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

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

Thanks ed, that's what Ben said.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You don't really understand anything about sarcasm, do you?

Every time you post something that shows your ignorance of finance, you were just being sarcastic?
That's funny.

Keep playing dumb, the point was that the IOUs are not a bankable asset.

Of course you can't put government bonds in your savings account, so why did you think you could?
I mean besides your confusion between cash and bonds?
Why are you claiming to be playing dumb? You're clearly not playing.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This is the sheer insanity and denial of the willfully ignorant neocon parrots! Once you expose their convoluted "logic", they just repeat the same neocon nonsense from the beginning. Toddy and his ilk will NEVER admit they are wrong, and blame everyone and anything else when their policies fail. But fortunately, about 50% of republicans polled are coming around and seeing the oligarchy fetish of the neocon political leadership for what it is, as with the debate about the debt ceiling.

Are there assets in the "trust funds"?

The chronology of the posts already shows Ed taking you task on this, Toddy. Repeating your failed and disproven assertions with me won't change the conclusions. Now, make your baseless and false accusations like a good and predictable little neocon toadie.

Help your buddy. Unless you're as dumb as he is? LOL!

 

[edthecynic]

Maybe the Wikipedia explanation is simplistic enough for you to understand?

The annual change in debt is not equal to the "total deficit" typically reported in the media. Social Security payroll taxes and benefit payments, along with the net balance of the U.S. Postal Service are considered "off-budget" while most other expenditure and receipt categories are considered "on-budget." The total federal deficit is the sum of the on-budget deficit (or surplus) and the off-budget deficit (or surplus). Since FY1960, the federal government has run on-budget deficits except for FY1999 and FY2000, and total federal deficits except in FY1969 and FY1998-FY2001.[28]

In large part because of Social Security surpluses, the total deficit is smaller than the on-budget deficit. The surplus of Social Security payroll taxes over benefit payments is spent by the government for other purposes. However, the government credits the Social Security Trust fund for the surplus amount, adding to the "intragovernmental debt." The total federal debt is divided into "intragovernmental debt" and "debt held by the public." In other words, spending the "off budget" Social Security surplus adds to the total national debt (by increasing the intragovernmental debt) while the surplus reduces the "total" deficit reported in the media.

Certain spending called "supplemental appropriations" is outside the budget process entirely but adds to the national debt. Funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars was accounted for this way prior to the Obama administration. Certain stimulus measures and earmarks are also outside the budget process.

For example, in FY2008 an off-budget surplus of $183 billion reduced the on-budget deficit of $642 billion, resulting in a total federal deficit of $459 billion. Media often reported the latter figure. The national debt increased by $1,017 billion between the end of FY2007 and the end of FY2008.[29] The federal government publishes the total debt owed (public and intragovernmental holdings) at the end of each fiscal year[30] and since FY1957, the amount of debt held by the federal government has increased each year.

United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you remember, but you've been spinning so much you are probably too dizzy to remember, claiming that supplemental spending was part of the off budget numbers is what started this merry-go-round.

What does that have to do with your poor understanding of government debt?

I understand debt well enough to know that the deficit number you use is a phony number for the media and your own link says the same thing!! The real deficit number is the change in total debt, which includes the IGH borrowing and supplemental spending that your phony number doesn't.

 

[taichiliberal]

Not only do I have a legal right to SS, I'm collecting it right now as a retiree!!!

And a spouse DOES get survivors benefits after their mate dies. Even divorced spouses can get SS benefits

Survivors Benefits
Who can get survivors benefits based on your work?

Your widow or widower may be able to receive full benefits at full retirement age. The full retirement age for survivors is age 66 for people born in 1945-1956 and will gradually increase to age 67 for people born in 1962 or later. Reduced widow or widower benefits can be received as early as age 60.

