What do liberals want the US to be?

[Procrustes Stretched]

You don't know how a yearly budget works Bubba? SERIOUSLY?

DEFINITION of 'Budget Surplus'

A situation in which income exceeds expenditures. The term "budget surplus" is most commonly used to refer to the financial situations of governments; individuals speak of "savings" rather than a "budget surplus." A surplus is considered a sign that government is being run efficiently.

Budget Surplus Definition Investopedia

LOL, I work in finance, and I own my own business. I also was a math major as an undergrad. I understand numbers. Let's see how you do.

So read what you just wrote. A budget surplus is "a situation in which income exceeds expenditures." So, if income exceeded expenditures every year Clinton was President, how did the national debt go up? That makes no sense.

Here's an example.

Suppose on January 1, there is a national debt of $10T.

That year, there is a surplus. Income is $1.5T and expenditures are $1.0T.

On December 31 that year, the national debt would be $9.5T. A surplus means the debt goes down.

Now walk me through how with a surplus the debt could go up.

SERIOUSLY? You don't know paying off interest due on debt can still cause debt to increase? You SERIOUSLY went to college and can't understand what a yearly budget is? LOL. You are a disingenuous POS. I'm shocked. I linked you to investipedia already Bubba

You do know almost $1 trillion of PUBLIC debt WAS paid down under Clinton right? That excess PAYROLL taxes were put into bonds? lol AS REQUIRED BY LAW? WHAT DOES THAT DO BUBBA?

Um...you didn't know that interest is an expense? Read any company's annual report. You just admitted the surplus was a lie.

Wow, YOU need to grow a brain Bubba. In the Gov't world, excess taxes via payroll are put into BONDS that that is debt. You are a sham Bubba. YES, CLINTON HAD 4 SURPLUSES (MORE MONEY COMING IN THAN GOING OUT)... Of course 3 of them were AFTER Clinton vetoed the GOP's $700+ billion tax cut after BJ Bill's first surplus

So then you admit the social security trust fund is a lie. Which if you read my argument through the thread, these can not both be true.

1) Clinton ran surpluses

2) There is a social security trust fund.

You cannot count revenue both as inflow into the general treasury and savings. If you have $100 you can spend it, or you can save it. You cannot spend it then also count it as savings.

Social Security History

Myth 4: President Roosevelt promised that the money the participants paid would be put into the independent "Trust Fund," rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement program, and no other Government program

------------​

7 Myths You Probably Believe About Social Security - Forbes

Myth #2) Social Security won’t be there for young Americans.

Have you seen the statistic that more young Americans believe in UFOs than believe they’ll see a dime from Social Security? First, let’s start with the bad news. The Social Security trustees project that the Social Security trust fund will be depleted by 2033. At that point, there won’t be enough money in the system to pay all the promised benefits. That’s what people generally mean when they say the program is going “bankrupt.”

Now, here’s the good news. There will still be taxpayers paying into the system. (Bad news for them but good news for you if you’re collecting.) The trustees project there should be enough to pay between 75-80% of the benefits.

What does all this mean for you? You don’t have to assume Social Security won’t be there (which is practically politically impossible) but don’t assume you’ll get more than 75% of your projected benefits either. If the government ends up raising taxes, or increasing the retirement age, or reducing benefits more for higher-income people, you may end up with more than 75%, but it’s always better to err on the safe side.

------------​

and finally -- Social Security Benefits Myths Fears Facts - AARP The Magazine

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Elasticity of Labor Demand and the Minimum Wage
http://ftp.iza.org/dp3150.pdf



Increase min wage 10% you might get a 2% 'help' to the poor. Increase it 150% you might get 1%... LABOR DEMAND FOR MIN WAGE JOBS, IS NOT ELASTIC BUT SET. INCREASE WAGES AND IT HELPS. TO MUCH AND THEIR IS A POSSIBILITY OF HURTING



According to Cooper’s analysis, almost 70 percent of the benefits go to families with incomes of less than $60,000. More than half go to families with incomes below $40,000. Not quite one fourth, to families with incomes below $20,000.

Dube’s new paper, however, goes further. He measures what actually happened to family incomes after federal and state minimum wage increases between 1990 and 2012 –including any changes in the level or the composition of employment in response to the minimum wage.

Dube finds that a 10 percent increase in the minimum wage is associated, on average, with a 1.2 to 3.7 percent decrease in the federal poverty rate.

Minimum Wage and Poverty CEPR Blog



A GOOD LOOK AT IT HERE

The minimum wage and elasticity of labor demand


The minimum wage and elasticity of labor demand Jonathan Malesic Ph.D.

Interesting reading.

I wish I had the time to spend going through the math to really understand it all.

The big standout from all of the articles is the word "if."

There were a lot of "what if this" and "if we assume this..."

All of the sources seem to agree that there will be job losses as a result of an increase, but that the increased spending power of those still employed should offset that in the overall economy.

In other words, some people will be hurt by it, but others will benefit from it.

It's all very uncertain and guessing-game-like.

Always

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Trickle down?

You're speaking of the 'economic theory', which confiscates property from those who created it, thus who rightfully own it, keeps most of it to sustain their power and trickles down a small percentage of it to those who could have created their own, but who CHOSE NOT TO... .

It's a Deceitful theory which uses FRAUDULENT reasoning as a means to influence the Ignorant.

Deceit, FRAUD and Ignorance: The Fundamental Elements of Socialism.

Save us your libertarian logic

Contributing to the society from which you benefit is not a confiscation of property. Our wealthy are paying at one of the lowest levels in our history and laughing all the way to the bank

Confiscation of one's property is confiscation. Contributions are those things given without penalty.

And just as an FYI: That evil confiscates less at one time or more at another, is irrelevant... DUMBASS!

Taxation is the way society pays for itself. We have one of the lowest levels of taxation of any industrialized country
Stop with the confiscation of property bullshit

you mean one of the highest corporate tax rates....

Yes, ANOTHER wingnutter not knowing the diff with EFFECTIVE versus marginal. The US tax BURDEN on Corps is ONLY lower in Mexico and Chile in the developed world. Low teens is horrible right?

Warren Buffett: ‘It Is A Myth’ That U.S. Corporate Taxes Are High

“Corporate taxes are not strangling American competitiveness,” Buffett explained, even bringing a chart to prove his point:
The interesting thing about the corporate rate is that corporate profits, as a percentage of GDP last year were the highest or just about the highest in the last 50 years. They were ten and a fraction percent of GDP. That’s higher than we’ve seen in 50 years. The corporate taxes as a percentage of GDP were 1.2 percent, $180 billion. That’s just about the lowest we’ve seen. So our corporate tax rate last year, effectively, in terms of taxes paid for the United States, was around 12 percent, which is well below those existing in most of the industrialized countries around the world. So it is a myth that American corporations are paying 35 percent or anything like it…Corporate taxes are not strangling American competitiveness.

Yet all of Berkshire acquisition are structured as non-taxable stock swaps

weird

 

[Care4all]

You don't know how a yearly budget works Bubba? SERIOUSLY?

DEFINITION of 'Budget Surplus'

A situation in which income exceeds expenditures. The term "budget surplus" is most commonly used to refer to the financial situations of governments; individuals speak of "savings" rather than a "budget surplus." A surplus is considered a sign that government is being run efficiently.

Budget Surplus Definition Investopedia

LOL, I work in finance, and I own my own business. I also was a math major as an undergrad. I understand numbers. Let's see how you do.

So read what you just wrote. A budget surplus is "a situation in which income exceeds expenditures." So, if income exceeded expenditures every year Clinton was President, how did the national debt go up? That makes no sense.

...

Now walk me through how with a surplus the debt could go up.

I think you are looking at or have looked at GROSS National debt and not NET National debt Kaz...?
i'll quote an in depth response of another member here...Toro

You have posted forecasts by the CBO. I have posted ex post data from the CBO. Do you not see the difference? Forecasting is trying to predict the future. Accounting is determining what happened in the past. Forecasting accurately is extraordinarily difficult. People change forecasts constantly because the future is inherently unknowable.

The CBO data is consistent with the GAO data which is consistent with the Treasury data.

ShaklesOfBigGov said: ↑
I trust the public information found under the Federal Treasury Government Link. I'm not following ideology, but I'm looking to the facts between Federal Government DEBT and DEFICIT Source: Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application) (this TreasuryDirect Government site allows you to go into a History search to show you the Outstanding Federal Debt). Why does the public debt continue to go up during the Clinton administration?

