Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
As I said, you a clearly too stupid to understand the difference.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.so, then it's just that you're too stupid to understand the difference. OK.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.
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.
If it was already included in the $161 billion deficit then the national debt would not have increased by the $5000 billion which it did. It would have only increased by $161 billion, which it didn't.As I said, you a clearly too stupid to understand the difference.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.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.
There was no additional 340B borrowed in 2007 that incresed the debt, there was 340B in unredeemed treasuries which did not lower it. The money to do so is there, it's already budggetted and it's already included in the 161B deficit.
Treasuries are not "borrowed", they are sold. And treasuries are not "the treasury".
like I said you are clearly to stupid to understandIf it was already included in the $161 billion deficit then the national debt would not have increased by the $5000 billion which it did. It would have only increased by $161 billion, which it didn't.As I said, you a clearly too stupid to understand the difference.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.
There was no additional 340B borrowed in 2007 that incresed the debt, there was 340B in unredeemed treasuries which did not lower it. The money to do so is there, it's already budggetted and it's already included in the 161B deficit.
Treasuries are not "borrowed", they are sold. And treasuries are not "the treasury".
And treasuries are "sold" as bonds to the FED. Bonds are money borrowed that has to be paid back with interest.
But the national debt DID increase in 2007 by $500 billion. If the treasuries have no effect on the deficit or the debt since they are already budgeted, then they can't be the reason that the national debt increased by $500 billion in 2007 instead of $161 billion. So we are back to Bush's budget gimmicks understating the real deficit for 2007.like I said you are clearly to stupid to understandIf it was already included in the $161 billion deficit then the national debt would not have increased by the $5000 billion which it did. It would have only increased by $161 billion, which it didn't.As I said, you a clearly too stupid to understand the difference.
There was no additional 340B borrowed in 2007 that incresed the debt, there was 340B in unredeemed treasuries which did not lower it. The money to do so is there, it's already budggetted and it's already included in the 161B deficit.
Treasuries are not "borrowed", they are sold. And treasuries are not "the treasury".
And treasuries are "sold" as bonds to the FED. Bonds are money borrowed that has to be paid back with interest.
treasuries are sold to anyone who will buy them at auction, the fed buying most of them is a relatively recent developement thats a result of the fed and Obama's policy to monitize the debt.
When money is budgetted to redeem matured treasuries each year the treasury is given the spending authority and the "money" is transferred to their account. It is part of the yearly budget and included in the anual deficit. if no-one brings in their treasuries to redeem it has no effect on the anual deficit, the money is already budgetted. It will however stay on the "total outstanding debt" as, as long as it goes unredeemed it is still "outstanding". They are measures of two different things.
One measures the difference between outlays and reciepts in one year.
The other measures the total ammount of treasuries that are outstanding.
redeeming a treasury that has already been budgetted for will decrease the debt, but it will not increase the deficit.
failing to redeem a treasury that has been budgetted for will not LOWER the debt the expected ammount or increase the deficit.
Class is over.
The deficit for 2007 was not $500 billion.Your chart shows "off budget" spending but NOT off budget supplemental appropriations.and you are the poster child for idiots who can't read a chart. The chart dumbass has the total deficit, the on budget deficit and the off budget SURPLUS. the total deficit including both ON budget and OFF budget items in 2007 was 161B. The wars are still paid for with off budget supplemental appropriations not as part of the defence budget... Obama lied to you... again.Benny, you are the poster child for neocon willful ignorance and partisan hackery. Observe and learn:
Did the Bush administration include the cost of the war in its 2005 budget?No. Instead, it plans to ask for funding in the form of supplemental appropriations from Congress in early 2005. This has led some critics to charge that the Bush administration is trying to hide the cost of the war from American voters. We must give the troops what they need to be successful under increasingly risky conditions. And the president must tell the hard truth to the American people about how much longer our troops will remain in Iraq and how much more it will cost, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said May 5. The Bush administration says it cant estimate the costs because it does not know how many soldiers it will keep in Iraq and under what conditions they will serve. One solution: the Bush administration could have budgeted $30 billion to $50 billion assuming the war would cost at least that much. It was a policy decision [not to], Holtz-Eakin says.