Benefits for surviving divorced spouses

If you have been divorced, your former wife or husband who is age 60 or older (50-59 if disabled) can get benefits if your marriage lasted at least 10 years.

neocon wonks have been conditioned to believe that social security is an evil socialist/communist/fascist device that has been robbing the holy corporatist from making true profit for their shareholders and thus trickling down properity to the world!

And then when you point out the FACT that various administrations have for DECADES used Social security as a piggy bank to fund other parts of gov't spending (which was NOT the intended purpose of Soc Sec), you have a neocon meltdown similar to what you've been dealing with on this thread.

And then when you point out the FACT that various administrations have for DECADES used Social security as a piggy bank to fund other parts of gov't spending (which was NOT the intended purpose of Soc Sec)

I've been pointing that out all over this thread.

While leaving out an important part of the statement, as you do here. Essentially, you have borrowed money being used to pay off borrowed money...but the GOP doesn't want to repay the borrowed money, they just want to eliminate the program. An insane way to "balance the budget", but one that you, Toddy, seem more than happy to embrace.

you have a neocon meltdown similar to what you've been dealing with on this thread

What's a neocon and why would this obvious truth make them meltdown?

Get a dictionary, look up the word because I'm not playing games or doing your homework for you. And as the chronology of the posts shows, you have a nasty habit of leaving out bits of responses and information that doesn't fit your beliefs or compliment your assertions. Grow up and deal with reality, Toddy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why don't you try giving honest answers and responses to our initial exchanges on this thread, Toddy? Then when you establish credibility, we can move onto the problem of your economic myopia.

Let me know if I can help you with simple arithmetic, your buddy doesn't seem to get it.

The chronology of the post shows Edthecynic logically and factually disproving your myopic and error ridden economic belief system, Toddy. I just cut to the chase with simple logic. In order for someone to buy your neocon/teabagger bullshit, one has to essentially redefine what a deficit is and how it's paid down...and then ignore specific information in order for your "conclusion" to come about.

As the chronology of the posts shows, whenever Ed puts you in a cornerusing your own convoluted "logic" where you have to admit you're wrong, you just skip back to the beginning and repeat yourself. I discovered LONG ago that trying to get an insipidly stubborn and willfully ignorant neocon parrot they are wrong is like banging your head against a wall....it feels so good when you stop. So you run along and repeat your myopic BS ad nauseum, Toddy. No matter how hard you try, you just can't revise history to your liking.

In fiscal 2006, government revenues were $2,567,985,000.
Government outlays were $2,728,686,000.
1)Pretend the "Trust Funds" increased by $340 billion that year.
2)Pretend the "Trust Funds" remained constant that year.
3)Pretend the "Trust Funds" decreased by $340 billion that year.

Under which scenario is the government in the best financial shape? Why?
Try to think, for a change.
Help out your buddy.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you remember, but you've been spinning so much you are probably too dizzy to remember, claiming that supplemental spending was part of the off budget numbers is what started this merry-go-round.

What does that have to do with your poor understanding of government debt?

I understand debt well enough to know that the deficit number you use is a phony number for the media and your own link says the same thing!! The real deficit number is the change in total debt, which includes the IGH borrowing and supplemental spending that your phony number doesn't.

"The real deficit number is the change in total debt"

What was the change in total assets?

 

[taichiliberal]

Still desperately trying to change the subject!

Maybe the Wikipedia explanation is simplistic enough for you to understand?

The annual change in debt is not equal to the "total deficit" typically reported in the media. Social Security payroll taxes and benefit payments, along with the net balance of the U.S. Postal Service are considered "off-budget" while most other expenditure and receipt categories are considered "on-budget." The total federal deficit is the sum of the on-budget deficit (or surplus) and the off-budget deficit (or surplus). Since FY1960, the federal government has run on-budget deficits except for FY1999 and FY2000, and total federal deficits except in FY1969 and FY1998-FY2001.[28]

In large part because of Social Security surpluses, the total deficit is smaller than the on-budget deficit. The surplus of Social Security payroll taxes over benefit payments is spent by the government for other purposes. However, the government credits the Social Security Trust fund for the surplus amount, adding to the "intragovernmental debt." The total federal debt is divided into "intragovernmental debt" and "debt held by the public." In other words, spending the "off budget" Social Security surplus adds to the total national debt (by increasing the intragovernmental debt) while the surplus reduces the "total" deficit reported in the media.