Here is a listing of the Public Debt for prior fiscal years under President Bill Clinton:
09/29/1995 .... $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1996 .... $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/30/1997 .... $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1998 .... $5,526,194,008,897.62
09/30/1999 .... $5,656,270,901,615.43

Source: History of the U.S. public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Can you explain the reason behind the INCREASE in the Federal debt ceiling during Clinton's term?
April 6, 1993 .. $4,370,000,000,000
Aug 10, 1993 .. $4,900,000,000,000
Mar 29, 1996 .. $5,500,000,000,000
Aug 5, 1997 .... $5,950,000,000,000
June 11, 2002 . $6,400,000,000,000 (under President George W Bush, the same gradual increase in the debt ceiling is shown to have be made)

Source: United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


I'm not arguing that the national debt didn't go down. I'm explaining how the government can run a surplus while the national debt rises, which I do here.

It is factually incorrect to deduce changes in the national debt as indicative of the government's budgetary balance. The national debt is partly a function of inter-governmental accounting, which does not give an accurate assessment of the financial health of the US government because it only looks at one side of the balance sheet.

The national debt is gross debt, not net debt. This is from the link you cite below. As you can see, gross debt rose.

The way the government accounts for its books, if there was economic growth and the government spent exactly zero dollars more than the year before, the national debt - which is gross debt - would still rise, all else being equal, because taxes flowing into the trusts automatically trigger buying of government securities. But the net debt would not rise because there would be a concurrent rise in asset value of the trusts, which are government agencies.

ShaklesOfBigGov said: ↑
Yes the deficit went down, but at the cost of the Federal Debt. See Deficit vs Federal Debt Graphs - usgovernment link: United States Debt Deficit History - Charts Following this government link you will see TWO groups of graphs; one that focuses on Government Debt since 1900, followed by a set graphs that shows the Government Deficit. The graphs will show the Deficit did go down, but at the cost of the Federal Debt which continued to go up.
The deficit was eliminated. It wasn't just reduced. There was a surplus. Here is the graph from the link you provided.

See?

This is not about whether or not the gross national debt rose. This is about whether or not there were surpluses in the 1990s. And there were.

What matters in this discussion is not that gross debt rose in the 1990s. What matters is that net debt fell. If the government was running surpluses, you would expect to see a decline in the national net debt, all else being equal.

And it did.

United States Total Government Net Debt (% of GDP) data, Total Government Net Debt (% of GDP) United States

This is net debt to GDP. Net debt to GDP can fall if GDP is rising faster than the growth of debt. But you can see that net debt to GDP fell from 54% in 1995 to 35% in 2000. That is due both to a rise in nominal GDP and a decline in total net debt.

And, as you can see, total net federal government debt declined in the last years of the 1990s.

Last edited: Dec 24, 2010


Republicans Fiscal Sanity Page 19 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Republicans Fiscal Sanity Page 19 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Do you know why this happened? I've been curious if anyone will get it. There is a specific reason behind the lie that Clinton ran a surplus. Toro gives data but doesn't explain the big source of the lie. Dad2Three is clueless.

One of these is a lie.

- Clinton ran a surplus

- There is a Social Security trust fund.

For both of those statements to be true, you have to double count revenue. So do you get now what's happening? Toro interestingly gave completely accurate data without getting that his data is double counting revenue. I actually made it easy to get to the underlying lie if you get what I am referring to.

BTW, the Gross versus Net debt part was ridiculous. Without a lie, for Gross debt to go down, net debt would have to be negative.

Maybe this will help you understand?

Government - Frequently Asked Questions about the Public Debt

I'm not reading your link and explaining to you what it says, you're going to have to read it yourself and explain what your point is. My post was pretty clear, and if you know anything about the Federal government true. So just answer the question, don't say, gee, here's a link.

How can the government spend $100 and count that same $100 as savings? It is a ... wait for it ... lie.

Sorry, your original question was,

How can you have a budget surplus and the National Debt Still rise....?

and this link explains such...the Budget, which is what Congress and the President work with, is NOT the ONLY function/thing that affects the National Debt,...Intragovernmental Holdings also affect the National Debt.

The budget is calculated as it has always been calculated since LBJ included Social Security in the total budget, there were no Social Security surpluses back then, because SS was pay as you go, until Reagan when SS taxes were raised, (doubled) to collect a surplus in SS off of the boomers so that when they retired there would be enough SS surplus taxes collected to pay their own retirement for a while.

So if your point is that Clinton used SS surpluses in the total budget AS ALL OTHER PRESIDENTS did BEFORE HIM to call it a balanced budget or a budget surplus, then the answer is YES, of course he did, BECAUSE this is how the Federal Budget is calculated.

As example, just as President Bush 2nd, calculated the budget with the SS surpluses in there...so when he showed a $500,000,000,000 (billion dollar) deficit in a year, it was truly more like a $750 billion dollar deficit....if you included the SS funds that were in surplus(and borrowed on)...BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT WAS SAID, when he was President...what was said, is precisely what was true, that he had a $500 billion dollar Budget Deficit such and such year....and the truth is that Clinton had a SURPLUS when calculating the Budget according to the RULES/Laws ON THE BOOKS.

You can't change the rules midstream just for Clinton... the rules are the rules, period. And these rules for how a Federal Budget is calculated should be consistent year after year in order to have a way to compare and analyze them, apples to apples, year after year, president after President, decade against decade etc...

 

[Mathbud1]

Right, bandwidth, lol



The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the "Fairness Doctrine" is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were "public trustees," and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues. With the deregulation sweep of the Reagan Administration during the 1980s, the Commission dissolved the fairness doctrine.

This doctrine grew out of concern that because of the large number of applications for radio station being submitted and the limited number of frequencies available, broadcasters should make sure they did not use their stations simply as advocates with a singular perspective. Rather, they must allow all points of view.

...In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. The FCC dissolved the doctrine in August of that year.



However, before the Commission's action, in the spring of 1987, both houses of Congress voted to put the fairness doctrine into law--a statutory fairness doctrine which the FCC would have to enforce, like it or not. But President Reagan, in keeping with his deregulatory efforts and his long-standing favor of keeping government out of the affairs of business, vetoed the legislation. There were insufficient votes to override the veto. Congressional efforts to make the doctrine into law surfaced again during the Bush administration. As before, the legislation was vetoed, this time by Bush.

The Museum of Broadcast Communications - Encyclopedia of Television - Fairness Doctrine


WEIRD, ABOUT 27 YEARS LATER WE HAVE A 'NEWS' NETWORK ARGUING IT HAS A FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO LIE. AND YOU, APPARENTLY SUPPORT IT, LOL
Fox News admits they lie and distort the news so why so pissy

Have you considered signing up for some reading comprehension courses at your local community college? If you like, I can help you search for some that will fit your schedule.

Your source as well as the Wikipedia article both state "This doctrine grew out of concern that because of the large number of applications for radio station being submitted and the limited number of frequencies available..." i.e. radio frequency bandwidth limitations. (Bandwidth is the difference between the upper and lower frequencies in a continuous set of frequencies. - Bandwidth signal processing - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia)

Also from your link: "Indeed, experience over the past several years since the demise of the doctrine shows that broadcasters can and do provide substantial coverage of controversial issues of public importance in their communities, including contrasting viewpoints, through news, public affairs, public service, interactive and special programming."

As for your oh-so-reliable closing link: is that bias I smell, or is it B.S.

Hard to tell the two apart sometimes.

The case cited did not involve Fox News. It involved 1 (one) of their subsidiary stations, WTVT, in Florida, and did not address whether the station had the right to lie or distort the news. The final decision in the case revolved around the question of whether the plaintiff in the case had the right to sue the station under the state's whistle-blower statute. The court decided that she did not. The decision did not address whether the station violated the FCC's news distortion policy, and does not have anything at all to do with the Fairness Doctrine.

http://www.foxbghsuit.com/2D01-529.pdf

FYI, the news distortion policy of the FCC is still in effect:

"What Responsibilities Do Broadcasters Have?
As public trustees, broadcasters may not intentionally distort the news. Broadcasters are responsible for deciding what their stations present to the public, and the FCC has stated publicly that “rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest.” The FCC may act to protect the public interest when it has received documented evidence of such rigging or slanting. This kind of evidence could include testimony, in writing or otherwise, from “insiders” or persons who have direct personal knowledge of an intentional falsification of the news. Of particular concern would be evidence about orders from station management to falsify the news. Without such documented evidence, the FCC generally cannot intervene."

