France INcome Tax raised to 100%: Total Marxism

[NightFox]

You are right about surpluses under Clinton though. More money came in than was spent. That's a surplus.

Ummm... no there was no budget surplus under Clinton, unless of course you happen to believe that the smoke & mirrors accounting that the federal government uses is even remotely honest. The liars in Washington simply vanished the intra-governmental holdings (ya know raiding SS and Pension Fund) from their numbers to magically produce a "surplus", however total national debt = total public debt AND intra-governmental holdings. I know people like to believe the total fabrication that somehow tax payers aren't going to be on the hook to pay back money raided from the SSA and other federal pensions but it just ain't so, those federal debt instruments are in fact in existence.

Then there's the fact that unlike GAAP the federal government doesn't amortize future unfunded liabilities on an annual basis, a practice which would get any private accountant tossed in prison for doing, so the GAAP numbers on the deficit would be even worse than these;

U.S. TREASURY DATA

FY - National Debt - Deficit
FY1994 - $4.692749 trillion -$281.26 billion
FY1995 - $4.973982 trillion -$281.23 billion
FY1996 - $5.224810 trillion -$250.83 billion
FY1997 - $5.413146 trillion -$188.34 billion
FY1998 - $5.526193 trillion -$113.05 billion
FY1999 - $5.656270 trillion -$130.08 billion
FY2000 - $5.674178 trillion -$17.91 billion
FY2001 - $5.807463 trillion -$133.29 billion

Yup...

Almost as big a Clinton myth as "I did not have sexual relations with that woman...

During the Clinton term, the national debt increased 41%....

...and with no wars to blame it on.

Personally I don't care who or what a President wants to have sex with, however the fantasy accounting practiced by the federal government is offensive.

 

[NightFox]

You are right about surpluses under Clinton though. More money came in than was spent. That's a surplus.

Ummm... no there was no budget surplus under Clinton, unless of course you happen to believe that the smoke & mirrors accounting that the federal government uses is even remotely honest. The liars in Washington simply vanished the intra-governmental holdings (ya know raiding SS and Pension Fund) from their numbers to magically produce a "surplus", however total national debt = total public debt AND intra-governmental holdings. I know people like to believe the total fabrication that somehow tax payers aren't going to be on the hook to pay back money raided from the SSA and other federal pensions but it just ain't so, those federal debt instruments are in fact in existence.

Then there's the fact that unlike GAAP the federal government doesn't amortize future unfunded liabilities on an annual basis, a practice which would get any private accountant tossed in prison for doing, so the GAAP numbers on the deficit would be even worse than these;

U.S. TREASURY DATA

FY - National Debt - Deficit
FY1994 - $4.692749 trillion -$281.26 billion
FY1995 - $4.973982 trillion -$281.23 billion
FY1996 - $5.224810 trillion -$250.83 billion
FY1997 - $5.413146 trillion -$188.34 billion
FY1998 - $5.526193 trillion -$113.05 billion
FY1999 - $5.656270 trillion -$130.08 billion
FY2000 - $5.674178 trillion -$17.91 billion
FY2001 - $5.807463 trillion -$133.29 billion

The definition of a surplus is when there is more cash coming in than going out. That's it. There is no other definition.

No it isn't , a big chunk of the "cash" coming in was BORROWED from the SSA as in the treasury issued non-transferable BONDS for it. The definition of a budget "surplus" in the rational world can't happen when you increase your outstanding debt and then add the additional debt to your cash flow, the federal government in effect counted the same money TWICE as in, "we're going to spend it on current operations AND we're going to count it as part of the SSA "trust fund".

 

[DiamondDave]

Which "societies" do you mean? Guy, you can only milk the USSR for so much millage and claim it's average.

(Psst. The failure of the USSR had nothing to do with its economic system. It had to do with nationalism. Same reason the British Empire broke apart.)

Fact is, Germany, Japan, UK, France, Italy, Canada all have the kind of social democracies where basic needs are met, workers are put ahead of corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share.

And they work just fine.

France some pay over 100% how is that fair?

Because they haven't paid their fair share in the past?

Uhhh.. no... because greedy little fuckers like you want them to pay for your shit, is more like it...