Certain spending called "supplemental appropriations" is outside the budget process entirely but adds to the national debt. Funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars was accounted for this way prior to the Obama administration. Certain stimulus measures and earmarks are also outside the budget process.

For example, in FY2008 an off-budget surplus of $183 billion reduced the on-budget deficit of $642 billion, resulting in a total federal deficit of $459 billion. Media often reported the latter figure. The national debt increased by $1,017 billion between the end of FY2007 and the end of FY2008.[29] The federal government publishes the total debt owed (public and intragovernmental holdings) at the end of each fiscal year[30] and since FY1957, the amount of debt held by the federal government has increased each year.

United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you remember, but you've been spinning so much you are probably too dizzy to remember, claiming that supplemental spending was part of the off budget numbers is what started this merry-go-round.

Just as I predicted, when you take these neocon blowhards to task, they act like a broken record and skip back to the beginning of their BS....folks like Toddy NEVER admit they're wrong on any level, even when they're screwed by their own belief system....then it's our fault!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

neocon wonks have been conditioned to believe that social security is an evil socialist/communist/fascist device that has been robbing the holy corporatist from making true profit for their shareholders and thus trickling down properity to the world!

And then when you point out the FACT that various administrations have for DECADES used Social security as a piggy bank to fund other parts of gov't spending (which was NOT the intended purpose of Soc Sec), you have a neocon meltdown similar to what you've been dealing with on this thread.

And then when you point out the FACT that various administrations have for DECADES used Social security as a piggy bank to fund other parts of gov't spending (which was NOT the intended purpose of Soc Sec)

I've been pointing that out all over this thread.

While leaving out an important part of the statement, as you do here. Essentially, you have borrowed money being used to pay off borrowed money...but the GOP doesn't want to repay the borrowed money, they just want to eliminate the program. An insane way to "balance the budget", but one that you, Toddy, seem more than happy to embrace.

you have a neocon meltdown similar to what you've been dealing with on this thread

What's a neocon and why would this obvious truth make them meltdown?

Get a dictionary, look up the word because I'm not playing games or doing your homework for you. And as the chronology of the posts shows, you have a nasty habit of leaving out bits of responses and information that doesn't fit your beliefs or compliment your assertions. Grow up and deal with reality, Toddy.

I haven't seen neocon in the dictionary. Why don't you give me the definition you're using?
Leaving out bits of unhelpful responses? The horror!
Let me know if you ever learn how to read a balance sheet or do simple math.
Until then, I'm wasting my time trying to educate the innumerate.

 

[dblack]

I haven't seen neocon in the dictionary. Why don't you give me the definition you're using?

Let me google that for you

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you remember, but you've been spinning so much you are probably too dizzy to remember, claiming that supplemental spending was part of the off budget numbers is what started this merry-go-round.

What does that have to do with your poor understanding of government debt?

I understand debt well enough to know that the deficit number you use is a phony number for the media and your own link says the same thing!! The real deficit number is the change in total debt, which includes the IGH borrowing and supplemental spending that your phony number doesn't.

Check it out.....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...revenue-absolute-bullshit-55.html#post3873214

Ben said that supplemental spending was included in the total deficit.
I'm pretty sure it was you, or your moron friends, who said it wasn't included anywhere.
LOL!

 

[taichiliberal]

I still say if conservatives (or anyone else, for that matter) really want smaller government, they'll crank up taxes (on everyone, across the board) until every last government program is paid for in full. At that point, we'll see just how much 'big government' people really want. My guess is, that when we're actually paying the ferryman, our enthusiasm for big brother will wane considerably.