Complaints About Broadcast Journalism FCC.gov

"The Commission often receives complaints concerning broadcast journalism, such as allegations that stations have aired inaccurate or one-sided news reports or comments, covered stories inadequately, or overly dramatized the events that they cover. For the reasons noted above, the Commission generally will not intervene in such cases because it would be inconsistent with the First Amendment to replace the journalistic judgment of licensees with our own."

The Public and Broadcasting - July 2008 FCC.gov

Got it, you'll stick with going with the ability to lie and hide behind the 1st. And YES, THE SUBSIDIARY ACTUALLY ARGUED THEY HAD THE RIGHT TO LIE!

It is irrelevant what the subsidiary argued. The case was not decided on their "right to lie."

They have no right to distort the truth in their news broadcasts. The FCC rules clearly state that they will investigate claims of such distortion where the claimant can provide actual evidence of knowing distortion of the truth in news broadcasting. "Without such documented evidence, the FCC generally cannot intervene."

I fully support the FCC's news distortion policy, and would suggest that anyone who has evidence that any network is deliberately distorting the news should contact the FCC and initiate a formal investigation. When evidence is absent, the FCC should not intervene because frivolous complaints would keep them running around "investigating" every news network on a non-stop basis.

I also fully support the right of the news broadcasters to be free of government control as long as they are truthful in their broadcasts. Would you prefer that the government control all messages that the media can broadcast?

And again, the news distortion policy has nothing at all to do with the Fairness Doctrine.

 

[Mathbud1]

"Inflating the cost of labor without increasing the value of labor doesn't help anything. It only creates an unrealistic situation that can't continue to exist. The situation will adjust to compensate."


lol, Wing nutter alert


Rule of thumb: right wingers almost always come out on the wrong side of history.



"It is not the actual greatness of national wealth, but its continual increase, which occasions a rise in the wages of labour. It is not, accordingly, in the richest countries, but in the most thriving, or in those which are growing rich the fastest, that the wages of labour are highest. England is certainly, in the present times, a much richer country than any part of North America. The wages of labour, however, are much higher in North America than in any part of England."
Adam Smith



"We stand for a living wage. Wages are subnormal if they fail to provide a living for those who devote their time and energy to industrial occupations. The monetary equivalent of a living wage varies according to local conditions, but must include enough to secure the elements of a normal standard of living--a standard high enough to make morality possible, to provide for education and recreation, to care for immature members of the family, to maintain the family during periods of sickness, and to permit of reasonable saving for old age."
President Theodore Roosevelt


"Servants, labourers and workmen of different kinds, make up the far greater part of every great political society. But what improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconvenience to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, cloathed and lodged." - Adam Smith

What is it about the quotes you posted that addresses what I posted?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Save us your libertarian logic

Contributing to the society from which you benefit is not a confiscation of property. Our wealthy are paying at one of the lowest levels in our history and laughing all the way to the bank

Confiscation of one's property is confiscation. Contributions are those things given without penalty.

And just as an FYI: That evil confiscates less at one time or more at another, is irrelevant... DUMBASS!

Taxation is the way society pays for itself. We have one of the lowest levels of taxation of any industrialized country
Stop with the confiscation of property bullshit

you mean one of the highest corporate tax rates....

Yes, ANOTHER wingnutter not knowing the diff with EFFECTIVE versus marginal. The US tax BURDEN on Corps is ONLY lower in Mexico and Chile in the developed world. Low teens is horrible right?

Warren Buffett: ‘It Is A Myth’ That U.S. Corporate Taxes Are High

“Corporate taxes are not strangling American competitiveness,” Buffett explained, even bringing a chart to prove his point:
The interesting thing about the corporate rate is that corporate profits, as a percentage of GDP last year were the highest or just about the highest in the last 50 years. They were ten and a fraction percent of GDP. That’s higher than we’ve seen in 50 years. The corporate taxes as a percentage of GDP were 1.2 percent, $180 billion. That’s just about the lowest we’ve seen. So our corporate tax rate last year, effectively, in terms of taxes paid for the United States, was around 12 percent, which is well below those existing in most of the industrialized countries around the world. So it is a myth that American corporations are paying 35 percent or anything like it…Corporate taxes are not strangling American competitiveness.

Yet all of Berkshire acquisition are structured as non-taxable stock swaps

weird

does one thing negate the other? Huh?

People who say income taxes are not to high also take advantage of income tax breaks. What is wrong with that?

 

[Mathbud1]

Sure Bubba, You are to dense to understand since Clinton signed NAFTA, I opposed NAFTA, since that, I must LOVE Clinton, the best conservative Prez since Ike. You are nothing but a bigoted, right winger. Call yourself whatever you want. Believe in fairy tales, I love the spaghetti monster in the sky myself. You wing nutters who want to hold onto 'tradition and custom', lets get a few slaves for you and make sure you strike your wife to make sure she puts you on the pedestal right?

Funny how you can't just simply answer the question: Q - Do you oppose Clinton in signing NAFTA? A - Yes I do.

Simple.

See.

Instead you post gibberish: Q - Do you oppose Clinton in signing NAFTA? A - What do you think? I love spaghetti monsters!

I guess you didn't follow the posts.. Sorry for you Bubba

I followed them fine. You avoided answering directly as hard as you could. Instead you gave gibberish and indirect answers. Which, I've noticed, is common for you.

You mean a wingnutter can't figure out persons position? Shocking

Whether I could decipher your position or not is irrelevant. That I had to decipher your position is the point.

 

[kaz]

LOL, I work in finance, and I own my own business. I also was a math major as an undergrad. I understand numbers. Let's see how you do.

So read what you just wrote. A budget surplus is "a situation in which income exceeds expenditures." So, if income exceeded expenditures every year Clinton was President, how did the national debt go up? That makes no sense.

Here's an example.

Suppose on January 1, there is a national debt of $10T.

That year, there is a surplus. Income is $1.5T and expenditures are $1.0T.

On December 31 that year, the national debt would be $9.5T. A surplus means the debt goes down.

Now walk me through how with a surplus the debt could go up.

SERIOUSLY? You don't know paying off interest due on debt can still cause debt to increase? You SERIOUSLY went to college and can't understand what a yearly budget is? LOL. You are a disingenuous POS. I'm shocked. I linked you to investipedia already Bubba

You do know almost $1 trillion of PUBLIC debt WAS paid down under Clinton right? That excess PAYROLL taxes were put into bonds? lol AS REQUIRED BY LAW? WHAT DOES THAT DO BUBBA?

Um...you didn't know that interest is an expense? Read any company's annual report. You just admitted the surplus was a lie.

Wow, YOU need to grow a brain Bubba. In the Gov't world, excess taxes via payroll are put into BONDS that that is debt. You are a sham Bubba. YES, CLINTON HAD 4 SURPLUSES (MORE MONEY COMING IN THAN GOING OUT)... Of course 3 of them were AFTER Clinton vetoed the GOP's $700+ billion tax cut after BJ Bill's first surplus

So then you admit the social security trust fund is a lie. Which if you read my argument through the thread, these can not both be true.

1) Clinton ran surpluses

2) There is a social security trust fund.

You cannot count revenue both as inflow into the general treasury and savings. If you have $100 you can spend it, or you can save it. You cannot spend it then also count it as savings.

Weird YOU kept arguing there was no surplus. NOW you want to argue there was no surplus IF there is no 'lock box' on SS funds? You do know the difference right? AND that even without SS taxes, Clinton had a surplus?

Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.
The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton


Yes, SS trust fund is IOU's. Why do you think Reagan increased taxes by 60% on SS to hide the TRUE costs of his tax cuts for the rich?

Well, fooled by everyone. The point is your contradiction. If it's not deficit spending when government collects taxes, then you are admitting there is no trust fund. Else, you are saying money spent is money saved. I am pointing out the contradiction in your claims. Is there a literal ring in your nose that Democrats lead you by?

 

[kaz]

LOL, I work in finance, and I own my own business. I also was a math major as an undergrad. I understand numbers. Let's see how you do.

So read what you just wrote. A budget surplus is "a situation in which income exceeds expenditures." So, if income exceeded expenditures every year Clinton was President, how did the national debt go up? That makes no sense.

