Deficit?" Whatever you call it it is still a deficit for 2007 and therefore the 2007 deficit was $500 billion and not $161 billion!!!!
Get it?

Lying or being too stupid to know how to figure out an anual deficit as opposed to what effects annualized debt accumulation does not make your claim any more accurate than it was the first time you lied it.

The Outsanding debt is the ammount of money owed in outstanding treasuries. If trasuries are scheduled to mature in 2007 the money to pay for them is budgetted, if they are unredeemed their outstanding nature remains a part of the debt, but doesn't change one iota the fact that the money to pay for them is budgetted and already included in the anual deficit.

The total deficit iuncluding ALL on and off budget items for 2007 was 161B.

BTW dumbass, using your stupid assed and wrong math Bush was not handed a surplus, the debt went up in 2001.

 

[edthecynic]

Bush's tax cuts killed jobs? Can you explain how exactly?

And then, if you get a chance, please show me where in the Bush tax cuts there was a tax cut for outsourcing American jobs.

Spell it out. Be specific. Link to the section of the bill if you can.

Again, another CON$ervative playing dumb, but at least you didn't edit my post.

My post clearly says the tax cut was on the profit earned from outsourcing American jobs. Since you can't understand that, let me put it this way. When tycoons outsourced American jobs they increased their profits. Bush cut taxes on all profits, so therefore Bush cut the taxes on the profits made by outsourcing American jobs.

My tax substitution rewards only businesses that employ Americans, and the businesses that employ the most Americans benefit the most. I do not punish the outsourcing tycoons, but I don't give them a tax cut on the profit made by outsourcing American jobs either.
Get it?

"My post clearly says the tax cut was on the profit earned from outsourcing American jobs"

It says it, but it offers no proof.

"When tycoons outsourced American jobs they increased their profits. Bush cut taxes on all profits"

So there was no tax cut on outsourcing. Thanks. LOL!
Does the tax cut count if the profits aren't repatriated? LOL!

"Tycoons who increased profits by outsourcing American jobs for cheaper foreign labor, were rewarded by Bush with a tax cut[...]"

Foreign tycoons who increased profits by insourcing into America were also rewarded with a tax cut.
Foreign bastards employing Americans! LOL!

Again milking the patented CON$ervative dumb act.

Even after you quote my post that says the tax cut was on the PROFIT made from outsourcing American jobs, you are still so dumb that you get it wrong!

And when you cut off a quote in mid sentence, an honest person adds an ellipsis.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Again, another CON$ervative playing dumb, but at least you didn't edit my post.

My post clearly says the tax cut was on the profit earned from outsourcing American jobs. Since you can't understand that, let me put it this way. When tycoons outsourced American jobs they increased their profits. Bush cut taxes on all profits, so therefore Bush cut the taxes on the profits made by outsourcing American jobs.

My tax substitution rewards only businesses that employ Americans, and the businesses that employ the most Americans benefit the most. I do not punish the outsourcing tycoons, but I don't give them a tax cut on the profit made by outsourcing American jobs either.
Get it?

"My post clearly says the tax cut was on the profit earned from outsourcing American jobs"

It says it, but it offers no proof.

"When tycoons outsourced American jobs they increased their profits. Bush cut taxes on all profits"

So there was no tax cut on outsourcing. Thanks. LOL!
Does the tax cut count if the profits aren't repatriated? LOL!

"Tycoons who increased profits by outsourcing American jobs for cheaper foreign labor, were rewarded by Bush with a tax cut[...]"

Foreign tycoons who increased profits by insourcing into America were also rewarded with a tax cut.
Foreign bastards employing Americans! LOL!

Again milking the patented CON$ervative dumb act.

Even after you quote my post that says the tax cut was on the PROFIT made from outsourcing American jobs, you are still so dumb that you get it wrong!

And when you cut off a quote in mid sentence, an honest person adds an ellipsis.

I get that instead of saying all corporations got a tax cut (truth) you said they got a tax cut for outsourcing American jobs (lie).
Yeah, I got it.

Instead of cutting corporate taxes to make America more attractive to business, you want to raise rates to make it less attractive.
Then when your hikes cost jobs and don't increase tax revenues, you'll whine some more about big bad business. LOL!