You're not making sense....first you have to understand that the GOP is defending a Bush tax cut that was ORIGINALLY SLATED TO SUNSET. It was a TEMPORARY measure aimed at revitalizing the private sector in order to generate jobs.

It failed, but the rich folk don't like giving up money, so their GOP cronies keep generalizing that taxes would be going up for EVERYONE, when in fact the tax rate for those who benefitted under the Bush tax cuts would essentially just be GOING BACK to the tax rates they had under Clinton....where they made a PROFIT and the country banked a surplus. Also, closing the loopholes used by insanely profiting oil companies that PAY NO TAXES.

See "big government" in this case becomes the enemy when it encrouches on fascism.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. I agree that taxes should go up. We're living on credit and it obscures any real feedback on how much government people actually want. We're not actually paying for it (we're pushing that off on our grandchildren), so why not bloat the bloat? But it's important that taxes are raised on everyone. We all need to feel the pain if democracy is going to work. If we just use the tax code to scapegoat a targeted minority, then we're not going to have any really understanding of our priorities as a nation.

The major flaw in your assertion here is that you have to assume that people are not "feeling the pain". The unemployment rate that skyrocketed at the end of the Shrub's 8 years and the "99'ers" are testament to that people are indeed "feeling the pain" and have been for some time.

The secondary flaw in your analysis is stating that actually letting the Bush tax cuts sunset as they were originally intended is "scapegoating" the tax code....when in actuality it's stopping the abuse of the tax code. Also, being that you have some major oil companies enjoy obscene profit WHILE PAYING NO TAXES is another form of abuse that should be stopped.

These are the things that will be passed onto our grandchildren...NOT the tax rates that their parents pay bereft of the loopholes and write offs available to the wealthier.

 

[edthecynic]

What does that have to do with your poor understanding of government debt?

I understand debt well enough to know that the deficit number you use is a phony number for the media and your own link says the same thing!! The real deficit number is the change in total debt, which includes the IGH borrowing and supplemental spending that your phony number doesn't.

"The real deficit number is the change in total debt"

What was the change in total assets?

Don't change the subject. 500 billion was borrowed to cover the true deficit spending for 2007.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I understand debt well enough to know that the deficit number you use is a phony number for the media and your own link says the same thing!! The real deficit number is the change in total debt, which includes the IGH borrowing and supplemental spending that your phony number doesn't.

"The real deficit number is the change in total debt"

What was the change in total assets?

Don't change the subject. 500 billion was borrowed to cover the true deficit spending for 2007.

In fiscal 2007, government revenues were $2,567,985,000.
Government outlays were $2,728,686,000.

 

[taichiliberal]

Are there assets in the "trust funds"?

The chronology of the posts already shows Ed taking you task on this, Toddy. Repeating your failed and disproven assertions with me won't change the conclusions. Now, make your baseless and false accusations like a good and predictable little neocon toadie.

Help your buddy. Unless you're as dumb as he is? LOL!

As you can see folks, Toddy is your typical intellectually bankrupt neocon parrot.....whenever Ed takes him to task and proves him wrong, Toddy plays word games by desperately pretending that and euphenism or substitute description Ed uses is something totally different or irrelevent to the discussion. But the chronolgy of the post exposes Toddy's folly......and since I won't indulge Toddy's stalling and dodges, he reacts like a petulant child. Pity Toddy doesn't realize that his faux hysterics fool no one but himself.
Alan Simpson was dead on target...and as polls shows 50% of Repbulicans NOT agreeing with the stone wall tactics and goals of the GOP regarding the debt ceiling, folk like Toddy will be even more evident of their insipid stubborness.

 

[edthecynic]

Still desperately trying to change the subject!

Maybe the Wikipedia explanation is simplistic enough for you to understand?