...

Now walk me through how with a surplus the debt could go up.

I think you are looking at or have looked at GROSS National debt and not NET National debt Kaz...?
i'll quote an in depth response of another member here...Toro

You have posted forecasts by the CBO. I have posted ex post data from the CBO. Do you not see the difference? Forecasting is trying to predict the future. Accounting is determining what happened in the past. Forecasting accurately is extraordinarily difficult. People change forecasts constantly because the future is inherently unknowable.

The CBO data is consistent with the GAO data which is consistent with the Treasury data.

ShaklesOfBigGov said: ↑
I trust the public information found under the Federal Treasury Government Link. I'm not following ideology, but I'm looking to the facts between Federal Government DEBT and DEFICIT Source: Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application) (this TreasuryDirect Government site allows you to go into a History search to show you the Outstanding Federal Debt). Why does the public debt continue to go up during the Clinton administration?

Here is a listing of the Public Debt for prior fiscal years under President Bill Clinton:
09/29/1995 .... $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1996 .... $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/30/1997 .... $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1998 .... $5,526,194,008,897.62
09/30/1999 .... $5,656,270,901,615.43

Source: History of the U.S. public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Can you explain the reason behind the INCREASE in the Federal debt ceiling during Clinton's term?
April 6, 1993 .. $4,370,000,000,000
Aug 10, 1993 .. $4,900,000,000,000
Mar 29, 1996 .. $5,500,000,000,000
Aug 5, 1997 .... $5,950,000,000,000
June 11, 2002 . $6,400,000,000,000 (under President George W Bush, the same gradual increase in the debt ceiling is shown to have be made)

Source: United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


I'm not arguing that the national debt didn't go down. I'm explaining how the government can run a surplus while the national debt rises, which I do here.

It is factually incorrect to deduce changes in the national debt as indicative of the government's budgetary balance. The national debt is partly a function of inter-governmental accounting, which does not give an accurate assessment of the financial health of the US government because it only looks at one side of the balance sheet.

The national debt is gross debt, not net debt. This is from the link you cite below. As you can see, gross debt rose.

The way the government accounts for its books, if there was economic growth and the government spent exactly zero dollars more than the year before, the national debt - which is gross debt - would still rise, all else being equal, because taxes flowing into the trusts automatically trigger buying of government securities. But the net debt would not rise because there would be a concurrent rise in asset value of the trusts, which are government agencies.

ShaklesOfBigGov said: ↑
Yes the deficit went down, but at the cost of the Federal Debt. See Deficit vs Federal Debt Graphs - usgovernment link: United States Debt Deficit History - Charts Following this government link you will see TWO groups of graphs; one that focuses on Government Debt since 1900, followed by a set graphs that shows the Government Deficit. The graphs will show the Deficit did go down, but at the cost of the Federal Debt which continued to go up.
The deficit was eliminated. It wasn't just reduced. There was a surplus. Here is the graph from the link you provided.

See?

This is not about whether or not the gross national debt rose. This is about whether or not there were surpluses in the 1990s. And there were.

What matters in this discussion is not that gross debt rose in the 1990s. What matters is that net debt fell. If the government was running surpluses, you would expect to see a decline in the national net debt, all else being equal.

And it did.

United States Total Government Net Debt (% of GDP) data, Total Government Net Debt (% of GDP) United States

This is net debt to GDP. Net debt to GDP can fall if GDP is rising faster than the growth of debt. But you can see that net debt to GDP fell from 54% in 1995 to 35% in 2000. That is due both to a rise in nominal GDP and a decline in total net debt.

And, as you can see, total net federal government debt declined in the last years of the 1990s.

Last edited: Dec 24, 2010


Republicans Fiscal Sanity Page 19 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Republicans Fiscal Sanity Page 19 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Do you know why this happened? I've been curious if anyone will get it. There is a specific reason behind the lie that Clinton ran a surplus. Toro gives data but doesn't explain the big source of the lie. Dad2Three is clueless.

One of these is a lie.

- Clinton ran a surplus

- There is a Social Security trust fund.

For both of those statements to be true, you have to double count revenue. So do you get now what's happening? Toro interestingly gave completely accurate data without getting that his data is double counting revenue. I actually made it easy to get to the underlying lie if you get what I am referring to.

BTW, the Gross versus Net debt part was ridiculous. Without a lie, for Gross debt to go down, net debt would have to be negative.

Got it. You are being willfully ignorant. Shocking

Yes, excess payroll taxes ARE counted twice. As revenues AND as debt...

So you agree with me that you are counting the same revenue twice. You said what I said it true. And that makes me willfully ignorant, your saying I'm correct.

Again, how do you spend $100 and still have that same $100 in savings? Explain that.

Gawd you're a moron

I never stated your false premise Bubba. YOUR posit was there was no surplus. Easily refuted

Yes excess payroll taxes came into Gov't that was used as income and ALSO that payroll tax money was purchasing bonds that created debt. Gov't isn't like your household

Wow, so when I say money I spent is an investment, that doesn't make sense. But when government does it, it does make sense. I learn so much from you. Thanks for clarifying that for me, sheep.

 

[kaz]

LOL, I work in finance, and I own my own business. I also was a math major as an undergrad. I understand numbers. Let's see how you do.

So read what you just wrote. A budget surplus is "a situation in which income exceeds expenditures." So, if income exceeded expenditures every year Clinton was President, how did the national debt go up? That makes no sense.

Here's an example.

Suppose on January 1, there is a national debt of $10T.

That year, there is a surplus. Income is $1.5T and expenditures are $1.0T.

On December 31 that year, the national debt would be $9.5T. A surplus means the debt goes down.

Now walk me through how with a surplus the debt could go up.

SERIOUSLY? You don't know paying off interest due on debt can still cause debt to increase? You SERIOUSLY went to college and can't understand what a yearly budget is? LOL. You are a disingenuous POS. I'm shocked. I linked you to investipedia already Bubba

You do know almost $1 trillion of PUBLIC debt WAS paid down under Clinton right? That excess PAYROLL taxes were put into bonds? lol AS REQUIRED BY LAW? WHAT DOES THAT DO BUBBA?

Um...you didn't know that interest is an expense? Read any company's annual report. You just admitted the surplus was a lie.

Wow, YOU need to grow a brain Bubba. In the Gov't world, excess taxes via payroll are put into BONDS that that is debt. You are a sham Bubba. YES, CLINTON HAD 4 SURPLUSES (MORE MONEY COMING IN THAN GOING OUT)... Of course 3 of them were AFTER Clinton vetoed the GOP's $700+ billion tax cut after BJ Bill's first surplus

So then you admit the social security trust fund is a lie. Which if you read my argument through the thread, these can not both be true.

1) Clinton ran surpluses

2) There is a social security trust fund.

You cannot count revenue both as inflow into the general treasury and savings. If you have $100 you can spend it, or you can save it. You cannot spend it then also count it as savings.

Social Security History

Myth 4: President Roosevelt promised that the money the participants paid would be put into the independent "Trust Fund," rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement program, and no other Government program

------------​

7 Myths You Probably Believe About Social Security - Forbes

Myth #2) Social Security won’t be there for young Americans.

Have you seen the statistic that more young Americans believe in UFOs than believe they’ll see a dime from Social Security? First, let’s start with the bad news. The Social Security trustees project that the Social Security trust fund will be depleted by 2033. At that point, there won’t be enough money in the system to pay all the promised benefits. That’s what people generally mean when they say the program is going “bankrupt.”

Now, here’s the good news. There will still be taxpayers paying into the system. (Bad news for them but good news for you if you’re collecting.) The trustees project there should be enough to pay between 75-80% of the benefits.

What does all this mean for you? You don’t have to assume Social Security won’t be there (which is practically politically impossible) but don’t assume you’ll get more than 75% of your projected benefits either. If the government ends up raising taxes, or increasing the retirement age, or reducing benefits more for higher-income people, you may end up with more than 75%, but it’s always better to err on the safe side.

------------​

and finally -- Social Security Benefits Myths Fears Facts - AARP The Magazine

What Dante posted has nothing to do with kaz's point.

