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

[Toddsterpatriot]

Originally Posted by Toddsterpatriot If you want to say in 2006 Bush borrowed $500 billion and also put $340 billion in the bank, then you should say that.
Total government revenues were $160 billion less than total government spending.

It is collected and then borrowed from the trust account to pay for the DEFICIT spending. It is borrowed money when it is spent!

LOL, its moved from one government account to another. The general fund exchanges a treasury or IOU to the trust fund for it which at some later time the general fund will give cash to the trust fund to get back. But the US government does not borrow it. It just collects it and then moves it from one pocket to the other. Or does it escape you the the SS trust fund is the US government?

An IOU means the general fund BORROWED the money.

You don't issue an IOU when you deposit money in the bank, as Toadstoolhateriot said was the equivalent of what happened to the money borrowed.

The government spent $160 billion more than they took in.
So that's what they borrowed.
$160 billion.

 

[edthecynic]

It is collected and then borrowed from the trust account to pay for the DEFICIT spending. It is borrowed money when it is spent!

LOL, its moved from one government account to another. The general fund exchanges a treasury or IOU to the trust fund for it which at some later time the general fund will give cash to the trust fund to get back. But the US government does not borrow it. It just collects it and then moves it from one pocket to the other. Or does it escape you the the SS trust fund is the US government?

I've got $5 in my left pocket and $5 in my right.
I'm going to spend $15.
Is there any difference if I borrow $10 and spend the $5 in my left pocket or if I borrow $5, spend both $5s in my pockets and put an IOU in my right pocket for $5?
I'm not going to ask Ed. All those big numbers will confuse him.

The gov spends the money in both pockets and borrows the other five. Your example is ridiculous.

A better example is you have $5 of your own money in one pocket, $5 of your boss' money you are supposed to deposit in the bank, and $5 you borrow from another bank. You spent $15, how much of your own money did you spend and how much of other people's money did you "borrow" to spend?

 

[saveliberty]

Why is it when we are talking about a bill to raise the debt ceiling, we MUST add a tax measure? How about dealing with the ceiling as an issue important enough to stand alone. Then discuss taxes as a separate issue and bill.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

LOL, its moved from one government account to another. The general fund exchanges a treasury or IOU to the trust fund for it which at some later time the general fund will give cash to the trust fund to get back. But the US government does not borrow it. It just collects it and then moves it from one pocket to the other. Or does it escape you the the SS trust fund is the US government?

I've got $5 in my left pocket and $5 in my right.
I'm going to spend $15.
Is there any difference if I borrow $10 and spend the $5 in my left pocket or if I borrow $5, spend both $5s in my pockets and put an IOU in my right pocket for $5?
I'm not going to ask Ed. All those big numbers will confuse him.

The gov spends the money in both pockets and borrows the other five. Your example is ridiculous.

A better example is you have $5 of your own money in one pocket, $5 of your boss' money you are supposed to deposit in the bank, and $5 you borrow from another bank. You spent $15, how much of your own money did you spend and how much of other people's money did you "borrow" to spend?

The gov spends the money in both pockets and borrows the other five.
Excellent! You finally understand! That's why the deficit was only $160 billion.

 

[edthecynic]

I've got $5 in my left pocket and $5 in my right.
I'm going to spend $15.
Is there any difference if I borrow $10 and spend the $5 in my left pocket or if I borrow $5, spend both $5s in my pockets and put an IOU in my right pocket for $5?
I'm not going to ask Ed. All those big numbers will confuse him.

The gov spends the money in both pockets and borrows the other five. Your example is ridiculous.

A better example is you have $5 of your own money in one pocket, $5 of your boss' money you are supposed to deposit in the bank, and $5 you borrow from another bank. You spent $15, how much of your own money did you spend and how much of other people's money did you "borrow" to spend?

The gov spends the money in both pockets and borrows the other five.
Excellent! You finally understand! That's why the deficit was only $160 billion.

But only one of the pockets contained the government's money. They had to borrow the money in the other pocket and either pay it back with interest or default. If you take your own money out of both pockets you don't have to pay one pocket back with interest. So the government borrowed an additional 340 billion over and above the 161 billion borrowed to cover a 500 billion deficit.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The gov spends the money in both pockets and borrows the other five. Your example is ridiculous.

A better example is you have $5 of your own money in one pocket, $5 of your boss' money you are supposed to deposit in the bank, and $5 you borrow from another bank. You spent $15, how much of your own money did you spend and how much of other people's money did you "borrow" to spend?