What is FAIR to you is not what is FAIR to someone else because FAIR is SUBJECTIVE... You, who claimed on this very board that the government should take anything in wealth that is more than 2MIL....

Sorry, your little communist confiscation dreams are not going to fly and have shown to be faulty and unsustainable...

 

[Toro]

Ummm... no there was no budget surplus under Clinton, unless of course you happen to believe that the smoke & mirrors accounting that the federal government uses is even remotely honest. The liars in Washington simply vanished the intra-governmental holdings (ya know raiding SS and Pension Fund) from their numbers to magically produce a "surplus", however total national debt = total public debt AND intra-governmental holdings. I know people like to believe the total fabrication that somehow tax payers aren't going to be on the hook to pay back money raided from the SSA and other federal pensions but it just ain't so, those federal debt instruments are in fact in existence.

Then there's the fact that unlike GAAP the federal government doesn't amortize future unfunded liabilities on an annual basis, a practice which would get any private accountant tossed in prison for doing, so the GAAP numbers on the deficit would be even worse than these;

U.S. TREASURY DATA

FY - National Debt - Deficit
FY1994 - $4.692749 trillion -$281.26 billion
FY1995 - $4.973982 trillion -$281.23 billion
FY1996 - $5.224810 trillion -$250.83 billion
FY1997 - $5.413146 trillion -$188.34 billion
FY1998 - $5.526193 trillion -$113.05 billion
FY1999 - $5.656270 trillion -$130.08 billion
FY2000 - $5.674178 trillion -$17.91 billion
FY2001 - $5.807463 trillion -$133.29 billion

The definition of a surplus is when there is more cash coming in than going out. That's it. There is no other definition.

No it isn't , a big chunk of the "cash" coming in was BORROWED from the SSA as in the treasury issued non-transferable BONDS for it. The definition of a budget "surplus" in the rational world can't happen when you increase your outstanding debt and then add the additional debt to your cash flow, the federal government in effect counted the same money TWICE as in, "we're going to spend it on current operations AND we're going to count it as part of the SSA "trust fund".

Well, go find a whole bunch of economists who agree with. There must be many conservative economists who also make your argument.

But since you won't be able to, I'll explain it to you.

Conservative ideologues who don't understand how this all work and looking to score political points like to argue that the trusts were "raided." But the operations of the trusts were no different than they were in the 1980s or today. For the last 40+ years, the government has credited the SS trusts with non-marketable liabilities and sweeps the cash from FICA taxes into the Treasury where it is spent. In practice, this is no different than the trusts buying Treasury bills, notes and bonds in the open market. So to say that the trusts were raided by Clinton also means that Reagan, Bush I, Bush II and Obama have also "raided" the trusts. Of course, this is silly, and no one knowledgeable makes this argument.

In the 90s, the operating budget, ie excluding the cash flows in the trusts, was in deficit. The trusts were in surplus. Because the trusts had larger surpluses than the operating budget deficits, the Treasury had more money coming in than going out. That is a "surplus" in our nomenclature. This surplus was used to retire Treasury debt in the open market, which is why the tradable debt fell. But because the liabilities in the trusts were rising faster than the cash surplus was falling, total debt rose.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

France some pay over 100% how is that fair?

Because they haven't paid their fair share in the past?

Uhhh.. no... because greedy little fuckers like you want them to pay for your shit, is more like it...

What is FAIR to you is not what is FAIR to someone else because FAIR is SUBJECTIVE... You, who claimed on this very board that the government should take anything in wealth that is more than 2MIL....

Sorry, your little communist confiscation dreams are not going to fly and have shown to be faulty and unsustainable...

You notice he wants to penalize young people that might have worked hard and became rich for the "sins of the past. "

 

[NightFox]

The definition of a surplus is when there is more cash coming in than going out. That's it. There is no other definition.

No it isn't , a big chunk of the "cash" coming in was BORROWED from the SSA as in the treasury issued non-transferable BONDS for it. The definition of a budget "surplus" in the rational world can't happen when you increase your outstanding debt and then add the additional debt to your cash flow, the federal government in effect counted the same money TWICE as in, "we're going to spend it on current operations AND we're going to count it as part of the SSA "trust fund".

Well, go find a whole bunch of economists who agree with. There must be many conservative economists who also make your argument.