 

[Care4all]

Right, bandwidth, lol



The policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission that became known as the "Fairness Doctrine" is an attempt to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues by a broadcast station be balanced and fair. The FCC took the view, in 1949, that station licensees were "public trustees," and as such had an obligation to afford reasonable opportunity for discussion of contrasting points of view on controversial issues of public importance. The Commission later held that stations were also obligated to actively seek out issues of importance to their community and air programming that addressed those issues. With the deregulation sweep of the Reagan Administration during the 1980s, the Commission dissolved the fairness doctrine.

This doctrine grew out of concern that because of the large number of applications for radio station being submitted and the limited number of frequencies available, broadcasters should make sure they did not use their stations simply as advocates with a singular perspective. Rather, they must allow all points of view.

...In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. The FCC dissolved the doctrine in August of that year.



However, before the Commission's action, in the spring of 1987, both houses of Congress voted to put the fairness doctrine into law--a statutory fairness doctrine which the FCC would have to enforce, like it or not. But President Reagan, in keeping with his deregulatory efforts and his long-standing favor of keeping government out of the affairs of business, vetoed the legislation. There were insufficient votes to override the veto. Congressional efforts to make the doctrine into law surfaced again during the Bush administration. As before, the legislation was vetoed, this time by Bush.

The Museum of Broadcast Communications - Encyclopedia of Television - Fairness Doctrine


WEIRD, ABOUT 27 YEARS LATER WE HAVE A 'NEWS' NETWORK ARGUING IT HAS A FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO LIE. AND YOU, APPARENTLY SUPPORT IT, LOL
Fox News admits they lie and distort the news so why so pissy

Have you considered signing up for some reading comprehension courses at your local community college? If you like, I can help you search for some that will fit your schedule.

Your source as well as the Wikipedia article both state "This doctrine grew out of concern that because of the large number of applications for radio station being submitted and the limited number of frequencies available..." i.e. radio frequency bandwidth limitations. (Bandwidth is the difference between the upper and lower frequencies in a continuous set of frequencies. - Bandwidth signal processing - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia)

Also from your link: "Indeed, experience over the past several years since the demise of the doctrine shows that broadcasters can and do provide substantial coverage of controversial issues of public importance in their communities, including contrasting viewpoints, through news, public affairs, public service, interactive and special programming."

As for your oh-so-reliable closing link: is that bias I smell, or is it B.S.

Hard to tell the two apart sometimes.

The case cited did not involve Fox News. It involved 1 (one) of their subsidiary stations, WTVT, in Florida, and did not address whether the station had the right to lie or distort the news. The final decision in the case revolved around the question of whether the plaintiff in the case had the right to sue the station under the state's whistle-blower statute. The court decided that she did not. The decision did not address whether the station violated the FCC's news distortion policy, and does not have anything at all to do with the Fairness Doctrine.

http://www.foxbghsuit.com/2D01-529.pdf

FYI, the news distortion policy of the FCC is still in effect:

"What Responsibilities Do Broadcasters Have?
As public trustees, broadcasters may not intentionally distort the news. Broadcasters are responsible for deciding what their stations present to the public, and the FCC has stated publicly that “rigging or slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest.” The FCC may act to protect the public interest when it has received documented evidence of such rigging or slanting. This kind of evidence could include testimony, in writing or otherwise, from “insiders” or persons who have direct personal knowledge of an intentional falsification of the news. Of particular concern would be evidence about orders from station management to falsify the news. Without such documented evidence, the FCC generally cannot intervene."

Complaints About Broadcast Journalism FCC.gov

"The Commission often receives complaints concerning broadcast journalism, such as allegations that stations have aired inaccurate or one-sided news reports or comments, covered stories inadequately, or overly dramatized the events that they cover. For the reasons noted above, the Commission generally will not intervene in such cases because it would be inconsistent with the First Amendment to replace the journalistic judgment of licensees with our own."

The Public and Broadcasting - July 2008 FCC.gov

Got it, you'll stick with going with the ability to lie and hide behind the 1st. And YES, THE SUBSIDIARY ACTUALLY ARGUED THEY HAD THE RIGHT TO LIE!

It is irrelevant what the subsidiary argued. The case was not decided on their "right to lie."

They have no right to distort the truth in their news broadcasts. The FCC rules clearly state that they will investigate claims of such distortion where the claimant can provide actual evidence of knowing distortion of the truth in news broadcasting. "Without such documented evidence, the FCC generally cannot intervene."

I fully support the FCC's news distortion policy, and would suggest that anyone who has evidence that any network is deliberately distorting the news should contact the FCC and initiate a formal investigation. When evidence is absent, the FCC should not intervene because frivolous complaints would keep them running around "investigating" every news network on a non-stop basis.

I also fully support the right of the news broadcasters to be free of government control as long as they are truthful in their broadcasts. Would you prefer that the government control all messages that the media can broadcast?

And again, the news distortion policy has nothing at all to do with the Fairness Doctrine.

But don't you think the net effect of the ruling was that this Station could lie and distort the news...? Because who more than the employees themselves would know that the Station is intentionally distorting and lying, and without giving these employees whistle blower protection... this means, one thing and one thing only.....that when a citizen, who happens to be an employee, goes to the FCC to report their Stations dishonesty and distortions given to the public, they can and will be fired, thus taking away their ability to report such instances of the Station breaking the Law, if they need their job's income to survive.

 

[kaz]

LOL, I work in finance, and I own my own business. I also was a math major as an undergrad. I understand numbers. Let's see how you do.

So read what you just wrote. A budget surplus is "a situation in which income exceeds expenditures." So, if income exceeded expenditures every year Clinton was President, how did the national debt go up? That makes no sense.

...

Now walk me through how with a surplus the debt could go up.

I think you are looking at or have looked at GROSS National debt and not NET National debt Kaz...?
i'll quote an in depth response of another member here...Toro

You have posted forecasts by the CBO. I have posted ex post data from the CBO. Do you not see the difference? Forecasting is trying to predict the future. Accounting is determining what happened in the past. Forecasting accurately is extraordinarily difficult. People change forecasts constantly because the future is inherently unknowable.

The CBO data is consistent with the GAO data which is consistent with the Treasury data.

ShaklesOfBigGov said: ↑
I trust the public information found under the Federal Treasury Government Link. I'm not following ideology, but I'm looking to the facts between Federal Government DEBT and DEFICIT Source: Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application) (this TreasuryDirect Government site allows you to go into a History search to show you the Outstanding Federal Debt). Why does the public debt continue to go up during the Clinton administration?

Here is a listing of the Public Debt for prior fiscal years under President Bill Clinton:
09/29/1995 .... $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1996 .... $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/30/1997 .... $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1998 .... $5,526,194,008,897.62
09/30/1999 .... $5,656,270,901,615.43

Source: History of the U.S. public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Can you explain the reason behind the INCREASE in the Federal debt ceiling during Clinton's term?
April 6, 1993 .. $4,370,000,000,000
Aug 10, 1993 .. $4,900,000,000,000
Mar 29, 1996 .. $5,500,000,000,000
Aug 5, 1997 .... $5,950,000,000,000
June 11, 2002 . $6,400,000,000,000 (under President George W Bush, the same gradual increase in the debt ceiling is shown to have be made)

Source: United States public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


I'm not arguing that the national debt didn't go down. I'm explaining how the government can run a surplus while the national debt rises, which I do here.

It is factually incorrect to deduce changes in the national debt as indicative of the government's budgetary balance. The national debt is partly a function of inter-governmental accounting, which does not give an accurate assessment of the financial health of the US government because it only looks at one side of the balance sheet.

The national debt is gross debt, not net debt. This is from the link you cite below. As you can see, gross debt rose.

The way the government accounts for its books, if there was economic growth and the government spent exactly zero dollars more than the year before, the national debt - which is gross debt - would still rise, all else being equal, because taxes flowing into the trusts automatically trigger buying of government securities. But the net debt would not rise because there would be a concurrent rise in asset value of the trusts, which are government agencies.

ShaklesOfBigGov said: ↑
Yes the deficit went down, but at the cost of the Federal Debt. See Deficit vs Federal Debt Graphs - usgovernment link: United States Debt Deficit History - Charts Following this government link you will see TWO groups of graphs; one that focuses on Government Debt since 1900, followed by a set graphs that shows the Government Deficit. The graphs will show the Deficit did go down, but at the cost of the Federal Debt which continued to go up.
The deficit was eliminated. It wasn't just reduced. There was a surplus. Here is the graph from the link you provided.

See?

