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

[edthecynic]

There was not $340 billion in debt incurred in 2007. There was not $500 billion incurred.

The total national debt rose by $500 billion so some kind of $500 billion deficit happened in 2007.

How much did intragovernmental holdings change that year?

Oh come on now, you know the answer, you posted the link to the daily debt calculator already. Can't you do simple arithmetic?

$3.958 trillion - $3.664 = $294 billion

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The total national debt rose by $500 billion so some kind of $500 billion deficit happened in 2007.

How much did intragovernmental holdings change that year?

Oh come on now, you know the answer, you posted the link to the daily debt calculator already. Can't you do simple arithmetic?

$3.958 trillion - $3.664 = $294 billion

Excellent! Now why would you count the increase in liabilities and ignore the increase in assets? Can't you do simple accounting?

 

[edthecynic]

How much did intragovernmental holdings change that year?

Oh come on now, you know the answer, you posted the link to the daily debt calculator already. Can't you do simple arithmetic?

$3.958 trillion - $3.664 = $294 billion

Excellent! Now why would you count the increase in liabilities and ignore the increase in assets? Can't you do simple accounting?

But that $294 billion is a liability. It was borrowed and spent in 2007. It is accounted for as a debit not a credit.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Oh come on now, you know the answer, you posted the link to the daily debt calculator already. Can't you do simple arithmetic?

$3.958 trillion - $3.664 = $294 billion

Excellent! Now why would you count the increase in liabilities and ignore the increase in assets? Can't you do simple accounting?

But that $294 billion is a liability. It was borrowed and spent in 2007. It is accounted for as a debit not a credit.

and obama has barrowed and spent how many trillion?

 

[edthecynic]

Excellent! Now why would you count the increase in liabilities and ignore the increase in assets? Can't you do simple accounting?

But that $294 billion is a liability. It was borrowed and spent in 2007. It is accounted for as a debit not a credit.

and obama has barrowed and spent how many trillion?

$2+ trillion. He has quite a way to go to catch up to the GOP's $12 trillion in deficit spending.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Oh come on now, you know the answer, you posted the link to the daily debt calculator already. Can't you do simple arithmetic?

$3.958 trillion - $3.664 = $294 billion

Excellent! Now why would you count the increase in liabilities and ignore the increase in assets? Can't you do simple accounting?

But that $294 billion is a liability. It was borrowed and spent in 2007. It is accounted for as a debit not a credit.

Wow, never took accounting, did you?
If the "Trust Fund" has bonds in it, that's an asset.
You know what an asset is, right?

 

[Charles_Main]

Bottom line, Democrats have to be willing to shrink government and cut programs. Just raising taxes will not solve any of our problems. I will blame the Democrats if we default on our debt.

In Fact history has shown us time and time again, all raising revenues does is encourage DC to spend more.

 

[Charles_Main]

But that $294 billion is a liability. It was borrowed and spent in 2007. It is accounted for as a debit not a credit.

and obama has barrowed and spent how many trillion?

$2+ trillion. He has quite a way to go to catch up to the GOP's $12 trillion in deficit spending.

You know I am so sick and Tired of ass fucks like yourself. Blaming 12 Trillion dollars on the GOP when Congressional Democrats have never seen a Republican Presidents Budget they didn't want to add to.

And Obama has added over 4 Trillion in new Debt, not 2.

 

[edthecynic]

Excellent! Now why would you count the increase in liabilities and ignore the increase in assets? Can't you do simple accounting?

But that $294 billion is a liability. It was borrowed and spent in 2007. It is accounted for as a debit not a credit.

Wow, never took accounting, did you?
If the "Trust Fund" has bonds in it, that's an asset.
You know what an asset is, right?

So basically you are counting it as an asset twice. once in the SS trust fund and then again as an asset after it is spent in 2007.
You better pray that no one you did accounting for gets audited.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But that $294 billion is a liability. It was borrowed and spent in 2007. It is accounted for as a debit not a credit.

Wow, never took accounting, did you?
If the "Trust Fund" has bonds in it, that's an asset.
You know what an asset is, right?

So basically you are counting it as an asset twice. once in the SS trust fund and then again as an asset after it is spent in 2007.
You better pray that no one you did accounting for gets audited.

No, only counting the asset once.
I'll try to use small numbers, maybe you'll understand.

You and your brother end 2010 with no assets and each with a $10,000 balance on your Amex. You both earn exactly the same income.
Your brother, he was always the smart one, decides to open a savings account, also at American Express. He calls it the Social Security Trust Fund.
As the year comes to a close, you both find that you spent $1000 more than you earned.
You put it on your Amex and you now have an $11,000 balance.
Your brother scrimped and saved and managed to put $1000 in his SS Trust Fund account.
So his balance sheet now has a $12,000 liability on his Amex and a $1000 asset in his trust fund.
Which of you is better off? Why?

 

[edthecynic]

Wow, never took accounting, did you?
If the "Trust Fund" has bonds in it, that's an asset.
You know what an asset is, right?

So basically you are counting it as an asset twice. once in the SS trust fund and then again as an asset after it is spent in 2007.
You better pray that no one you did accounting for gets audited.

No, only counting the asset once.
I'll try to use small numbers, maybe you'll understand.