Well there's your problem right there, you're asking economists to answer an accounting question, using your logic every company in American can increase it's income by simply running up debt and pretending like the debt doesn't have to be repaid.

If you wish to believe the results of the completely fictitious accounting practices that the federal government uses is even in the same ballpark as reality that is your right, just don't be shocked or offended when those of us that actually have some understanding about how accounting works in the real world challenge your assertions. If you're really interested in the truth don't take my word for it, go ask an accountant you trust to explain it to you (that's what I did), if you're not interested in the truth feel free to continue on with your efforts to rationalize the irrational federal budget numbers, hope it makes you feel better.

Conservative ideologues who don't understand how this all work and looking to score political points like to argue that the trusts were "raided." But the operations of the trusts were no different than they were in the 1980s or today. For the last 40+ years, the government has credited the SS trusts with non-marketable liabilities and sweeps the cash from FICA taxes into the Treasury where it is spent. In practice, this is no different than the trusts buying Treasury bills, notes and bonds in the open market. So to say that the trusts were raided by Clinton also means that Reagan, Bush I, Bush II and Obama have also "raided" the trusts. Of course, this is silly, and no one knowledgeable makes this argument.

In the 90s, the operating budget, ie excluding the cash flows in the trusts, was in deficit. The trusts were in surplus. Because the trusts had larger surpluses than the operating budget deficits, the Treasury had more money coming in than going out. That is a "surplus" in our nomenclature. This surplus was used to retire Treasury debt in the open market, which is why the tradable debt fell. But because the liabilities in the trusts were rising faster than the cash surplus was falling, total debt rose.

You still don't seem to get the concept that the same exact money was used to service two different obligations at the same time (operating expenses and LEGAL SSA trust fund obligations)... I don't know how to make it any simpler for you to understand, it's no different than if the federal government had gone on the open market to borrow the money and then counted the additional debt as income pretending that it would never have an obligation to re-pay it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Which "societies" do you mean? Guy, you can only milk the USSR for so much millage and claim it's average.

(Psst. The failure of the USSR had nothing to do with its economic system. It had to do with nationalism. Same reason the British Empire broke apart.)

Fact is, Germany, Japan, UK, France, Italy, Canada all have the kind of social democracies where basic needs are met, workers are put ahead of corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share.

And they work just fine.

France some pay over 100% how is that fair?

Yea you tell em bigrebbie. How is it that SOME people in France evidently have to borrow money or dig into savings to pay in excess of 100% of their income to the taxman.

Why, that sounds so unbelievable that, well I don't believe you big rebbie.

Your acceptance of the truth is not required for it to be true.

 

[Unkotare]

Which "societies" do you mean? Guy, you can only milk the USSR for so much millage and claim it's average.

(Psst. The failure of the USSR had nothing to do with its economic system. It had to do with nationalism. Same reason the British Empire broke apart.)

Fact is, Germany, Japan, UK, France, Italy, Canada all have the kind of social democracies where basic needs are met, workers are put ahead of corporations and the wealthy pay their fair share.

And they work just fine.

We all know that you pine for the USSR, but your argument would have more credence had communist systems all over the world not also collapsed.

Your comment about the other western countries is pretty funny. We have a mixed economy here, with an extensive social net like those other countries. The only difference is degree. But hey, you've never had a problem displaying your ignorance about other places to wrongly bolster your Internet arguments, so why stop now?

You are right about surpluses under Clinton though. More money came in than was spent. That's a surplus.

Japan is a 'westerrn' country? Since when?

Economically & politically? Since the 1950s.

 

[Toro]

No it isn't , a big chunk of the "cash" coming in was BORROWED from the SSA as in the treasury issued non-transferable BONDS for it. The definition of a budget "surplus" in the rational world can't happen when you increase your outstanding debt and then add the additional debt to your cash flow, the federal government in effect counted the same money TWICE as in, "we're going to spend it on current operations AND we're going to count it as part of the SSA "trust fund".

Well, go find a whole bunch of economists who agree with. There must be many conservative economists who also make your argument.

Well there's your problem right there, you're asking economists to answer an accounting question, using your logic every company in American can increase it's income by simply running up debt and pretending like the debt doesn't have to be repaid.