The annual change in debt is not equal to the "total deficit" typically reported in the media. Social Security payroll taxes and benefit payments, along with the net balance of the U.S. Postal Service are considered "off-budget" while most other expenditure and receipt categories are considered "on-budget." The total federal deficit is the sum of the on-budget deficit (or surplus) and the off-budget deficit (or surplus). Since FY1960, the federal government has run on-budget deficits except for FY1999 and FY2000, and total federal deficits except in FY1969 and FY1998-FY2001.[28]

In large part because of Social Security surpluses, the total deficit is smaller than the on-budget deficit. The surplus of Social Security payroll taxes over benefit payments is spent by the government for other purposes. However, the government credits the Social Security Trust fund for the surplus amount, adding to the "intragovernmental debt." The total federal debt is divided into "intragovernmental debt" and "debt held by the public." In other words, spending the "off budget" Social Security surplus adds to the total national debt (by increasing the intragovernmental debt) while the surplus reduces the "total" deficit reported in the media.

Certain spending called "supplemental appropriations" is outside the budget process entirely but adds to the national debt. Funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars was accounted for this way prior to the Obama administration. Certain stimulus measures and earmarks are also outside the budget process.

For example, in FY2008 an off-budget surplus of $183 billion reduced the on-budget deficit of $642 billion, resulting in a total federal deficit of $459 billion. Media often reported the latter figure. The national debt increased by $1,017 billion between the end of FY2007 and the end of FY2008.[29] The federal government publishes the total debt owed (public and intragovernmental holdings) at the end of each fiscal year[30] and since FY1957, the amount of debt held by the federal government has increased each year.

United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you remember, but you've been spinning so much you are probably too dizzy to remember, claiming that supplemental spending was part of the off budget numbers is what started this merry-go-round.

What does that have to do with your poor understanding of government debt?

I understand debt well enough to know that the deficit number you use is a phony number for the media and your own link says the same thing!! The real deficit number is the change in total debt, which includes the IGH borrowing and supplemental spending that your phony number doesn't.

Check it out.....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...revenue-absolute-bullshit-55.html#post3873214

Ben said that supplemental spending was included in the total deficit.
I'm pretty sure it was you, or your moron friends, who said it wasn't included anywhere.
LOL!

You just will not give up that dumb act!

No, Ben said that supplemental spending was included in the off budget spending, and YOUR own link said it wasn't.
I said supplemental spending can only be calculated from the increase in total debt.

Originally Posted by BenNatuf What kind of fucking moron are you? Off budget include ALL off budget spending including supplemental appropriations.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The chronology of the posts already shows Ed taking you task on this, Toddy. Repeating your failed and disproven assertions with me won't change the conclusions. Now, make your baseless and false accusations like a good and predictable little neocon toadie.

Help your buddy. Unless you're as dumb as he is? LOL!

As you can see folks, Toddy is your typical intellectually bankrupt neocon parrot.....whenever Ed takes him to task and proves him wrong, Toddy plays word games by desperately pretending that and euphenism or substitute description Ed uses is something totally different or irrelevent to the discussion. But the chronolgy of the post exposes Toddy's folly......and since I won't indulge Toddy's stalling and dodges, he reacts like a petulant child. Pity Toddy doesn't realize that his faux hysterics fool no one but himself.
Alan Simpson was dead on target...and as polls shows 50% of Repbulicans NOT agreeing with the stone wall tactics and goals of the GOP regarding the debt ceiling, folk like Toddy will be even more evident of their insipid stubborness.

Run away. LOL!

 

[taichiliberal]

Let me know if I can help you with simple arithmetic, your buddy doesn't seem to get it.

The chronology of the post shows Edthecynic logically and factually disproving your myopic and error ridden economic belief system, Toddy. I just cut to the chase with simple logic. In order for someone to buy your neocon/teabagger bullshit, one has to essentially redefine what a deficit is and how it's paid down...and then ignore specific information in order for your "conclusion" to come about.