You and your brother end 2010 with no assets and each with a $10,000 balance on your Amex. You both earn exactly the same income.
Your brother, he was always the smart one, decides to open a savings account, also at American Express. He calls it the Social Security Trust Fund.
As the year comes to a close, you both find that you spent $1000 more than you earned.
You put it on your Amex and you now have an $11,000 balance.
Your brother scrimped and saved and managed to put $1000 in his SS Trust Fund account.
So his balance sheet now has a $12,000 liability on his Amex and a $1000 asset in his trust fund.
Which of you is better off? Why?

Except that's not what the government did. They took the $1,000 out of the SS Trust and spent it leaving an IOU in its place. So they owe the original 10,000 they owed Amex, the 1,000 they borrowed from Amex and the 1,000 they borrowed from SS trust

 

[edthecynic]

and obama has barrowed and spent how many trillion?

$2+ trillion. He has quite a way to go to catch up to the GOP's $12 trillion in deficit spending.

You know I am so sick and Tired of ass fucks like yourself. Blaming 12 Trillion dollars on the GOP when Congressional Democrats have never seen a Republican Presidents Budget they didn't want to add to.

And Obama has added over 4 Trillion in new Debt, not 2.

Including interest, $12 trillion of the $14+ trillion in tne national debt was run up by 3 GOP presidents, Reagan and both Bushes. That leaves only $2+ trillion of the debt from Obama.

More times than not, Dem Congresses approved less money than GOP presidents asked for, and GOP presidents signed the budgets without a veto.

 

[bripat9643]

Wow, never took accounting, did you?
If the "Trust Fund" has bonds in it, that's an asset.
You know what an asset is, right?

So if I write "Pay $1000 to the bearer" on a sheet of paper and put that in my file cabinet, that means I'm $1000 richer?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So basically you are counting it as an asset twice. once in the SS trust fund and then again as an asset after it is spent in 2007.
You better pray that no one you did accounting for gets audited.

No, only counting the asset once.
I'll try to use small numbers, maybe you'll understand.

You and your brother end 2010 with no assets and each with a $10,000 balance on your Amex. You both earn exactly the same income.
Your brother, he was always the smart one, decides to open a savings account, also at American Express. He calls it the Social Security Trust Fund.
As the year comes to a close, you both find that you spent $1000 more than you earned.
You put it on your Amex and you now have an $11,000 balance.
Your brother scrimped and saved and managed to put $1000 in his SS Trust Fund account.
So his balance sheet now has a $12,000 liability on his Amex and a $1000 asset in his trust fund.
Which of you is better off? Why?

Except that's not what the government did. They took the $1,000 out of the SS Trust and spent it leaving an IOU in its place. So they owe the original 10,000 they owed Amex, the 1,000 they borrowed from Amex and the 1,000 they borrowed from SS trust

You didn't answer my questions.
Which of you is better off? Why?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Wow, never took accounting, did you?
If the "Trust Fund" has bonds in it, that's an asset.
You know what an asset is, right?

So if I write "Pay $1000 to the bearer" on a sheet of paper and put that in my file cabinet, that means I'm $1000 richer?

Nope. But if you're going to count the IOU as a liability on the one hand, you have to count it as an asset in the other.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But that $294 billion is a liability. It was borrowed and spent in 2007. It is accounted for as a debit not a credit.

Wow, never took accounting, did you?
If the "Trust Fund" has bonds in it, that's an asset.
You know what an asset is, right?

So basically you are counting it as an asset twice. once in the SS trust fund and then again as an asset after it is spent in 2007.
You better pray that no one you did accounting for gets audited.

By the way, after you spend money you can't really count it as an asset, can you?

 

[edthecynic]

Wow, never took accounting, did you?
If the "Trust Fund" has bonds in it, that's an asset.
You know what an asset is, right?

So basically you are counting it as an asset twice. once in the SS trust fund and then again as an asset after it is spent in 2007.
You better pray that no one you did accounting for gets audited.

By the way, after you spend money you can't really count it as an asset, can you?

But you are!!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So basically you are counting it as an asset twice. once in the SS trust fund and then again as an asset after it is spent in 2007.
You better pray that no one you did accounting for gets audited.

By the way, after you spend money you can't really count it as an asset, can you?

But you are!!!

Nope. Counting the bond, not the spent money.

Let's try again.
You take a $1000 cash advance on your Amex and spend it.

Your brother takes a $2000 cash advance, spends $1000 and puts the other $1000 in the bank.

Who's better off? Why?

 

[edthecynic]

By the way, after you spend money you can't really count it as an asset, can you?

But you are!!!

Nope. Counting the bond, not the spent money.

Let's try again.
You take a $1000 cash advance on your Amex and spend it.

Your brother takes a $2000 cash advance, spends $1000 and puts the other $1000 in the bank.

Who's better off? Why?

Even though your example is a desperate attempt to distract from the fact that the debt increased by $500 billion in 2007, I'll play along.

I am of course. I'll tell you why after you say who you think is better off.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But you are!!!

Nope. Counting the bond, not the spent money.

Let's try again.
You take a $1000 cash advance on your Amex and spend it.

Your brother takes a $2000 cash advance, spends $1000 and puts the other $1000 in the bank.

Who's better off? Why?

Even though your example is a desperate attempt to distract from the fact that the debt increased by $500 billion in 2007, I'll play along.

I am of course. I'll tell you why after you say who you think is better off.

Ignoring the interest, you're equally well off.