IRAQ: The war's price tag - Council on Foreign Relations
Finally, we should point out that the procedure used by the administration to fund the Iraq war was chosen deliberately in order to deflect close attention. The administration has requested nearly all the money for the war in the form of emergency funding, which is not subject to standard budget caps or vigorous scrutiny. Emergency funding is intended for genuine crises, such as Hurricane Katrina, where the utmost speed is required to get the money to the field. The continued use of this emergency procedurefive years after the war beganis budgetary sleight of hand that makes a mockery of a democratic budget process.
The $3 Trillion War | Politics | Vanity Fair
The presidents defense budget does seem to get high marks across the political spectrum for its transparency in accounting for the true cost of the war; President Bush was often criticized for tucking war expenses into various line items that were hard to add up consistently. As Bob Work, a vice president at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, put it, People can say this budget is wrong, but it is very upfront.
The Economic Cost of War in Iraq and Afghanistan - NYTimes.com
The chart dumbass is not a chart of projections based on the proposed budget it is a chart of ACTUAL deficit numbers. No matter how your left wing hero's try to spin it those are the numbers and they are ALL of the numbers including spending for the wars and katrina.
Also dumbfuck, if you bother to look at the chart you'll notice that OFF Budget spending (which you seem to dislike) has incresed about 20% under Obama from an average of less than 430M under Bush to more than 530M under Obama while reciepts have stayed the same.
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
No it didn't.But the national debt DID increase in 2007 by $500 billion.like I said you are clearly to stupid to understandIf it was already included in the $161 billion deficit then the national debt would not have increased by the $5000 billion which it did. It would have only increased by $161 billion, which it didn't.
And treasuries are "sold" as bonds to the FED. Bonds are money borrowed that has to be paid back with interest.
treasuries are sold to anyone who will buy them at auction, the fed buying most of them is a relatively recent developement thats a result of the fed and Obama's policy to monitize the debt.
When money is budgetted to redeem matured treasuries each year the treasury is given the spending authority and the "money" is transferred to their account. It is part of the yearly budget and included in the anual deficit. if no-one brings in their treasuries to redeem it has no effect on the anual deficit, the money is already budgetted. It will however stay on the "total outstanding debt" as, as long as it goes unredeemed it is still "outstanding". They are measures of two different things.
One measures the difference between outlays and reciepts in one year.
The other measures the total ammount of treasuries that are outstanding.
redeeming a treasury that has already been budgetted for will decrease the debt, but it will not increase the deficit.
failing to redeem a treasury that has been budgetted for will not LOWER the debt the expected ammount or increase the deficit.
Class is over.
Gods but you are one stupid fuck.But the national debt DID increase in 2007 by $500 billion. If the treasuries have no effect on the deficit or the debt since they are already budgeted, then they can't be the reason that the national debt increased by $500 billion in 2007 instead of $161 billion. So we are back to Bush's budget gimmicks understating the real deficit for 2007.like I said you are clearly to stupid to understandIf it was already included in the $161 billion deficit then the national debt would not have increased by the $5000 billion which it did. It would have only increased by $161 billion, which it didn't.
And treasuries are "sold" as bonds to the FED. Bonds are money borrowed that has to be paid back with interest.
treasuries are sold to anyone who will buy them at auction, the fed buying most of them is a relatively recent developement thats a result of the fed and Obama's policy to monitize the debt.
When money is budgetted to redeem matured treasuries each year the treasury is given the spending authority and the "money" is transferred to their account. It is part of the yearly budget and included in the anual deficit. if no-one brings in their treasuries to redeem it has no effect on the anual deficit, the money is already budgetted. It will however stay on the "total outstanding debt" as, as long as it goes unredeemed it is still "outstanding". They are measures of two different things.
One measures the difference between outlays and reciepts in one year.
The other measures the total ammount of treasuries that are outstanding.
redeeming a treasury that has already been budgetted for will decrease the debt, but it will not increase the deficit.
failing to redeem a treasury that has been budgetted for will not LOWER the debt the expected ammount or increase the deficit.
Class is over.
Class is over.
The deficit for 2007 WAS $500 billion, the public debt is not all the debt, as you well know. Of course, to CON$ money borrowed from pension funds and Social Security doesn't have to be paid back because the people who paid into these funds for 50 years are not worth anything because they don't create jobs and therefore deserve to be defaulted on. CON$ love defaulting on American wage earners.The deficit for 2007 was not $500 billion.Your chart shows "off budget" spending but NOT off budget supplemental appropriations.and you are the poster child for idiots who can't read a chart. The chart dumbass has the total deficit, the on budget deficit and the off budget SURPLUS. the total deficit including both ON budget and OFF budget items in 2007 was 161B. The wars are still paid for with off budget supplemental appropriations not as part of the defence budget... Obama lied to you... again.