If you wish to believe the results of the completely fictitious accounting practices that the federal government uses is even in the same ballpark as reality that is your right, just don't be shocked or offended when those of us that actually have some understanding about how accounting works in the real world challenge your assertions. If you're really interested in the truth don't take my word for it, go ask an accountant you trust to explain it to you (that's what I did), if you're not interested in the truth feel free to continue on with your efforts to rationalize the irrational federal budget numbers, hope it makes you feel better.

Conservative ideologues who don't understand how this all work and looking to score political points like to argue that the trusts were "raided." But the operations of the trusts were no different than they were in the 1980s or today. For the last 40+ years, the government has credited the SS trusts with non-marketable liabilities and sweeps the cash from FICA taxes into the Treasury where it is spent. In practice, this is no different than the trusts buying Treasury bills, notes and bonds in the open market. So to say that the trusts were raided by Clinton also means that Reagan, Bush I, Bush II and Obama have also "raided" the trusts. Of course, this is silly, and no one knowledgeable makes this argument.

In the 90s, the operating budget, ie excluding the cash flows in the trusts, was in deficit. The trusts were in surplus. Because the trusts had larger surpluses than the operating budget deficits, the Treasury had more money coming in than going out. That is a "surplus" in our nomenclature. This surplus was used to retire Treasury debt in the open market, which is why the tradable debt fell. But because the liabilities in the trusts were rising faster than the cash surplus was falling, total debt rose.

You still don't seem to get the concept that the same exact money was used to service two different obligations at the same time (operating expenses and LEGAL SSA trust fund obligations)... I don't know how to make it any simpler for you to understand, it's no different than if the federal government had gone on the open market to borrow the money and then counted the additional debt as income pretending that it would never have an obligation to re-pay it.

I get it totally. It doesn't matter if the cash flow services two different obligations. What matters is the consolidated accounts.

If the trusts have a surplus of $400 million and the operating budget has a deficit of $200 million, the consolidated government cash flow statement will have a surplus of $200 million. The assets in the trust will rise by $400 million while the liabilities of the Treasury to the trusts will rise by a corresponding amount. The $200 million will be used to pay off the public debt leading to a net rise in the debt of $200 million. This is convention in our system.

It doesn't matter that its not GAAP compliant. The government is not a profit seeking enterprise.

 

[NightFox]

Well, go find a whole bunch of economists who agree with. There must be many conservative economists who also make your argument.

Well there's your problem right there, you're asking economists to answer an accounting question, using your logic every company in American can increase it's income by simply running up debt and pretending like the debt doesn't have to be repaid.

If you wish to believe the results of the completely fictitious accounting practices that the federal government uses is even in the same ballpark as reality that is your right, just don't be shocked or offended when those of us that actually have some understanding about how accounting works in the real world challenge your assertions. If you're really interested in the truth don't take my word for it, go ask an accountant you trust to explain it to you (that's what I did), if you're not interested in the truth feel free to continue on with your efforts to rationalize the irrational federal budget numbers, hope it makes you feel better.

Conservative ideologues who don't understand how this all work and looking to score political points like to argue that the trusts were "raided." But the operations of the trusts were no different than they were in the 1980s or today. For the last 40+ years, the government has credited the SS trusts with non-marketable liabilities and sweeps the cash from FICA taxes into the Treasury where it is spent. In practice, this is no different than the trusts buying Treasury bills, notes and bonds in the open market. So to say that the trusts were raided by Clinton also means that Reagan, Bush I, Bush II and Obama have also "raided" the trusts. Of course, this is silly, and no one knowledgeable makes this argument.

In the 90s, the operating budget, ie excluding the cash flows in the trusts, was in deficit. The trusts were in surplus. Because the trusts had larger surpluses than the operating budget deficits, the Treasury had more money coming in than going out. That is a "surplus" in our nomenclature. This surplus was used to retire Treasury debt in the open market, which is why the tradable debt fell. But because the liabilities in the trusts were rising faster than the cash surplus was falling, total debt rose.

You still don't seem to get the concept that the same exact money was used to service two different obligations at the same time (operating expenses and LEGAL SSA trust fund obligations)... I don't know how to make it any simpler for you to understand, it's no different than if the federal government had gone on the open market to borrow the money and then counted the additional debt as income pretending that it would never have an obligation to re-pay it.