 

[edthecynic]

Table 1.1—SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS (&#8722: 1789–2016
(in millions of dollars)
Year Total......................................On-Budget............................Off-Budget
year Gov Receipts Outlays Deficit (&#8722 Receipts Outlays Deficit (&#8722 Receipts Outlays Deficit (&#8722
2001 1,991,082 1,862,846 128,236
2002 1,853,136 2,010,894 -157,758
2003 1,782,314 2,159,899 -377,585
2004 1,880,114 2,292,841 -412,727
2005 2,153,611 2,471,957 -318,346
2006 2,406,869 2,655,050 -248,181
2007 2,567,985 2,728,686 -160,701
2008 2,523,991 2,982,544 -458,553
2009 2,104,989 3,517,677 -1,412,688
2010 2,162,724 3,456,213 -1,293,489

What kind of fucking moron are you? Off budget include ALL off budget spending including supplemental appropriations. You guys and you ignorant assed denial is just plain stupid. You are aware that treasuries outstanding that have matured are still fucking owed aren't you, the money to redeem them is budgetted. You cannot look at the total debt to figure out what the deficit was, to figure the deficit you look at outlays vs reciepts. And the total fucking deficit for 2007 including ALL on and off budget items was 161B. The other 340B has NOTHING whatever to do with outlays or reciepts in 2007. it could be money owed to the government from 2006 that was not paid in 2007, it could be unredeemed trasuries still on the books, it could be a combination of both, neither of which has a damned thing to do with 2007. What it is NOT is any "hidden" spending on any supplemental appropriation, those are INCLUDED in the final deficit number. No matter how much you want to believe otherwize. My god you fucking liberals are stupid.

BULLSHIT!
That $340 billion has everything to do with the debt racked up in 2007. What ever its source it is not part of the budget numbers posted for the 2007 debt, yet it is part of the 2007 debt. So if you don't like the words "off budget" then how about "Off Accountability Deficit?" Whatever you call it it is still a deficit for 2007 and therefore the 2007 deficit was $500 billion and not $161 billion!!!!
Get it?

Lying or being too stupid to know how to figure out an anual deficit as opposed to what effects annualized debt accumulation does not make your claim any more accurate than it was the first time you lied it.

The Outsanding debt is the ammount of money owed in outstanding treasuries. If trasuries are scheduled to mature in 2007 the money to pay for them is budgetted, if they are unredeemed their outstanding nature remains a part of the debt, but doesn't change one iota the fact that the money to pay for them is budgetted and already included in the anual deficit.

The total deficit iuncluding ALL on and off budget items for 2007 was 161B.

BTW dumbass, using your stupid assed and wrong math Bush was not handed a surplus, the debt went up in 2001.

The total deficit for 2007 was $500 billion, the numbers are plain as day. If the deficit was only $161, then the national debt can't be $1.4+ trillion.

You obviously know you are wrong or you wouldn't have desperately tried to change the subject to a 2001 surplus that I never said was a surplus.
Thank You.

BTW, CON$ habitually say there was no surplus in 2000 or 2001.

 

[BenNatuf]

Table 1.1—SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS (&#8722: 1789–2016
(in millions of dollars)
Year Total......................................On-Budget............................Off-Budget
year Gov Receipts Outlays Deficit (&#8722 Receipts Outlays Deficit (&#8722 Receipts Outlays Deficit (&#8722
2001 1,991,082 1,862,846 128,236
2002 1,853,136 2,010,894 -157,758
2003 1,782,314 2,159,899 -377,585
2004 1,880,114 2,292,841 -412,727
2005 2,153,611 2,471,957 -318,346
2006 2,406,869 2,655,050 -248,181
2007 2,567,985 2,728,686 -160,701
2008 2,523,991 2,982,544 -458,553
2009 2,104,989 3,517,677 -1,412,688
2010 2,162,724 3,456,213 -1,293,489

BULLSHIT!
That $340 billion has everything to do with the debt racked up in 2007. What ever its source it is not part of the budget numbers posted for the 2007 debt, yet it is part of the 2007 debt. So if you don't like the words "off budget" then how about "Off Accountability Deficit?" Whatever you call it it is still a deficit for 2007 and therefore the 2007 deficit was $500 billion and not $161 billion!!!!
Get it?