This is not about whether or not the gross national debt rose. This is about whether or not there were surpluses in the 1990s. And there were.

What matters in this discussion is not that gross debt rose in the 1990s. What matters is that net debt fell. If the government was running surpluses, you would expect to see a decline in the national net debt, all else being equal.

And it did.

United States Total Government Net Debt (% of GDP) data, Total Government Net Debt (% of GDP) United States

This is net debt to GDP. Net debt to GDP can fall if GDP is rising faster than the growth of debt. But you can see that net debt to GDP fell from 54% in 1995 to 35% in 2000. That is due both to a rise in nominal GDP and a decline in total net debt.

And, as you can see, total net federal government debt declined in the last years of the 1990s.

Last edited: Dec 24, 2010


Republicans Fiscal Sanity Page 19 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Republicans Fiscal Sanity Page 19 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Do you know why this happened? I've been curious if anyone will get it. There is a specific reason behind the lie that Clinton ran a surplus. Toro gives data but doesn't explain the big source of the lie. Dad2Three is clueless.

One of these is a lie.

- Clinton ran a surplus

- There is a Social Security trust fund.

For both of those statements to be true, you have to double count revenue. So do you get now what's happening? Toro interestingly gave completely accurate data without getting that his data is double counting revenue. I actually made it easy to get to the underlying lie if you get what I am referring to.

BTW, the Gross versus Net debt part was ridiculous. Without a lie, for Gross debt to go down, net debt would have to be negative.

Maybe this will help you understand?

Government - Frequently Asked Questions about the Public Debt

I'm not reading your link and explaining to you what it says, you're going to have to read it yourself and explain what your point is. My post was pretty clear, and if you know anything about the Federal government true. So just answer the question, don't say, gee, here's a link.

How can the government spend $100 and count that same $100 as savings? It is a ... wait for it ... lie.

Sorry, your original question was,

How can you have a budget surplus and the National Debt Still rise....?

and this link explains such...the Budget, which is what Congress and the President work with, is NOT the ONLY function/thing that affects the National Debt,...Intragovernmental Holdings also affect the National Debt.

The budget is calculated as it has always been calculated since LBJ included Social Security in the total budget, there were no Social Security surpluses back then, because SS was pay as you go, until Reagan when SS taxes were raised, (doubled) to collect a surplus in SS off of the boomers so that when they retired there would be enough SS surplus taxes collected to pay their own retirement for a while.

So if your point is that Clinton used SS surpluses in the total budget AS ALL OTHER PRESIDENTS did BEFORE HIM to call it a balanced budget or a budget surplus, then the answer is YES, of course he did, BECAUSE this is how the Federal Budget is calculated.

As example, just as President Bush 2nd, calculated the budget with the SS surpluses in there...so when he showed a $500,000,000,000 (billion dollar) deficit in a year, it was truly more like a $750 billion dollar deficit....if you included the SS funds that were in surplus(and borrowed on)...BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT WAS SAID, when he was President...what was said, is precisely what was true, that he had a $500 billion dollar Budget Deficit such and such year....and the truth is that Clinton had a SURPLUS when calculating the Budget according to the RULES/Laws ON THE BOOKS.

You can't change the rules midstream just for Clinton... the rules are the rules, period. And these rules for how a Federal Budget is calculated should be consistent year after year in order to have a way to compare and analyze them, apples to apples, year after year, president after President, decade against decade etc...

Ah, politicians have always lied, so it makes what Clinton did truth when he lied because he is a politician and they lie. I'm convinced now. Not.

Do you even understand my point? I am starting do doubt it. If Clinton counted the money as surplus, then he can't say he saved it in a trust fund and there was no surplus. If he said it was an asset saved by social security, then he can't say there was a surplus, government borrowed the money. It's not that complicated. Even FooledByEveryone gets it. He's claiming government can double count the revenue, which is ridiculous, but at least that's a grasp of the point. You have not demonstrated a grasp of the point.

The correct answer by the way is there was a surplus and there is no trust fund. No money was saved. But my point is that liberals make both arguments, which are contradictory. I'm pointing out that contradiction.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Sure Bubba, You are to dense to understand since Clinton signed NAFTA, I opposed NAFTA, since that, I must LOVE Clinton, the best conservative Prez since Ike. You are nothing but a bigoted, right winger. Call yourself whatever you want. Believe in fairy tales, I love the spaghetti monster in the sky myself. You wing nutters who want to hold onto 'tradition and custom', lets get a few slaves for you and make sure you strike your wife to make sure she puts you on the pedestal right?

Funny how you can't just simply answer the question: Q - Do you oppose Clinton in signing NAFTA? A - Yes I do.

Simple.

See.

Instead you post gibberish: Q - Do you oppose Clinton in signing NAFTA? A - What do you think? I love spaghetti monsters!

I guess you didn't follow the posts.. Sorry for you Bubba

I followed them fine. You avoided answering directly as hard as you could. Instead you gave gibberish and indirect answers. Which, I've noticed, is common for you.

You mean a wingnutter can't figure out persons position? Shocking

Whether I could decipher your position or not is irrelevant. That I had to decipher your position is the point.

"figure out" "decipher" Hmm.. I wonder how many distinctions with a difference we could decipher there?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

SERIOUSLY? You don't know paying off interest due on debt can still cause debt to increase? You SERIOUSLY went to college and can't understand what a yearly budget is? LOL. You are a disingenuous POS. I'm shocked. I linked you to investipedia already Bubba

You do know almost $1 trillion of PUBLIC debt WAS paid down under Clinton right? That excess PAYROLL taxes were put into bonds? lol AS REQUIRED BY LAW? WHAT DOES THAT DO BUBBA?

Um...you didn't know that interest is an expense? Read any company's annual report. You just admitted the surplus was a lie.

Wow, YOU need to grow a brain Bubba. In the Gov't world, excess taxes via payroll are put into BONDS that that is debt. You are a sham Bubba. YES, CLINTON HAD 4 SURPLUSES (MORE MONEY COMING IN THAN GOING OUT)... Of course 3 of them were AFTER Clinton vetoed the GOP's $700+ billion tax cut after BJ Bill's first surplus

So then you admit the social security trust fund is a lie. Which if you read my argument through the thread, these can not both be true.

1) Clinton ran surpluses

2) There is a social security trust fund.

You cannot count revenue both as inflow into the general treasury and savings. If you have $100 you can spend it, or you can save it. You cannot spend it then also count it as savings.

Social Security History

Myth 4: President Roosevelt promised that the money the participants paid would be put into the independent "Trust Fund," rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement program, and no other Government program

------------​

7 Myths You Probably Believe About Social Security - Forbes

Myth #2) Social Security won’t be there for young Americans.

Have you seen the statistic that more young Americans believe in UFOs than believe they’ll see a dime from Social Security? First, let’s start with the bad news. The Social Security trustees project that the Social Security trust fund will be depleted by 2033. At that point, there won’t be enough money in the system to pay all the promised benefits. That’s what people generally mean when they say the program is going “bankrupt.”

Now, here’s the good news. There will still be taxpayers paying into the system. (Bad news for them but good news for you if you’re collecting.) The trustees project there should be enough to pay between 75-80% of the benefits.

What does all this mean for you? You don’t have to assume Social Security won’t be there (which is practically politically impossible) but don’t assume you’ll get more than 75% of your projected benefits either. If the government ends up raising taxes, or increasing the retirement age, or reducing benefits more for higher-income people, you may end up with more than 75%, but it’s always better to err on the safe side.

------------​

and finally -- Social Security Benefits Myths Fears Facts - AARP The Magazine

What Dante posted has nothing to do with kaz's point.

contributions of facts hardly ever have anything to do with what kaz posts. Dante agress

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I think you are looking at or have looked at GROSS National debt and not NET National debt Kaz...?
i'll quote an in depth response of another member here...Toro

Republicans Fiscal Sanity Page 19 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Do you know why this happened? I've been curious if anyone will get it. There is a specific reason behind the lie that Clinton ran a surplus. Toro gives data but doesn't explain the big source of the lie. Dad2Three is clueless.

One of these is a lie.

- Clinton ran a surplus

- There is a Social Security trust fund.

For both of those statements to be true, you have to double count revenue. So do you get now what's happening? Toro interestingly gave completely accurate data without getting that his data is double counting revenue. I actually made it easy to get to the underlying lie if you get what I am referring to.