The chart dumbass is not a chart of projections based on the proposed budget it is a chart of ACTUAL deficit numbers. No matter how your left wing hero's try to spin it those are the numbers and they are ALL of the numbers including spending for the wars and katrina.
Also dumbfuck, if you bother to look at the chart you'll notice that OFF Budget spending (which you seem to dislike) has incresed about 20% under Obama from an average of less than 430M under Bush to more than 530M under Obama while reciepts have stayed the same.
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
Debt held by the public did not increase by $500 billion.
It went from from $4.843 trillion on 9/29/2006 to $5.049 trillion on 9/28/2007
Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)
The deficit for 2007 WAS $500 billion, the public debt is not all the debt, as you well know. Of course, to CON$ money borrowed from pension funds and Social Security doesn't have to be paid back because the people who paid into these funds for 50 years are not worth anything because they don't create jobs and therefore deserve to be defaulted on. CON$ love defaulting on American wage earners.The deficit for 2007 was not $500 billion.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
Debt held by the public did not increase by $500 billion.
It went from from $4.843 trillion on 9/29/2006 to $5.049 trillion on 9/28/2007
Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)
Now by your moronic "logic" we are not $14+ trillion in debt today, but only $9.759 trillion and nowhere near the debt ceiling.
You can't even keep up with your own bullshit and you expect me to swallow it.Gods but you are one stupid fuck.But the national debt DID increase in 2007 by $500 billion. If the treasuries have no effect on the deficit or the debt since they are already budgeted, then they can't be the reason that the national debt increased by $500 billion in 2007 instead of $161 billion. So we are back to Bush's budget gimmicks understating the real deficit for 2007.like I said you are clearly to stupid to understand
treasuries are sold to anyone who will buy them at auction, the fed buying most of them is a relatively recent developement thats a result of the fed and Obama's policy to monitize the debt.
When money is budgetted to redeem matured treasuries each year the treasury is given the spending authority and the "money" is transferred to their account. It is part of the yearly budget and included in the anual deficit. if no-one brings in their treasuries to redeem it has no effect on the anual deficit, the money is already budgetted. It will however stay on the "total outstanding debt" as, as long as it goes unredeemed it is still "outstanding". They are measures of two different things.
One measures the difference between outlays and reciepts in one year.
The other measures the total ammount of treasuries that are outstanding.
redeeming a treasury that has already been budgetted for will decrease the debt, but it will not increase the deficit.
failing to redeem a treasury that has been budgetted for will not LOWER the debt the expected ammount or increase the deficit.
Class is over.
Class is over.
When did I ever say treasuries did not effect the debt? Treasuries are the fucking debt dumbass. I also never claimed treasuries didn't effect the deficit, certainly budgetting to pay for those that are due does, as does selling them in the first place... and it's a part of the 161B 2007 budget deficit.
What I said was treasuries which have been budgetted for and have matured which go unredeemed do not increase the deficit (they are already counted in it) or lower the debt.
If you have a treasury thats matured in 2007 and don't redeem it until 2008, when you go in to redeem it it does not increase the deficit in 2007, and it costs no money in 2008 (the money to redeem it was already "spent" in 2007 and included in that years budget deficit). It would lower the debt though. The result is the total outstanding debt in 2007 appears higher because of the delay in redemption even though no more money was borrowed.
do try to keep up.
BULLSHIT!The deficit for 2007 WAS $500 billion, the public debt is not all the debt, as you well know. Of course, to CON$ money borrowed from pension funds and Social Security doesn't have to be paid back because the people who paid into these funds for 50 years are not worth anything because they don't create jobs and therefore deserve to be defaulted on. CON$ love defaulting on American wage earners.The deficit for 2007 was not $500 billion.
Debt held by the public did not increase by $500 billion.
It went from from $4.843 trillion on 9/29/2006 to $5.049 trillion on 9/28/2007
Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)
Now by your moronic "logic" we are not $14+ trillion in debt today, but only $9.759 trillion and nowhere near the debt ceiling.
LBJ added Social Security to the overall budget.
So the difference between the overall deficit and the $500 billion you keep whining about is the Social Security "surplus".
We aren't $14 trillion in debt, but according to the budget rules we have to add the "intragovernmental debt" to the real debt for purposes of the debt ceiling.