I get it totally. It doesn't matter if the cash flow services two different obligations. What matters is the consolidated accounts.

I don't think you do because if you did you wouldn't make the claims that you've made, the important thing is the ACTUAL financial condition of the federal government, not the headline numbers based on accounting that was designed for the express purpose of obfuscating the ACTUAL financial condition from the general public. Your logic here is circular to whit: "If the federal government says it's a surplus then it's a surplus even though the underlying numbers clearly show that it is not.". It's smoke & mirrors accounting no matter how you slice it and if anybody in the real world tried it they'd be tossed in the jail. The objective is to figure out the truth not simply advance the fallacy that a reported surplus is an actual surplus just because the federal government decides to redefine what the word "surplus" means and uses self invented accounting practices to support it's redefinition.

It doesn't matter that its not GAAP compliant. The government is not a profit seeking enterprise.

It DOES matter since GAAP are designed to give an accurate picture of the financial state of an organization and thus can be used as a basis for demonstrating that the financial picture that the federal government presents is a complete distortion of the truth. The cash in-cash out accounting that the federal government tries to present as reasonable wouldn't even work for a small business, since it double (and sometimes triple) counts the same money by changing it from one pocket to another, counting debt as income and assuming the future un/under funded liabilities don't exist. Like I said, don't take my word for it, go ask your favorite accountant what he or she thinks.

The federal government is engaged in the same exact nonsense as we speak with respect to how it's handling the current debt ceiling, it's financing it's current operations using borrowed money from pension funds and not counting that borrowed money as new debt, as in "it's not debt because we say it's not debt".

 

[DiamondDave]

The government basically says its numbers are legit because they say their numbers are legit.. yet if a business used the very same accounting practices, they would be prosecuted

Too long have we have the government blowing smoke up our asses because the populace in general just does not want to hear the truth and bad news

 

[NightFox]

The government basically says its numbers are legit because they say their numbers are legit.. yet if a business used the very same accounting practices, they would be prosecuted

Too long have we have the government blowing smoke up our asses because the populace in general just does not want to hear the truth and bad news

Exactly Dave, politicians and bureaucrats believe that they can transform lies into truth simply by declaration, the really sad part is that so many Americans not only let them get away with it, they actually defend the practice.

"Mark you this, Bassanio, The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose. An evil soul producing holy witness Is like a villain with a smiling cheek, A goodly apple rotten at the heart:O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!" -- William Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice

 

[Toro]

Well there's your problem right there, you're asking economists to answer an accounting question, using your logic every company in American can increase it's income by simply running up debt and pretending like the debt doesn't have to be repaid.

If you wish to believe the results of the completely fictitious accounting practices that the federal government uses is even in the same ballpark as reality that is your right, just don't be shocked or offended when those of us that actually have some understanding about how accounting works in the real world challenge your assertions. If you're really interested in the truth don't take my word for it, go ask an accountant you trust to explain it to you (that's what I did), if you're not interested in the truth feel free to continue on with your efforts to rationalize the irrational federal budget numbers, hope it makes you feel better.


You still don't seem to get the concept that the same exact money was used to service two different obligations at the same time (operating expenses and LEGAL SSA trust fund obligations)... I don't know how to make it any simpler for you to understand, it's no different than if the federal government had gone on the open market to borrow the money and then counted the additional debt as income pretending that it would never have an obligation to re-pay it.

I get it totally. It doesn't matter if the cash flow services two different obligations. What matters is the consolidated accounts.

I don't think you do because if you did you wouldn't make the claims that you've made, the important thing is the ACTUAL financial condition of the federal government, not the headline numbers based on accounting that was designed for the express purpose of obfuscating the ACTUAL financial condition from the general public. Your logic here is circular to whit: "If the federal government says it's a surplus then it's a surplus even though the underlying numbers clearly show that it is not.". It's smoke & mirrors accounting no matter how you slice it and if anybody in the real world tried it they'd be tossed in the jail. The objective is to figure out the truth not simply advance the fallacy that a reported surplus is an actual surplus just because the federal government decides to redefine what the word "surplus" means and uses self invented accounting practices to support it's redefinition.