BTW, the Gross versus Net debt part was ridiculous. Without a lie, for Gross debt to go down, net debt would have to be negative.

Maybe this will help you understand?

Government - Frequently Asked Questions about the Public Debt

I'm not reading your link and explaining to you what it says, you're going to have to read it yourself and explain what your point is. My post was pretty clear, and if you know anything about the Federal government true. So just answer the question, don't say, gee, here's a link.

How can the government spend $100 and count that same $100 as savings? It is a ... wait for it ... lie.

Sorry, your original question was,

How can you have a budget surplus and the National Debt Still rise....?

and this link explains such...the Budget, which is what Congress and the President work with, is NOT the ONLY function/thing that affects the National Debt,...Intragovernmental Holdings also affect the National Debt.

The budget is calculated as it has always been calculated since LBJ included Social Security in the total budget, there were no Social Security surpluses back then, because SS was pay as you go, until Reagan when SS taxes were raised, (doubled) to collect a surplus in SS off of the boomers so that when they retired there would be enough SS surplus taxes collected to pay their own retirement for a while.

So if your point is that Clinton used SS surpluses in the total budget AS ALL OTHER PRESIDENTS did BEFORE HIM to call it a balanced budget or a budget surplus, then the answer is YES, of course he did, BECAUSE this is how the Federal Budget is calculated.

As example, just as President Bush 2nd, calculated the budget with the SS surpluses in there...so when he showed a $500,000,000,000 (billion dollar) deficit in a year, it was truly more like a $750 billion dollar deficit....if you included the SS funds that were in surplus(and borrowed on)...BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT WAS SAID, when he was President...what was said, is precisely what was true, that he had a $500 billion dollar Budget Deficit such and such year....and the truth is that Clinton had a SURPLUS when calculating the Budget according to the RULES/Laws ON THE BOOKS.

You can't change the rules midstream just for Clinton... the rules are the rules, period. And these rules for how a Federal Budget is calculated should be consistent year after year in order to have a way to compare and analyze them, apples to apples, year after year, president after President, decade against decade etc...

Ah, politicians have always lied, so it makes what Clinton did truth when he lied because he is a politician and they lie. I'm convinced now. Not.

Do you even understand my point? I am starting do doubt it. If Clinton counted the money as surplus, then he can't say he saved it in a trust fund and there was no surplus. If he said it was an asset saved by social security, then he can't say there was a surplus, government borrowed the money. It's not that complicated. Even FooledByEveryone gets it. He's claiming government can double count the revenue, which is ridiculous, but at least that's a grasp of the point. You have not demonstrated a grasp of the point.

The correct answer by the way is there was a surplus and there is no trust fund. No money was saved. But my point is that liberals make both arguments, which are contradictory. I'm pointing out that contradiction.

Did you ever read or did you contribute to writing this:

Alan Greenspan, who was worth his weight in gold as an advisor to Reagan, came to the rescue. He pointed out that there was a way to get more revenue without touching the income tax cuts.

Greenspan told Reagan that they could raise payroll taxes, and say they were doing it to strengthen Social Security. Then they could use the surplus revenue just like income- tax revenue.

It was a clever plan.

The surplus Social Security revenue from the payroll-tax increase wouldn’t be needed to pay actual benefits for 30 more years. Why not just put the money in the general fund, for now, and let future presidents worry about replacing it.

It probably didn’t seem like such and evil deed to Reagan and Greenspan at the time. After all, they were only “borrowing” the money. Hopefully some future president would repay it.

But the real effect of their action was to take money from working baby boomers, in the form of increased payroll taxes, and give that money to some of the richest Americans in the form of big income tax cuts. The Looting of Social Security

add this: Ronald Reagan and The Great Social Security Heist FedSmith.com

 

[kaz]

Um...you didn't know that interest is an expense? Read any company's annual report. You just admitted the surplus was a lie.

Wow, YOU need to grow a brain Bubba. In the Gov't world, excess taxes via payroll are put into BONDS that that is debt. You are a sham Bubba. YES, CLINTON HAD 4 SURPLUSES (MORE MONEY COMING IN THAN GOING OUT)... Of course 3 of them were AFTER Clinton vetoed the GOP's $700+ billion tax cut after BJ Bill's first surplus

So then you admit the social security trust fund is a lie. Which if you read my argument through the thread, these can not both be true.

1) Clinton ran surpluses

2) There is a social security trust fund.

You cannot count revenue both as inflow into the general treasury and savings. If you have $100 you can spend it, or you can save it. You cannot spend it then also count it as savings.

Social Security History

Myth 4: President Roosevelt promised that the money the participants paid would be put into the independent "Trust Fund," rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement program, and no other Government program

------------​

7 Myths You Probably Believe About Social Security - Forbes

Myth #2) Social Security won’t be there for young Americans.

Have you seen the statistic that more young Americans believe in UFOs than believe they’ll see a dime from Social Security? First, let’s start with the bad news. The Social Security trustees project that the Social Security trust fund will be depleted by 2033. At that point, there won’t be enough money in the system to pay all the promised benefits. That’s what people generally mean when they say the program is going “bankrupt.”

Now, here’s the good news. There will still be taxpayers paying into the system. (Bad news for them but good news for you if you’re collecting.) The trustees project there should be enough to pay between 75-80% of the benefits.

What does all this mean for you? You don’t have to assume Social Security won’t be there (which is practically politically impossible) but don’t assume you’ll get more than 75% of your projected benefits either. If the government ends up raising taxes, or increasing the retirement age, or reducing benefits more for higher-income people, you may end up with more than 75%, but it’s always better to err on the safe side.

------------​

and finally -- Social Security Benefits Myths Fears Facts - AARP The Magazine

What Dante posted has nothing to do with kaz's point.

contributions of facts hardly ever have anything to do with what kaz posts. Dante agress

Dante spends too much time arguing on playgrounds.

Kaz pointed out that the same money can not be both an asset and spent. Dante did not address that. Dante talked about whether government can pay the checks in the future. Whether the government can or not has nothing to do with kaz's point.

 

[kaz]

Do you know why this happened? I've been curious if anyone will get it. There is a specific reason behind the lie that Clinton ran a surplus. Toro gives data but doesn't explain the big source of the lie. Dad2Three is clueless.

One of these is a lie.

- Clinton ran a surplus

- There is a Social Security trust fund.

For both of those statements to be true, you have to double count revenue. So do you get now what's happening? Toro interestingly gave completely accurate data without getting that his data is double counting revenue. I actually made it easy to get to the underlying lie if you get what I am referring to.

BTW, the Gross versus Net debt part was ridiculous. Without a lie, for Gross debt to go down, net debt would have to be negative.

Maybe this will help you understand?

Government - Frequently Asked Questions about the Public Debt

I'm not reading your link and explaining to you what it says, you're going to have to read it yourself and explain what your point is. My post was pretty clear, and if you know anything about the Federal government true. So just answer the question, don't say, gee, here's a link.

How can the government spend $100 and count that same $100 as savings? It is a ... wait for it ... lie.

Sorry, your original question was,

How can you have a budget surplus and the National Debt Still rise....?

and this link explains such...the Budget, which is what Congress and the President work with, is NOT the ONLY function/thing that affects the National Debt,...Intragovernmental Holdings also affect the National Debt.

The budget is calculated as it has always been calculated since LBJ included Social Security in the total budget, there were no Social Security surpluses back then, because SS was pay as you go, until Reagan when SS taxes were raised, (doubled) to collect a surplus in SS off of the boomers so that when they retired there would be enough SS surplus taxes collected to pay their own retirement for a while.

So if your point is that Clinton used SS surpluses in the total budget AS ALL OTHER PRESIDENTS did BEFORE HIM to call it a balanced budget or a budget surplus, then the answer is YES, of course he did, BECAUSE this is how the Federal Budget is calculated.

As example, just as President Bush 2nd, calculated the budget with the SS surpluses in there...so when he showed a $500,000,000,000 (billion dollar) deficit in a year, it was truly more like a $750 billion dollar deficit....if you included the SS funds that were in surplus(and borrowed on)...BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT WAS SAID, when he was President...what was said, is precisely what was true, that he had a $500 billion dollar Budget Deficit such and such year....and the truth is that Clinton had a SURPLUS when calculating the Budget according to the RULES/Laws ON THE BOOKS.