There was not $340 billion in debt incurred in 2007. There was not $500 billion incurred.You can't even keep up with your own bullshit and you expect me to swallow it.Gods but you are one stupid fuck.But the national debt DID increase in 2007 by $500 billion. If the treasuries have no effect on the deficit or the debt since they are already budgeted, then they can't be the reason that the national debt increased by $500 billion in 2007 instead of $161 billion. So we are back to Bush's budget gimmicks understating the real deficit for 2007.
Class is over.
When did I ever say treasuries did not effect the debt? Treasuries are the fucking debt dumbass. I also never claimed treasuries didn't effect the deficit, certainly budgetting to pay for those that are due does, as does selling them in the first place... and it's a part of the 161B 2007 budget deficit.
What I said was treasuries which have been budgetted for and have matured which go unredeemed do not increase the deficit (they are already counted in it) or lower the debt.
If you have a treasury thats matured in 2007 and don't redeem it until 2008, when you go in to redeem it it does not increase the deficit in 2007, and it costs no money in 2008 (the money to redeem it was already "spent" in 2007 and included in that years budget deficit). It would lower the debt though. The result is the total outstanding debt in 2007 appears higher because of the delay in redemption even though no more money was borrowed.
do try to keep up.
First you said that the $340 billion difference between the $500 billion increase in the national debt and the $161 deficit you claimed for 2007 was treasuries and not part of the deficit. Now you admit that treasuries are debt but are part of the $161 billion deficit. How a larger number can be PART of a smaller number only makes cents (pun intended) in CON$ervative "fuzzy math." Again if the $340 billion in debt incurred in 2007 was part of the $161 billion deficit, why did the national debt increase by $500 billion and not $161 billion? Obviously the $340 billion, which you have yet to prove is in treasuries, is some kind of deficit that is NOT included in the phony $161 billion Bush 2007 deficit.
do try to keep up.
The SS surplus is included in the on budget numbers and in 2007 was 190B. You are right about intragovernmental debt though and it's likely that the entire 340B in unredeemed treasuries is all government held debt and more than likely SS. Which even if it was redeemed would still not increase the deficit from 161B since it's already budgetted.The deficit for 2007 WAS $500 billion, the public debt is not all the debt, as you well know. Of course, to CON$ money borrowed from pension funds and Social Security doesn't have to be paid back because the people who paid into these funds for 50 years are not worth anything because they don't create jobs and therefore deserve to be defaulted on. CON$ love defaulting on American wage earners.The deficit for 2007 was not $500 billion.
Debt held by the public did not increase by $500 billion.
It went from from $4.843 trillion on 9/29/2006 to $5.049 trillion on 9/28/2007
Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)
Now by your moronic "logic" we are not $14+ trillion in debt today, but only $9.759 trillion and nowhere near the debt ceiling.
LBJ added Social Security to the overall budget.
So the difference between the overall deficit and the $500 billion you keep whining about is the Social Security "surplus".
We aren't $14 trillion in debt, but according to the budget rules we have to add the "intragovernmental debt" to the real debt for purposes of the debt ceiling.
Historical Tables | The White House[/QUOTE]Table 1.1SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS (−: 17892016
(in millions of dollars)
Year Total......................................On-Budget............................Off-Budget
year Gov Receipts Outlays Deficit (−
2001 1,991,082 1,862,846 128,236 1,483,563 1,516,008 -32,445 507,519 346,838 160,681
2002 1,853,136 2,010,894 -157,758 1,337,815 1,655,232 -317,417 515,321 355,662 159,659
2003 1,782,314 2,159,899 -377,585 1,258,472 1,796,890 -538,418 523,842 363,009 160,833
2004 1,880,114 2,292,841 -412,727 1,345,369 1,913,330 -567,961 534,745 379,511 155,234
2005 2,153,611 2,471,957 -318,346 1,576,135 2,069,746 -493,611 577,476 402,211 175,265
2006 2,406,869 2,655,050 -248,181 1,798,487 2,232,981 -434,494 608,382 422,069 186,313
2007 2,567,985 2,728,686 -160,701 1,932,896 2,275,049 -342,153 635,089 453,637 181,452
2008 2,523,991 2,982,544 -458,553 1,865,945 2,507,793 -641,848 658,046 474,751 183,295
2009 2,104,989 3,517,677 -1,412,688 1,450,980 3,000,661 -1,549,681 654,009 517,016 136,993
2010 2,162,724 3,456,213 -1,293,489 1,531,037 2,901,531 -1,370,494 631,687 554,682 77,005
Your lack of basic reading co0mprehension skills is not a problem for me.You can't even keep up with your own bullshit and you expect me to swallow it.Gods but you are one stupid fuck.But the national debt DID increase in 2007 by $500 billion. If the treasuries have no effect on the deficit or the debt since they are already budgeted, then they can't be the reason that the national debt increased by $500 billion in 2007 instead of $161 billion. So we are back to Bush's budget gimmicks understating the real deficit for 2007.