Lying or being too stupid to know how to figure out an anual deficit as opposed to what effects annualized debt accumulation does not make your claim any more accurate than it was the first time you lied it.

The Outsanding debt is the ammount of money owed in outstanding treasuries. If trasuries are scheduled to mature in 2007 the money to pay for them is budgetted, if they are unredeemed their outstanding nature remains a part of the debt, but doesn't change one iota the fact that the money to pay for them is budgetted and already included in the anual deficit.

The total deficit iuncluding ALL on and off budget items for 2007 was 161B.

BTW dumbass, using your stupid assed and wrong math Bush was not handed a surplus, the debt went up in 2001.

The total deficit for 2007 was $500 billion, the numbers are plain as day. If the deficit was only $161, then the national debt can't be $1.4+ trillion.

You obviously know you are wrong or you wouldn't have desperately tried to change the subject to a 2001 surplus that I never said was a surplus.
Thank You.

BTW, CON$ habitually say there was no surplus in 2000 or 2001.

That you are either too stupid or too stuborn to admit you no jack shit about the difference between anualized debt accumulation and anual deficits does not change the fact that they are what they are. And what the fuck do I care what other people who are as wrong as you are say?

The total deficit for 2007 was 161B, 340B that was accounted for in the budget remained outstanding as treasuries. Redeeming them does not increase the deficit one cent, they are already accounted for. Deficit and debt are not the same thing and conflating them as you are does not make them the same thing.

Now, is it that you're too stuborn to admit the difference, or too stupid to understand it?

 

[edthecynic]

"My post clearly says the tax cut was on the profit earned from outsourcing American jobs"

It says it, but it offers no proof.

"When tycoons outsourced American jobs they increased their profits. Bush cut taxes on all profits"

So there was no tax cut on outsourcing. Thanks. LOL!
Does the tax cut count if the profits aren't repatriated? LOL!

"Tycoons who increased profits by outsourcing American jobs for cheaper foreign labor, were rewarded by Bush with a tax cut[...]"

Foreign tycoons who increased profits by insourcing into America were also rewarded with a tax cut.
Foreign bastards employing Americans! LOL!

Again milking the patented CON$ervative dumb act.

Even after you quote my post that says the tax cut was on the PROFIT made from outsourcing American jobs, you are still so dumb that you get it wrong!

And when you cut off a quote in mid sentence, an honest person adds an ellipsis.

I get that instead of saying all corporations got a tax cut (truth) you said they got a tax cut for outsourcing American jobs (lie).
Yeah, I got it.

Instead of cutting corporate taxes to make America more attractive to business, you want to raise rates to make it less attractive.
Then when your hikes cost jobs and don't increase tax revenues, you'll whine some more about big bad business. LOL!

My post clearly says the tax cut was on the profit earned from outsourcing American jobs. Since you can't understand that, let me put it this way. When tycoons outsourced American jobs they increased their profits. Bush cut taxes on all profits, so therefore Bush cut the taxes on the profits made by outsourcing American jobs.

My tax substitution rewards only businesses that employ Americans, and the businesses that employ the most Americans benefit the most. I do not punish the outsourcing tycoons, but I don't give them a tax cut on the profit made by outsourcing American jobs either.
Get it?

You are beating a dead horse with that never ending dumb act!!!

 

[edthecynic]

Lying or being too stupid to know how to figure out an anual deficit as opposed to what effects annualized debt accumulation does not make your claim any more accurate than it was the first time you lied it.

The Outsanding debt is the ammount of money owed in outstanding treasuries. If trasuries are scheduled to mature in 2007 the money to pay for them is budgetted, if they are unredeemed their outstanding nature remains a part of the debt, but doesn't change one iota the fact that the money to pay for them is budgetted and already included in the anual deficit.

The total deficit iuncluding ALL on and off budget items for 2007 was 161B.

BTW dumbass, using your stupid assed and wrong math Bush was not handed a surplus, the debt went up in 2001.

The total deficit for 2007 was $500 billion, the numbers are plain as day. If the deficit was only $161, then the national debt can't be $1.4+ trillion.

You obviously know you are wrong or you wouldn't have desperately tried to change the subject to a 2001 surplus that I never said was a surplus.
Thank You.

BTW, CON$ habitually say there was no surplus in 2000 or 2001.

