***************
DAOS: "That was our national debt for each of those years. You'll notice that in no year did our national debt go down, by even a dollar.">>
Wrong. Even Gingrich likes to brag about 4 years of surplus during his time. Is he a liar? Sometimes, but not this time. Even aside from the fact that you use unadjusted dollars (oops), let's give his one a smack. Factcheck does a nice job:
-------
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.
http://factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget ... r-clinton/
It's also useful to look at deficits as a percentage of GDP: viewtopic.php?p=24210#p24210
I've debated this one extensively, so do your homework before passing along something you saw on the google.
Hint: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6168&hilit=clinton+surplus
***
DAO: "Factcheck.org just uses CBO numbers,">>
Yes, and what would the CBO know about such things, compared to... you?
DAO: "going to them as the final arbiter on the national debt is as useless">>
Daos, you pretend to have answers, when you obviously don't even understand the questions. The Factcheck article is quite introductory and accessible. If you can't digest that, and apparently you can't, then you aren't read for the solid food.
DOA: "Deficits as a percentage of GDP is meaningless here.">>
No, not meaningless, quite useful but certainly a different perspective. And one that shows what spenders your conservatives are.
DOA: "Adjusting for inflation is meaningless here.">>
Wrong, using constant (real dollars) is honest. Not doing that, is not honest. Why would I be surprised with which method you would appeal to?
DAO: "We're talking about having a surplus.">>
Which is precisely what we had. Gingrich was fudging his numbers, as this article shows:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/16/politics/ ... index.html
But he was right on the broad strokes. "...policies that resulted in the four consecutive years of surplus that occurred from 1998-2001." --ibid
DAO: "To have a surplus, you must produce one more dollar than you spent.">>
Sorry, you haven't the foggiest idea of what you are talking about. How government (public and private) borrowing and debt works is deep water and your water wings aren't built for that. Do your home work. I gave you the resources.
DAO: "The national debt went up every single year.">>
You obviously don't even know what the phrase "national debt" means.
DAO: "That is not a surplus.">>
I warned you to do your home work before shooting from the hip. I am so surprised you didn't!
D.
----------------
"Receipts into any federal trust fund INCREASE the public debt, they do not reduce it. This is because the funds are immediately invested in Treasury securities so as to earn interest until obligated and expended, and any issuance of Treasury securities increases the public debt. When expended, Treasury securities are redeemed by the trust funds and the cash is used to fund the outlays authorized. This causes public debt to go down. Thus, an increase in debt associated with these trust funds is evidence of a SURPLUS of taxes and other receipts over expenditures made. You are trying to use one surplus to argue that another one didn't exist.
You and Steiner are hardly the only ones who are "confused" as to the actual relationship between debt and deficit. Many bogus right-wing articles try to pull the very same hoax. Just because the numbers they use are taken from valid sources does not mean that the numbers are being used correctly, and in these cases, they most definitely are not.
Bottom line is that the Clinton surpluses were quite real and there is nothing that can magically go back and erase them."
viewtopic.php?p=20707#p20707
***
Hey DAOS, since you are smarter than the CBO, perhaps you should write Factcheck and have them explain it to you. Oh wait, someone already did. And the answer:
"You are looking at a figure that includes money they government owes to itself. The debt owed to the public went down in fiscal 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001. Here's Table 7.1 from the federal budget, giving the historical figures: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy ... st07z1.xls (link broken)
Alan Greenspan even gave a speech about what would happen if the national debt was paid down entirely.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs ... efault.htm
--Brooks Jackson Director, FactCheck.org 320 National Press Building Washington DC
I quote from this fellow who is making the exact same introductory errors you are. Perhaps you can spot his errors and learn from them? http://quaap.com/D/clinton-surplus-factcheck.html
He wrote to Factcheck and got straightforward answers. He didn't understand the answers. We'll see if you do.
Hint: "the governmentd took in more money than it spent for four straight years. That's a surplus. The gross debt is another matter."
Hint: "intergovernmental debt"
***
Hint: Intragovernmental Debt doesn’t count as debt. [well, it kind of does, but it's different than external debt]
“If in a given year you earn $30,000 and a friend loans you $5,000, and you spend $32,000, is that a surplus?”
If that were the right analogy I would agree. The right analogy, of course, is
“If in a given year you earn $30,000 and you write a loan to myself of $5,000, and you spend $28,000, is that a surplus?” The answer is yes because no one cares if you write a loan to yourself.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2768007/posts
***
DAOS: "Are you really going to keep trying to argue this?">>
Spoon feeding session is over. If I was to wager beforehand, I would have guessed that you wouldn't get it. How can you get the answer when you clearly don't understand the question?
Oh, and most of your post is plagiarized from: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reso ... icdebt.htm
When you post material from someone else in an effort to appear smarter than you are, be careful to be honest and note this correctly with quotation marks and preferably citation.
(one sentence hint... When you owe/loan money to yourself, doesn't count as a net debt)
***
Daos, you've been in the wrong section of the Treasury Department. This is the section your are looking for: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/kids/what/what.htm
And it even has your age appropriate answer right there. "What is debt?"
"Have you ever borrowed money?