The gov spends the money in both pockets and borrows the other five.
Excellent! You finally understand! That's why the deficit was only $160 billion.

But only one of the pockets contained the government's money. They had to borrow the money in the other pocket and either pay it back with interest or default. If you take your own money out of both pockets you don't have to pay one pocket back with interest. So the government borrowed an additional 340 billion over and above the 161 billion borrowed to cover a 500 billion deficit.

In 2007, the government had receipts of $2,567,985,000 and outlays of $2,728,686,000.

 

[edthecynic]

The gov spends the money in both pockets and borrows the other five.
Excellent! You finally understand! That's why the deficit was only $160 billion.

But only one of the pockets contained the government's money. They had to borrow the money in the other pocket and either pay it back with interest or default. If you take your own money out of both pockets you don't have to pay one pocket back with interest. So the government borrowed an additional 340 billion over and above the 161 billion borrowed to cover a 500 billion deficit.

In 2007, the government had receipts of $2,567,985,000 and outlays of $2,728,686,000.

And the debt rose 500 billion. So the government borrowed 500 billion to cover their deficit spending.

09/30/2007 - $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 - $8,506,973,899,215.23

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

But only one of the pockets contained the government's money. They had to borrow the money in the other pocket and either pay it back with interest or default. If you take your own money out of both pockets you don't have to pay one pocket back with interest. So the government borrowed an additional 340 billion over and above the 161 billion borrowed to cover a 500 billion deficit.

In 2007, the government had receipts of $2,567,985,000 and outlays of $2,728,686,000.

And the debt rose 500 billion. So the government borrowed 500 billion to cover their deficit spending.

09/30/2007 - $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 - $8,506,973,899,215.23

Why are you only showing one side of the balance sheet?

Here's the other.

Intragovernmental Holdings

09/28/2007 $3,958,347,869,336.00
09/29/2006 $3,663,853,163,022.80

Government - Public Debt Reports

 

[Susan45]

I suppose you lefties haven't stopped to consider that shrinking government will help the economy and as a result increase tax revenues. Raising government revenues will not increase jobs or help the economy.

Really? Maybe you can explain how this could happen, because it doesn't make sense to me.

 

[edthecynic]

In 2007, the government had receipts of $2,567,985,000 and outlays of $2,728,686,000.

And the debt rose 500 billion. So the government borrowed 500 billion to cover their deficit spending.

09/30/2007 - $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 - $8,506,973,899,215.23

Why are you only showing one side of the balance sheet?

Here's the other.

Intragovernmental Holdings

09/28/2007 $3,958,347,869,336.00
09/29/2006 $3,663,853,163,022.80

Government - Public Debt Reports

Because borrowed money is borrowed money. The only difference between the public and private lenders is the interest rate, but it is still borrowed money that has to be paid for.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

And the debt rose 500 billion. So the government borrowed 500 billion to cover their deficit spending.

09/30/2007 - $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 - $8,506,973,899,215.23

Why are you only showing one side of the balance sheet?

Here's the other.

Intragovernmental Holdings

09/28/2007 $3,958,347,869,336.00
09/29/2006 $3,663,853,163,022.80

Government - Public Debt Reports

Because borrowed money is borrowed money. The only difference between the public and private lenders is the interest rate, but it is still borrowed money that has to be paid for.

Is there anything valuable in the "Trust Fund" or not?

 

[edthecynic]

why are you only showing one side of the balance sheet?

Here's the other.

Intragovernmental holdings

09/28/2007 $3,958,347,869,336.00
09/29/2006 $3,663,853,163,022.80

government - public debt reports

because borrowed money is borrowed money. The only difference between the public and private lenders is the interest rate, but it is still borrowed money that has to be paid for.

is there anything valuable in the "trust fund" or not?

no!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

because borrowed money is borrowed money. The only difference between the public and private lenders is the interest rate, but it is still borrowed money that has to be paid for.

is there anything valuable in the "trust fund" or not?

no!

Then why are you including the "debt" to the "trust fund"?

 

[edthecynic]

is there anything valuable in the "trust fund" or not?

no!

Then why are you including the "debt" to the "trust fund"?

Because that is where the money was "borrowed" from to cover the 500 billion 2007 deficit, but if the deficit is only 161 billion, as you say, then there is no intent to ever pay it back. So there is nothing of value as collateral in the trust fund, just a worthless IOU backed by the full faith and credit of a GOP that wants to destroy SS.

 

[JimH52]

no!

Then why are you including the "debt" to the "trust fund"?