It doesn't matter that its not GAAP compliant. The government is not a profit seeking enterprise.

It DOES matter since GAAP are designed to give an accurate picture of the financial state of an organization and thus can be used as a basis for demonstrating that the financial picture that the federal government presents is a complete distortion of the truth. The cash in-cash out accounting that the federal government tries to present as reasonable wouldn't even work for a small business, since it double (and sometimes triple) counts the same money by changing it from one pocket to another, counting debt as income and assuming the future un/under funded liabilities don't exist. Like I said, don't take my word for it, go ask your favorite accountant what he or she thinks.

The federal government is engaged in the same exact nonsense as we speak with respect to how it's handling the current debt ceiling, it's financing it's current operations using borrowed money from pension funds and not counting that borrowed money as new debt, as in "it's not debt because we say it's not debt".

s0n, the government is not redefining what a surplus means. You are redefining what a surplus means. A surplus is when cash inflows exceed cash cash outflows. That's it. Nothing more. If you want to argue that the government's financial position did not improve, that's a different argument. But you are redefining the terms to suit your narrative. Or you simply do not understand what basic terms mean. Your argument that some of the smartest economists in the world don't understand this because its accounting is really silly. The Treasury and CBO employ small armies of economists. Go find a few that back up your argument.

That the government's books are not GAAP compliant also doesn't change this fact. Companies file a cash flow statement that are GAAP compliant. The cash flow statement most closely approximates cash accounting governments use. It details cash coming in and cash going out of the business, just like the government accounts. What you are referring to is an income statement. An income statement is not a cash flow statement.

I understand that how the government accounts for cash flows, assets and liabilities in the trusts is confusing, or that the trusts themselves are confusing. You can argue that we shouldn't look at the consolidated government accounts and instead break out the trusts from the operating budget. But how the government accounts for its operations is similar to a (mostly) GAAP compliant entity that consolidates its operations and pools of capital through a cash flow statement.

 

[NightFox]

I get it totally. It doesn't matter if the cash flow services two different obligations. What matters is the consolidated accounts.

I don't think you do because if you did you wouldn't make the claims that you've made, the important thing is the ACTUAL financial condition of the federal government, not the headline numbers based on accounting that was designed for the express purpose of obfuscating the ACTUAL financial condition from the general public. Your logic here is circular to whit: "If the federal government says it's a surplus then it's a surplus even though the underlying numbers clearly show that it is not.". It's smoke & mirrors accounting no matter how you slice it and if anybody in the real world tried it they'd be tossed in the jail. The objective is to figure out the truth not simply advance the fallacy that a reported surplus is an actual surplus just because the federal government decides to redefine what the word "surplus" means and uses self invented accounting practices to support it's redefinition.

It doesn't matter that its not GAAP compliant. The government is not a profit seeking enterprise.

It DOES matter since GAAP are designed to give an accurate picture of the financial state of an organization and thus can be used as a basis for demonstrating that the financial picture that the federal government presents is a complete distortion of the truth. The cash in-cash out accounting that the federal government tries to present as reasonable wouldn't even work for a small business, since it double (and sometimes triple) counts the same money by changing it from one pocket to another, counting debt as income and assuming the future un/under funded liabilities don't exist. Like I said, don't take my word for it, go ask your favorite accountant what he or she thinks.

The federal government is engaged in the same exact nonsense as we speak with respect to how it's handling the current debt ceiling, it's financing it's current operations using borrowed money from pension funds and not counting that borrowed money as new debt, as in "it's not debt because we say it's not debt".

s0n, the government is not redefining what a surplus means. You are redefining what a surplus means. A surplus is when cash inflows exceed cash cash outflows.

Again you fail to understand self-evident logic because you buy into the fallacy that the same money can be used to service two legal obligations simultaneous while only being counted as an expenditure once, if you honestly examine the particulars of that false government assertion it should be crystal clear that cash inflows do not exceed cash outflows. If you need a real world demonstration as to how this works, go ahead and try and pay your electric bill and your mortgage this month with the same exact same dollar bills, let me know if you realize any real cash flow benefits from it.

Like I've said multiple times if you really care about the truth and don't want to take my word for it, do yourself a service and go ask your accountant what he/she thinks, worst that can happen is an interesting conversation.