That you are either too stupid or too stuborn to admit you no jack shit about the difference between anualized debt accumulation and anual deficits does not change the fact that they are what they are. And what the fuck do I care what other people who are as wrong as you are say?

The total deficit for 2007 was 161B, 340B that was accounted for in the budget remained outstanding as treasuries. Redeeming them does not increase the deficit one cent, they are already accounted for. Deficit and debt are not the same thing and conflating them as you are does not make them the same thing.

Now, is it that you're too stuborn to admit the difference, or too stupid to understand it?

First of all, you have not shown them to be outstanding treasuries, but
if redeeming them has no effect on the deficit then how did the debt increase $340 billion over the $161 billion? They are clearly some kind of deficit that accumulates year after year and does not go away. They are obviously "accounted for" as part of the 2007 deficit.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Again milking the patented CON$ervative dumb act.

Even after you quote my post that says the tax cut was on the PROFIT made from outsourcing American jobs, you are still so dumb that you get it wrong!

And when you cut off a quote in mid sentence, an honest person adds an ellipsis.

I get that instead of saying all corporations got a tax cut (truth) you said they got a tax cut for outsourcing American jobs (lie).
Yeah, I got it.

Instead of cutting corporate taxes to make America more attractive to business, you want to raise rates to make it less attractive.
Then when your hikes cost jobs and don't increase tax revenues, you'll whine some more about big bad business. LOL!

My post clearly says the tax cut was on the profit earned from outsourcing American jobs. Since you can't understand that, let me put it this way. When tycoons outsourced American jobs they increased their profits. Bush cut taxes on all profits, so therefore Bush cut the taxes on the profits made by outsourcing American jobs.

My tax substitution rewards only businesses that employ Americans, and the businesses that employ the most Americans benefit the most. I do not punish the outsourcing tycoons, but I don't give them a tax cut on the profit made by outsourcing American jobs either.
Get it?

You are beating a dead horse with that never ending dumb act!!!

Bush cut taxes on companies that insourced jobs. Bastard!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Again milking the patented CON$ervative dumb act.

Even after you quote my post that says the tax cut was on the PROFIT made from outsourcing American jobs, you are still so dumb that you get it wrong!

And when you cut off a quote in mid sentence, an honest person adds an ellipsis.

I get that instead of saying all corporations got a tax cut (truth) you said they got a tax cut for outsourcing American jobs (lie).
Yeah, I got it.

Instead of cutting corporate taxes to make America more attractive to business, you want to raise rates to make it less attractive.
Then when your hikes cost jobs and don't increase tax revenues, you'll whine some more about big bad business. LOL!

My post clearly says the tax cut was on the profit earned from outsourcing American jobs. Since you can't understand that, let me put it this way. When tycoons outsourced American jobs they increased their profits. Bush cut taxes on all profits, so therefore Bush cut the taxes on the profits made by outsourcing American jobs.

My tax substitution rewards only businesses that employ Americans, and the businesses that employ the most Americans benefit the most. I do not punish the outsourcing tycoons, but I don't give them a tax cut on the profit made by outsourcing American jobs either.
Get it?

You are beating a dead horse with that never ending dumb act!!!

Nope you've got that market covered.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I get that instead of saying all corporations got a tax cut (truth) you said they got a tax cut for outsourcing American jobs (lie).
Yeah, I got it.

Instead of cutting corporate taxes to make America more attractive to business, you want to raise rates to make it less attractive.
Then when your hikes cost jobs and don't increase tax revenues, you'll whine some more about big bad business. LOL!

My post clearly says the tax cut was on the profit earned from outsourcing American jobs. Since you can't understand that, let me put it this way. When tycoons outsourced American jobs they increased their profits. Bush cut taxes on all profits, so therefore Bush cut the taxes on the profits made by outsourcing American jobs.

My tax substitution rewards only businesses that employ Americans, and the businesses that employ the most Americans benefit the most. I do not punish the outsourcing tycoons, but I don't give them a tax cut on the profit made by outsourcing American jobs either.
Get it?

You are beating a dead horse with that never ending dumb act!!!

Bush cut taxes on companies that insourced jobs. Bastard!

Damn him.

 

[BenNatuf]

The total deficit for 2007 was $500 billion, the numbers are plain as day. If the deficit was only $161, then the national debt can't be $1.4+ trillion.