Class is over.
When did I ever say treasuries did not effect the debt? Treasuries are the fucking debt dumbass. I also never claimed treasuries didn't effect the deficit, certainly budgetting to pay for those that are due does, as does selling them in the first place... and it's a part of the 161B 2007 budget deficit.
What I said was treasuries which have been budgetted for and have matured which go unredeemed do not increase the deficit (they are already counted in it) or lower the debt.
If you have a treasury thats matured in 2007 and don't redeem it until 2008, when you go in to redeem it it does not increase the deficit in 2007, and it costs no money in 2008 (the money to redeem it was already "spent" in 2007 and included in that years budget deficit). It would lower the debt though. The result is the total outstanding debt in 2007 appears higher because of the delay in redemption even though no more money was borrowed.
do try to keep up.
First you said that the $340 billion difference between the $500 billion increase in the national debt and the $161 deficit you claimed for 2007 was treasuries and not part of the deficit. Now you admit that treasuries are debt but are part of the $161 billion deficit. How a larger number can be PART of a smaller number only makes cents (pun intended) in CON$ervative "fuzzy math." Again if the $340 billion in debt incurred in 2007 was part of the $161 billion deficit, why did the national debt increase by $500 billion and not $161 billion? Obviously the $340 billion, which you have yet to prove is in treasuries, is some kind of deficit that is NOT included in the phony $161 billion Bush 2007 deficit.
do try to keep up.
BULLSHIT!The deficit for 2007 WAS $500 billion, the public debt is not all the debt, as you well know. Of course, to CON$ money borrowed from pension funds and Social Security doesn't have to be paid back because the people who paid into these funds for 50 years are not worth anything because they don't create jobs and therefore deserve to be defaulted on. CON$ love defaulting on American wage earners.
Now by your moronic "logic" we are not $14+ trillion in debt today, but only $9.759 trillion and nowhere near the debt ceiling.
LBJ added Social Security to the overall budget.
So the difference between the overall deficit and the $500 billion you keep whining about is the Social Security "surplus".
We aren't $14 trillion in debt, but according to the budget rules we have to add the "intragovernmental debt" to the real debt for purposes of the debt ceiling.
Social Security History FAQs Internet Myths II
Q1. Which political party took Social Security from the independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A1: There has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government." Most likely this question comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no effect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself.
Have you ever seen those video's with Hitler and the large crowds? If the Germans didn't love hitler so much why did they allow him to murder all those German Jews? And in those days a few Americans one being Joe Kennedy Really like hitler.
Big crowds on grainy video? This is what you have? Hey... Glenn Beck and mama Grizzly had their horde at the "restoring honor" rally, didn't they? I saw big crowds too. I know.... we don't want to talk about that though.
I think we've shown enough that should make an intelligent person at least question the motives behind the extremist Right. But, even intelligent people... caught up in the fervor of Nationalism and anger...especially when desperate times occur, tend to leave intelligence at the door.
Like I said... I don't expect you to believe me... you guys are true believers... you are shiites...extremists. I just ask you to pay attention to what's going on around you.
Not only those old video's , but have you ever talked with GERMANS who lived then? I have back in the 80's when I was their, most Germans was in love in hitler.
I think we've shown enough that should make an intelligent person at least question the motives behind the extremist Right. But, even intelligent people... caught up in the fervor of Nationalism and anger...especially when desperate times occur, tend to leave intelligence at the door.
You are a idiot. You question people who are open yet support a president who has lie from day one. Stupid asshat.
The total national debt rose by $500 billion so some kind of $500 billion deficit happened in 2007.There was not $340 billion in debt incurred in 2007. There was not $500 billion incurred.You can't even keep up with your own bullshit and you expect me to swallow it.Gods but you are one stupid fuck.