As far as your use of "s0n" , must you stoop to such crass devices? I gave you credit for being a rational and intelligent individual, was I mistaken?

 

[Clementine]

Oh...my...God.

That is the most fucked up thing I've seen in some time. Their ENTIRE income, gone!

Well, at least we can take solace in knowing that central governments are much more efficient in how they spend money than individuals making voluntary choices...

Now which Statists here will support this kind of crap I wonder???

I would just stop working. I mean if I dont get to keep one dime of what I earned why should I work right or move

You wouldn't want to work. No one would. That is precisely why socialism has never worked and never will. There aren't enough people willing to be used this way. Many will leave. I think this is why there was talk of a global tax. All part of the 'you can run, but you can't hide from wealth redistribution' plan that liberals want.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

You know what's amazing, that the Libtards came and defended France's 100% tax policy.

 

[Toro]

I don't think you do because if you did you wouldn't make the claims that you've made, the important thing is the ACTUAL financial condition of the federal government, not the headline numbers based on accounting that was designed for the express purpose of obfuscating the ACTUAL financial condition from the general public. Your logic here is circular to whit: "If the federal government says it's a surplus then it's a surplus even though the underlying numbers clearly show that it is not.". It's smoke & mirrors accounting no matter how you slice it and if anybody in the real world tried it they'd be tossed in the jail. The objective is to figure out the truth not simply advance the fallacy that a reported surplus is an actual surplus just because the federal government decides to redefine what the word "surplus" means and uses self invented accounting practices to support it's redefinition.


It DOES matter since GAAP are designed to give an accurate picture of the financial state of an organization and thus can be used as a basis for demonstrating that the financial picture that the federal government presents is a complete distortion of the truth. The cash in-cash out accounting that the federal government tries to present as reasonable wouldn't even work for a small business, since it double (and sometimes triple) counts the same money by changing it from one pocket to another, counting debt as income and assuming the future un/under funded liabilities don't exist. Like I said, don't take my word for it, go ask your favorite accountant what he or she thinks.

The federal government is engaged in the same exact nonsense as we speak with respect to how it's handling the current debt ceiling, it's financing it's current operations using borrowed money from pension funds and not counting that borrowed money as new debt, as in "it's not debt because we say it's not debt".

s0n, the government is not redefining what a surplus means. You are redefining what a surplus means. A surplus is when cash inflows exceed cash cash outflows.

Again you fail to understand self-evident logic because you buy into the fallacy that the same money can be used to service two legal obligations simultaneous while only being counted as an expenditure once, if you honestly examine the particulars of that false government assertion it should be crystal clear that cash inflows do not exceed cash outflows. If you need a real world demonstration as to how this works, go ahead and try and pay your electric bill and your mortgage this month with the same exact same dollar bills, let me know if you realize any real cash flow benefits from it.

Like I've said multiple times if you really care about the truth and don't want to take my word for it, do yourself a service and go ask your accountant what he/she thinks, worst that can happen is an interesting conversation.

As far as your use of "s0n" , must you stoop to such crass devices? I gave you credit for being a rational and intelligent individual, was I mistaken?

I've been involved in pensions most of my career. I have ripped apart hundreds of financial statements as an analyst. I understand how the cash flows work. It's confusing if you don't understand it. Most people don't.

I've looked at Social Security. It works like a bond fund consolidated with an operating entity. I will show you how it works later.

 

[usmcstinger]

This is the Progressive Paradise.

Welcome to Forbes

Some of France's richest taxed more than 100%- MSN Money

Thousands of French Households Taxed Over 100%

Taxes on some wealthy French top 100 pct of income: paper | Reuters

Old News.

 

[NightFox]

s0n, the government is not redefining what a surplus means. You are redefining what a surplus means. A surplus is when cash inflows exceed cash cash outflows.

Again you fail to understand self-evident logic because you buy into the fallacy that the same money can be used to service two legal obligations simultaneous while only being counted as an expenditure once, if you honestly examine the particulars of that false government assertion it should be crystal clear that cash inflows do not exceed cash outflows. If you need a real world demonstration as to how this works, go ahead and try and pay your electric bill and your mortgage this month with the same exact same dollar bills, let me know if you realize any real cash flow benefits from it.