As the chronology of the posts shows, whenever Ed puts you in a cornerusing your own convoluted "logic" where you have to admit you're wrong, you just skip back to the beginning and repeat yourself. I discovered LONG ago that trying to get an insipidly stubborn and willfully ignorant neocon parrot they are wrong is like banging your head against a wall....it feels so good when you stop. So you run along and repeat your myopic BS ad nauseum, Toddy. No matter how hard you try, you just can't revise history to your liking.

In fiscal 2006, government revenues were $2,567,985,000.
Government outlays were $2,728,686,000.
1)Pretend the "Trust Funds" increased by $340 billion that year.
2)Pretend the "Trust Funds" remained constant that year.
3)Pretend the "Trust Funds" decreased by $340 billion that year.

Under which scenario is the government in the best financial shape? Why?
Try to think, for a change.
Help out your buddy.

Please show ONE official government report that states in no uncertain terms EXACTLY what you do from numbers 1 through 3. If you can't, then you need to get a buddy to help you deal with reality instead of your personal version of it.

 

[edthecynic]

"The real deficit number is the change in total debt"

What was the change in total assets?

Don't change the subject. 500 billion was borrowed to cover the true deficit spending for 2007.

In fiscal 2007, government revenues were $2,567,985,000.
Government outlays were $2,728,686,000.

Government outlays were $2,728,686,000 + $340 billion in supplemental spending.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Maybe the Wikipedia explanation is simplistic enough for you to understand?

The annual change in debt is not equal to the "total deficit" typically reported in the media. Social Security payroll taxes and benefit payments, along with the net balance of the U.S. Postal Service are considered "off-budget" while most other expenditure and receipt categories are considered "on-budget." The total federal deficit is the sum of the on-budget deficit (or surplus) and the off-budget deficit (or surplus). Since FY1960, the federal government has run on-budget deficits except for FY1999 and FY2000, and total federal deficits except in FY1969 and FY1998-FY2001.[28]

In large part because of Social Security surpluses, the total deficit is smaller than the on-budget deficit. The surplus of Social Security payroll taxes over benefit payments is spent by the government for other purposes. However, the government credits the Social Security Trust fund for the surplus amount, adding to the "intragovernmental debt." The total federal debt is divided into "intragovernmental debt" and "debt held by the public." In other words, spending the "off budget" Social Security surplus adds to the total national debt (by increasing the intragovernmental debt) while the surplus reduces the "total" deficit reported in the media.

Certain spending called "supplemental appropriations" is outside the budget process entirely but adds to the national debt. Funding for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars was accounted for this way prior to the Obama administration. Certain stimulus measures and earmarks are also outside the budget process.

For example, in FY2008 an off-budget surplus of $183 billion reduced the on-budget deficit of $642 billion, resulting in a total federal deficit of $459 billion. Media often reported the latter figure. The national debt increased by $1,017 billion between the end of FY2007 and the end of FY2008.[29] The federal government publishes the total debt owed (public and intragovernmental holdings) at the end of each fiscal year[30] and since FY1957, the amount of debt held by the federal government has increased each year.

United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you remember, but you've been spinning so much you are probably too dizzy to remember, claiming that supplemental spending was part of the off budget numbers is what started this merry-go-round.

Check it out.....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...revenue-absolute-bullshit-55.html#post3873214

Ben said that supplemental spending was included in the total deficit.
I'm pretty sure it was you, or your moron friends, who said it wasn't included anywhere.
LOL!

You just will not give up that dumb act!

No, Ben said that supplemental spending was included in the off budget spending, and YOUR own link said it wasn't.
I said supplemental spending can only be calculated from the increase in total debt.

Originally Posted by BenNatuf What kind of fucking moron are you? Off budget include ALL off budget spending including supplemental appropriations.

Ben said, "The total deficit iuncluding ALL on and off budget items for 2007 was 161B"

Do you agree?