Because that is where the money was "borrowed" from to cover the 500 billion 2007 deficit, but if the deficit is only 161 billion, as you say, then there is no intent to ever pay it back. So there is nothing of value as collateral in the trust fund, just a worthless IOU backed by the full faith and credit of a GOP that wants to destroy SS.

The low income are so bothersome, aren't they?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

no!

Then why are you including the "debt" to the "trust fund"?

Because that is where the money was "borrowed" from to cover the 500 billion 2007 deficit, but if the deficit is only 161 billion, as you say, then there is no intent to ever pay it back. So there is nothing of value as collateral in the trust fund, just a worthless IOU backed by the full faith and credit of a GOP that wants to destroy SS.

You said it wasn't borrowed. I could explain the difference between an unfunded liability and a debt, but you wouldn't understand that either.

No value in the trust fund means the only debt is the debt held by the public.

 

[BenNatuf]

It is collected and then borrowed from the trust account to pay for the DEFICIT spending. It is borrowed money when it is spent!

LOL, its moved from one government account to another. The general fund exchanges a treasury or IOU to the trust fund for it which at some later time the general fund will give cash to the trust fund to get back. But the US government does not borrow it. It just collects it and then moves it from one pocket to the other. Or does it escape you the the SS trust fund is the US government?

I've got $5 in my left pocket and $5 in my right.
I'm going to spend $15.
Is there any difference if I borrow $10 and spend the $5 in my left pocket or if I borrow $5, spend both $5s in my pockets and put an IOU in my right pocket for $5?
I'm not going to ask Ed. All those big numbers will confuse him.

LOL... you may have to make it cents for him... those big things like dollars confuse him.

 

[BenNatuf]

Originally Posted by Toddsterpatriot If you want to say in 2006 Bush borrowed $500 billion and also put $340 billion in the bank, then you should say that.
Total government revenues were $160 billion less than total government spending.

It is collected and then borrowed from the trust account to pay for the DEFICIT spending. It is borrowed money when it is spent!

LOL, its moved from one government account to another. The general fund exchanges a treasury or IOU to the trust fund for it which at some later time the general fund will give cash to the trust fund to get back. But the US government does not borrow it. It just collects it and then moves it from one pocket to the other. Or does it escape you the the SS trust fund is the US government?

An IOU means the general fund BORROWED the money.

You don't issue an IOU when you deposit money in the bank, as Toadstoolhateriot said was the equivalent of what happened to the money borrowed.

and an IOU sitting in the trust fund is an asset... that asset is not counted to offset when they report the "total debt"

 

[BenNatuf]

LOL, its moved from one government account to another. The general fund exchanges a treasury or IOU to the trust fund for it which at some later time the general fund will give cash to the trust fund to get back. But the US government does not borrow it. It just collects it and then moves it from one pocket to the other. Or does it escape you the the SS trust fund is the US government?

I've got $5 in my left pocket and $5 in my right.
I'm going to spend $15.
Is there any difference if I borrow $10 and spend the $5 in my left pocket or if I borrow $5, spend both $5s in my pockets and put an IOU in my right pocket for $5?
I'm not going to ask Ed. All those big numbers will confuse him.

The gov spends the money in both pockets and borrows the other five. Your example is ridiculous.

A better example is you have $5 of your own money in one pocket, $5 of your boss' money you are supposed to deposit in the bank, and $5 you borrow from another bank. You spent $15, how much of your own money did you spend and how much of other people's money did you "borrow" to spend?

hey, dumbass... it's all the bosses money.

So the better analogy is if you had $5 of your bosses money in one pocket, and $5 oif your bosses money in the other pocket and borrowed $5 for a $15 dollar purchase, how much money would your boss owe?

 

[BenNatuf]

I've got $5 in my left pocket and $5 in my right.
I'm going to spend $15.
Is there any difference if I borrow $10 and spend the $5 in my left pocket or if I borrow $5, spend both $5s in my pockets and put an IOU in my right pocket for $5?
I'm not going to ask Ed. All those big numbers will confuse him.

The gov spends the money in both pockets and borrows the other five. Your example is ridiculous.

A better example is you have $5 of your own money in one pocket, $5 of your boss' money you are supposed to deposit in the bank, and $5 you borrow from another bank. You spent $15, how much of your own money did you spend and how much of other people's money did you "borrow" to spend?

The gov spends the money in both pockets and borrows the other five.
Excellent! You finally understand! That's why the deficit was only $160 billion.

You're giving him way to much credit.