You obviously know you are wrong or you wouldn't have desperately tried to change the subject to a 2001 surplus that I never said was a surplus.
Thank You.

BTW, CON$ habitually say there was no surplus in 2000 or 2001.

That you are either too stupid or too stuborn to admit you no jack shit about the difference between anualized debt accumulation and anual deficits does not change the fact that they are what they are. And what the fuck do I care what other people who are as wrong as you are say?

The total deficit for 2007 was 161B, 340B that was accounted for in the budget remained outstanding as treasuries. Redeeming them does not increase the deficit one cent, they are already accounted for. Deficit and debt are not the same thing and conflating them as you are does not make them the same thing.

Now, is it that you're too stuborn to admit the difference, or too stupid to understand it?

First of all, you have not shown them to be outstanding treasuries, but
if redeeming them has no effect on the deficit then how did the debt increase $340 billion over the $161 billion? They are clearly some kind of deficit that accumulates year after year and does not go away. They are obviously "accounted for" as part of the 2007 deficit.

so, then it's just that you're too stupid to understand the difference. OK.


The money to pay for the outstanding treasuries due that year is budgetted and already included in the deficit.

The debt is the measure of OUTSTASNDING treasuries, which means that if a treasury matures but is not redeemed it remains on the books even though the money to pay for it is already budgetted.

When or if this treasury is redeemed after it matures has no bearing whatsoever on the final deficit numbers as its already paid for. That is why the deficit can be 161B but overall outstanding treasuries do not match it.

total anual deficit measures the ammount of money that is spent over what is collected in one year including what is budgetted to redeem treasuries

total anualized outstanding debt measures the total ammount of outstanding treasuries from year to year including those which go unredeemed from any year

Those treasuries due in any given year have already been paid for in the budget that year, they just haven't been redeemed from the books.

they do not measure the same thing.

Now, go anywhere you'd like and find somewhere... anywhere, that shows that supplemental appropriations are not included in the off budget outlays that are a part of the "total deficit" when combined with on budget outlays and reciepts, and off budget reciepts.

good luck Mr. Phelps.

 

[edthecynic]

That you are either too stupid or too stuborn to admit you no jack shit about the difference between anualized debt accumulation and anual deficits does not change the fact that they are what they are. And what the fuck do I care what other people who are as wrong as you are say?

The total deficit for 2007 was 161B, 340B that was accounted for in the budget remained outstanding as treasuries. Redeeming them does not increase the deficit one cent, they are already accounted for. Deficit and debt are not the same thing and conflating them as you are does not make them the same thing.

Now, is it that you're too stuborn to admit the difference, or too stupid to understand it?

First of all, you have not shown them to be outstanding treasuries, but
if redeeming them has no effect on the deficit then how did the debt increase $340 billion over the $161 billion? They are clearly some kind of deficit that accumulates year after year and does not go away. They are obviously "accounted for" as part of the 2007 deficit.

so, then it's just that you're too stupid to understand the difference. OK.


The money to pay for the outstanding treasuries due that year is budgetted and already included in the deficit.

The debt is the measure of OUTSTASNDING treasuries, which means that if a treasury matures but is not redeemed it remains on the books even though the money to pay for it is already budgetted.

When or if this treasury is redeemed after it matures has no bearing whatsoever on the final deficit numbers as its already paid for. That is why the deficit can be 161B but overall outstanding treasuries do not match it.

total anual deficit measures the ammount of money that is spent over what is collected in one year including what is budgetted to redeem treasuries

total anualized outstanding debt measures the total ammount of outstanding treasuries from year to year including those which go unredeemed from any year

Those treasuries due in any given year have already been paid for in the budget that year, they just haven't been redeemed from the books.

they do not measure the same thing.

Now, go anywhere you'd like and find somewhere... anywhere, that shows that supplemental appropriations are not included in the off budget outlays that are a part of the "total deficit" when combined with on budget outlays and reciepts, and off budget reciepts.

good luck Mr. Phelps.

It has to be paid for with something, it is not kept in a lock box. The treasury was obviously borrowed from to the tune of $340 billion to get the "deficit" to $161 billion. That makes the 2007 deficit $500 billion as shown by the $500 billion increase in the national debt for 2007.