When did I ever say treasuries did not effect the debt? Treasuries are the fucking debt dumbass. I also never claimed treasuries didn't effect the deficit, certainly budgetting to pay for those that are due does, as does selling them in the first place... and it's a part of the 161B 2007 budget deficit.
What I said was treasuries which have been budgetted for and have matured which go unredeemed do not increase the deficit (they are already counted in it) or lower the debt.
If you have a treasury thats matured in 2007 and don't redeem it until 2008, when you go in to redeem it it does not increase the deficit in 2007, and it costs no money in 2008 (the money to redeem it was already "spent" in 2007 and included in that years budget deficit). It would lower the debt though. The result is the total outstanding debt in 2007 appears higher because of the delay in redemption even though no more money was borrowed.
do try to keep up.
First you said that the $340 billion difference between the $500 billion increase in the national debt and the $161 deficit you claimed for 2007 was treasuries and not part of the deficit. Now you admit that treasuries are debt but are part of the $161 billion deficit. How a larger number can be PART of a smaller number only makes cents (pun intended) in CON$ervative "fuzzy math." Again if the $340 billion in debt incurred in 2007 was part of the $161 billion deficit, why did the national debt increase by $500 billion and not $161 billion? Obviously the $340 billion, which you have yet to prove is in treasuries, is some kind of deficit that is NOT included in the phony $161 billion Bush 2007 deficit.
do try to keep up.
They are two different things, but they ARE related and I thoroughly understand the relationship. It's like in my field of physics, speed, distance and time are three different things but they are related by the equation D=SxT. The amount the national debt increases from one year to the next is the deficit for the year.Your lack of basic reading co0mprehension skills is not a problem for me.You can't even keep up with your own bullshit and you expect me to swallow it.Gods but you are one stupid fuck.
When did I ever say treasuries did not effect the debt? Treasuries are the fucking debt dumbass. I also never claimed treasuries didn't effect the deficit, certainly budgetting to pay for those that are due does, as does selling them in the first place... and it's a part of the 161B 2007 budget deficit.
What I said was treasuries which have been budgetted for and have matured which go unredeemed do not increase the deficit (they are already counted in it) or lower the debt.
If you have a treasury thats matured in 2007 and don't redeem it until 2008, when you go in to redeem it it does not increase the deficit in 2007, and it costs no money in 2008 (the money to redeem it was already "spent" in 2007 and included in that years budget deficit). It would lower the debt though. The result is the total outstanding debt in 2007 appears higher because of the delay in redemption even though no more money was borrowed.
do try to keep up.
First you said that the $340 billion difference between the $500 billion increase in the national debt and the $161 deficit you claimed for 2007 was treasuries and not part of the deficit. Now you admit that treasuries are debt but are part of the $161 billion deficit. How a larger number can be PART of a smaller number only makes cents (pun intended) in CON$ervative "fuzzy math." Again if the $340 billion in debt incurred in 2007 was part of the $161 billion deficit, why did the national debt increase by $500 billion and not $161 billion? Obviously the $340 billion, which you have yet to prove is in treasuries, is some kind of deficit that is NOT included in the phony $161 billion Bush 2007 deficit.
do try to keep up.
Deficit and debt are two different things and you're just too damned stupid to know the difference.
Letys try one you might understand
when you get your weekly check for intransigent and idiotic bums from the county every week and set aside $25 for your portion of the rent after sec 8 takes care of the rest you are creating a $25 deficit in your funds, but the debt you owe the landlord won't actually go down until you pay him at the end of the month. When you blow the money on crack and beer before you can give it to him, even though you budgetted for it... you still owe him.
The total national debt rose by $500 billion so some kind of $500 billion deficit happened in 2007.There was not $340 billion in debt incurred in 2007. There was not $500 billion incurred.You can't even keep up with your own bullshit and you expect me to swallow it.
First you said that the $340 billion difference between the $500 billion increase in the national debt and the $161 deficit you claimed for 2007 was treasuries and not part of the deficit. Now you admit that treasuries are debt but are part of the $161 billion deficit. How a larger number can be PART of a smaller number only makes cents (pun intended) in CON$ervative "fuzzy math." Again if the $340 billion in debt incurred in 2007 was part of the $161 billion deficit, why did the national debt increase by $500 billion and not $161 billion? Obviously the $340 billion, which you have yet to prove is in treasuries, is some kind of deficit that is NOT included in the phony $161 billion Bush 2007 deficit.
do try to keep up.