Like I've said multiple times if you really care about the truth and don't want to take my word for it, do yourself a service and go ask your accountant what he/she thinks, worst that can happen is an interesting conversation.

As far as your use of "s0n" , must you stoop to such crass devices? I gave you credit for being a rational and intelligent individual, was I mistaken?

I've been involved in pensions most of my career. I have ripped apart hundreds of financial statements as an analyst. I understand how the cash flows work. It's confusing if you don't understand it. Most people don't.

Then you should understand exactly what I'm saying and know that the federal governments idea of "accounting" is completely spurious, besides the obvious logic flaws in their system every accountant I've talked to about it offers the same conclusion.

To defend such practices is to participate in the intentional deception that politicians and bureaucrats hoped to achieve by doing things the way they do them. Average Joe Citizen doesn't even question their assertions when they make them and doesn't even bother to check the details which is exactly what the miscreants of the federal government want.

I've looked at Social Security. It works like a bond fund consolidated with an operating entity. I will show you how it works later.

Yes I understand this, I also understand exactly why they consolidated the accounts, specifically so they could make the claims that you're now repeating, however it doesn't change the fact that the legal obligation to service the SSA "trust fund" exists which is the reason that they are forced to issue new debt to utilize the SSA revenue to service operating expenses, that money will have to be paid back and it will be paid back by the tax payers because non-SSA tax revenues were not sufficient to cover operating expenses at the time the money was "borrowed" from the SSA.

 

[Toro]

Again you fail to understand self-evident logic because you buy into the fallacy that the same money can be used to service two legal obligations simultaneous while only being counted as an expenditure once, if you honestly examine the particulars of that false government assertion it should be crystal clear that cash inflows do not exceed cash outflows. If you need a real world demonstration as to how this works, go ahead and try and pay your electric bill and your mortgage this month with the same exact same dollar bills, let me know if you realize any real cash flow benefits from it.

Like I've said multiple times if you really care about the truth and don't want to take my word for it, do yourself a service and go ask your accountant what he/she thinks, worst that can happen is an interesting conversation.

As far as your use of "s0n" , must you stoop to such crass devices? I gave you credit for being a rational and intelligent individual, was I mistaken?

I've been involved in pensions most of my career. I have ripped apart hundreds of financial statements as an analyst. I understand how the cash flows work. It's confusing if you don't understand it. Most people don't.

Then you should understand exactly what I'm saying and know that the federal governments idea of "accounting" is completely spurious, besides the obvious logic flaws in their system every accountant I've talked to about it offers the same conclusion.

To defend such practices is to participate in the intentional deception that politicians and bureaucrats hoped to achieve by doing things the way they do them. Average Joe Citizen doesn't even question their assertions when they make them and doesn't even bother to check the details which is exactly what the miscreants of the federal government want.

I've looked at Social Security. It works like a bond fund consolidated with an operating entity. I will show you how it works later.

Yes I understand this, I also understand exactly why they consolidated the accounts, specifically so they could make the claims that you're now repeating, however it doesn't change the fact that the legal obligation to service the SSA "trust fund" exists which is the reason that they are forced to issue new debt to utilize the SSA revenue to service operating expenses, that money will have to be paid back and it will be paid back by the tax payers because non-SSA tax revenues were not sufficient to cover operating expenses at the time the money was "borrowed" from the SSA.

First, I'm explaining, not defending, the accounting. I'm also saying that simply because companies have to create GAAP- compliant financial statements, it doesn't mean governments need to as well. Government accounting already is similar to a cash flow statement under GAAP. Governments are not profit-seeking enterprises, nor do they pay taxes, which are reasons to create a GAAP compliant income statement in the first place. This system has been in place since c1980. The idea that the government "raided" SS under Clinton is utter nonsense.

The trusts have been cash flow positive for most of their existence. The argument is that because Treasury securities are considered to be the safest securities, then the trusts should only be invested in Treasury securities. So the government can either create a trust fund that buys Treasury securities in the open market, or it can create a system that replicates the exact same thing without disrupting the bond market. In either case, the economics are exactly the same. The assets of the trusts are the liabilities of the Treasury. If you net them out, you get the net debt, but one stream of cash flow isn't causing double counting of liabilities.