You can't change the rules midstream just for Clinton... the rules are the rules, period. And these rules for how a Federal Budget is calculated should be consistent year after year in order to have a way to compare and analyze them, apples to apples, year after year, president after President, decade against decade etc...

Ah, politicians have always lied, so it makes what Clinton did truth when he lied because he is a politician and they lie. I'm convinced now. Not.

Do you even understand my point? I am starting do doubt it. If Clinton counted the money as surplus, then he can't say he saved it in a trust fund and there was no surplus. If he said it was an asset saved by social security, then he can't say there was a surplus, government borrowed the money. It's not that complicated. Even FooledByEveryone gets it. He's claiming government can double count the revenue, which is ridiculous, but at least that's a grasp of the point. You have not demonstrated a grasp of the point.

The correct answer by the way is there was a surplus and there is no trust fund. No money was saved. But my point is that liberals make both arguments, which are contradictory. I'm pointing out that contradiction.

Did you ever read or did you contribute to writing this:

Alan Greenspan, who was worth his weight in gold as an advisor to Reagan, came to the rescue. He pointed out that there was a way to get more revenue without touching the income tax cuts.

Greenspan told Reagan that they could raise payroll taxes, and say they were doing it to strengthen Social Security. Then they could use the surplus revenue just like income- tax revenue.

It was a clever plan.

The surplus Social Security revenue from the payroll-tax increase wouldn’t be needed to pay actual benefits for 30 more years. Why not just put the money in the general fund, for now, and let future presidents worry about replacing it.

It probably didn’t seem like such and evil deed to Reagan and Greenspan at the time. After all, they were only “borrowing” the money. Hopefully some future president would repay it.

But the real effect of their action was to take money from working baby boomers, in the form of increased payroll taxes, and give that money to some of the richest Americans in the form of big income tax cuts. The Looting of Social Security

add this: Ronald Reagan and The Great Social Security Heist FedSmith.com

Is Dante aware that kaz is a libertarian, not a Republican? Kaz also believes in what is so and doesn't defend politicians who are wrong when they are wrong. Reagan was wrong. He should not have done that. And Greenspan was no friend of liberty. The fed is a criminal organization which steals from the American people and Greenspan was it's don and ran it as the criminal empire that it is.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Wow, YOU need to grow a brain Bubba. In the Gov't world, excess taxes via payroll are put into BONDS that that is debt. You are a sham Bubba. YES, CLINTON HAD 4 SURPLUSES (MORE MONEY COMING IN THAN GOING OUT)... Of course 3 of them were AFTER Clinton vetoed the GOP's $700+ billion tax cut after BJ Bill's first surplus

So then you admit the social security trust fund is a lie. Which if you read my argument through the thread, these can not both be true.

1) Clinton ran surpluses

2) There is a social security trust fund.

You cannot count revenue both as inflow into the general treasury and savings. If you have $100 you can spend it, or you can save it. You cannot spend it then also count it as savings.

Social Security History

Myth 4: President Roosevelt promised that the money the participants paid would be put into the independent "Trust Fund," rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement program, and no other Government program

------------​

7 Myths You Probably Believe About Social Security - Forbes

Myth #2) Social Security won’t be there for young Americans.

Have you seen the statistic that more young Americans believe in UFOs than believe they’ll see a dime from Social Security? First, let’s start with the bad news. The Social Security trustees project that the Social Security trust fund will be depleted by 2033. At that point, there won’t be enough money in the system to pay all the promised benefits. That’s what people generally mean when they say the program is going “bankrupt.”

Now, here’s the good news. There will still be taxpayers paying into the system. (Bad news for them but good news for you if you’re collecting.) The trustees project there should be enough to pay between 75-80% of the benefits.

What does all this mean for you? You don’t have to assume Social Security won’t be there (which is practically politically impossible) but don’t assume you’ll get more than 75% of your projected benefits either. If the government ends up raising taxes, or increasing the retirement age, or reducing benefits more for higher-income people, you may end up with more than 75%, but it’s always better to err on the safe side.

------------​

and finally -- Social Security Benefits Myths Fears Facts - AARP The Magazine

What Dante posted has nothing to do with kaz's point.

contributions of facts hardly ever have anything to do with what kaz posts. Dante agress

Dante spends too much time arguing on playgrounds.

Kaz pointed out that the same money can not be both an asset and spent. Dante did not address that. Dante talked about whether government can pay the checks in the future. Whether the government can or not has nothing to do with kaz's point.

Like economics accounting is a form of voodoo

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Maybe this will help you understand?

Government - Frequently Asked Questions about the Public Debt

I'm not reading your link and explaining to you what it says, you're going to have to read it yourself and explain what your point is. My post was pretty clear, and if you know anything about the Federal government true. So just answer the question, don't say, gee, here's a link.

How can the government spend $100 and count that same $100 as savings? It is a ... wait for it ... lie.

Sorry, your original question was,

How can you have a budget surplus and the National Debt Still rise....?

and this link explains such...the Budget, which is what Congress and the President work with, is NOT the ONLY function/thing that affects the National Debt,...Intragovernmental Holdings also affect the National Debt.

The budget is calculated as it has always been calculated since LBJ included Social Security in the total budget, there were no Social Security surpluses back then, because SS was pay as you go, until Reagan when SS taxes were raised, (doubled) to collect a surplus in SS off of the boomers so that when they retired there would be enough SS surplus taxes collected to pay their own retirement for a while.

So if your point is that Clinton used SS surpluses in the total budget AS ALL OTHER PRESIDENTS did BEFORE HIM to call it a balanced budget or a budget surplus, then the answer is YES, of course he did, BECAUSE this is how the Federal Budget is calculated.

As example, just as President Bush 2nd, calculated the budget with the SS surpluses in there...so when he showed a $500,000,000,000 (billion dollar) deficit in a year, it was truly more like a $750 billion dollar deficit....if you included the SS funds that were in surplus(and borrowed on)...BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT WAS SAID, when he was President...what was said, is precisely what was true, that he had a $500 billion dollar Budget Deficit such and such year....and the truth is that Clinton had a SURPLUS when calculating the Budget according to the RULES/Laws ON THE BOOKS.

You can't change the rules midstream just for Clinton... the rules are the rules, period. And these rules for how a Federal Budget is calculated should be consistent year after year in order to have a way to compare and analyze them, apples to apples, year after year, president after President, decade against decade etc...

Ah, politicians have always lied, so it makes what Clinton did truth when he lied because he is a politician and they lie. I'm convinced now. Not.

Do you even understand my point? I am starting do doubt it. If Clinton counted the money as surplus, then he can't say he saved it in a trust fund and there was no surplus. If he said it was an asset saved by social security, then he can't say there was a surplus, government borrowed the money. It's not that complicated. Even FooledByEveryone gets it. He's claiming government can double count the revenue, which is ridiculous, but at least that's a grasp of the point. You have not demonstrated a grasp of the point.

The correct answer by the way is there was a surplus and there is no trust fund. No money was saved. But my point is that liberals make both arguments, which are contradictory. I'm pointing out that contradiction.

Did you ever read or did you contribute to writing this:

Alan Greenspan, who was worth his weight in gold as an advisor to Reagan, came to the rescue. He pointed out that there was a way to get more revenue without touching the income tax cuts.

Greenspan told Reagan that they could raise payroll taxes, and say they were doing it to strengthen Social Security. Then they could use the surplus revenue just like income- tax revenue.

It was a clever plan.

The surplus Social Security revenue from the payroll-tax increase wouldn’t be needed to pay actual benefits for 30 more years. Why not just put the money in the general fund, for now, and let future presidents worry about replacing it.

It probably didn’t seem like such and evil deed to Reagan and Greenspan at the time. After all, they were only “borrowing” the money. Hopefully some future president would repay it.

But the real effect of their action was to take money from working baby boomers, in the form of increased payroll taxes, and give that money to some of the richest Americans in the form of big income tax cuts. The Looting of Social Security

add this: Ronald Reagan and The Great Social Security Heist FedSmith.com

Is Dante aware that kaz is a libertarian, not a Republican? Kaz also believes in what is so and doesn't defend politicians who are wrong when they are wrong. Reagan was wrong. He should not have done that. And Greenspan was no friend of liberty. The fed is a criminal organization which steals from the American people and Greenspan was it's don and ran it as the criminal empire that it is.

Greenspan was hailed as a libertarian until people like you threw him under the proverbial bus.

Your rant is as as it gets.