Have you ever wanted to buy something, but didn’t have quite enough money? If you've borrowed money from friends, family, or anyone else and promised to repay them, then you are “indebted” to pay it back. This is called "debt."
Debt is money one person, organization, or government owes to another person, organization, or government. Typically, the person who borrows the money has a limited amount of time to pay back that money with interest (an additional amount you pay to use borrowed money)." --ibid
If you want to talk about debt, you first need to know what it is.
***
DAO: "By busted you mean linking you the exact definition of debt and deficits">>
No, by busted I mean providing no link and no identification whatsoever that you were citing comments other than your own. Hence, plagiarism. Don't do that, it's not honest.
DAO: "[your] thinking that our yearly deficit is somehow unrelated to the amount the national debt increases by.">>
Gibberish.
DAO: "Your confusion on this issue is largely caused by the CBO,...">>
Yes, let's give that a smack now too. You pretend you know more than the CBO, but you clearly don't understand the difference between a projection (which "scores" laws made based upon assumptions provided by politicians, and notoriously inaccurate because of bogus assumptions, see Ryan's latest whopper), and *predictions.* There is a difference. Observe:
From their FAQ page... http://www.cbo.gov/aboutcbo/faqs.shtml
---
This makes perfect sense. Regarding their economic forecasting accuracy, which is *different* they have:"How accurate are CBO's budget projections?
By statute, CBO's baseline projections must estimate the future paths of federal spending and revenues under current law and policies. The baseline is therefore not intended to be a prediction of future budgetary outcomes; instead, it is meant to serve as a neutral benchmark that lawmakers can use to measure the effects of proposed changes to spending and taxes. So for that reason and others, actual budgetary outcomes are almost certain to differ from CBO's baseline projections."
***"How accurate are CBO's economic forecasts?
CBO regularly evaluates the accuracy of its economic forecasts and publishes the track record. Those evaluations help guide the agency's efforts to improve its forecasts and help Members of Congress and others in their use of CBO's estimates. Historically, the accuracy of CBO's two-year forecasts and five-year projections has been very similar to the accuracy of those by the Blue Chip consensus (an average of private-sector forecasters) and the Administration."
Learn this difference.
The notion that there were years of surplus under Clinton is not controversial except among a few internet cranks and crackpots (Craig Steiner et al) and people like you who clearly have no understanding of how surplus funds are used (perhaps you think the FED puts them under the Bed). Are we to believe you know more about government budgetary issues than say Gingrich? The speaker of the House? Really? Did you notice that when he referred to the years of surplus, he didn't get busted for making that up (he did get busted for getting part of his details wrong), because he actually knows a wee bit more about this than you. Here's what it looks like when you use the same consistent measuring stick for all presidents (as opposed to your attempt to move the goal posts and use a different method, which incidentally, still does work for you but I didn't bother to point this out):
http://www.headybrew.net/images/content ... urplus.gif
DAO: "the national debt increased every single year Clinton was president.">>
Revealing again your grade school understanding of "*gross* national debt" and what is done with surplus funds. You don't know what you are talking about. Stop digging.
***
Regarding those surpluses...
Business Insider refers them, but what do they know about such things compared to Daos?
http://articles.businessinsider.com/201 ... ate-sector
The Wall Street Journal wrote about them extensively, but what would they know compared to Daos?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 40058.html
And again "on June 29, 1999 the Wall Street Journal ran two long articles, one boasting that government surpluses would wipe out the national debt and add to national saving-..." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/l-randall ... 43642.html
Alan Greenspan talked about the "surpluses," but again, what would "the economist who served as Chairman of the Federal Reserve of the United States from 1987 to 2006" know about such matters compared to the mighty Daos? http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/0 ... -surpluses
The CBO lays out the tables simply enough that a child can understand (but one needs to understand what is done with surplus funds, and Daos has no clue): http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbof ... tables.pdf
GW Bush's own White House does the same in 2008. See page 22: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default ... f/hist.pdf
You calling GW Bush's administration a liar? Or perhaps this is one of those conspiracies that just happens to have all of those who know what the hell they are talking about on the same side?
D.
----------------
"Receipts into any federal trust fund INCREASE the public debt, they do not reduce it. This is because the funds are immediately invested in Treasury securities so as to earn interest until obligated and expended, and any issuance of Treasury securities increases the public debt. When expended, Treasury securities are redeemed by the trust funds and the cash is used to fund the outlays authorized. This causes public debt to go down. Thus, an increase in debt associated with these trust funds is evidence of a SURPLUS of taxes and other receipts over expenditures made. You are trying to use one surplus to argue that another one didn't exist.
You and Steiner are hardly the only ones who are "confused" as to the actual relationship between debt and deficit. Many bogus right-wing articles try to pull the very same hoax. Just because the numbers they use are taken from valid sources does not mean that the numbers are being used correctly, and in these cases, they most definitely are not.
Bottom line is that the Clinton surpluses were quite real and there is nothing that can magically go back and erase them."
viewtopic.php?p=20707#p20707
***
Daos: "There is no national debt and "gross national debt.">>
Of course there is. Why do you continue to make a fool of yourself? Until you understand the difference between gross and net, you will never begin to understand this issue. And the answer was clearly given to you in the very first, easily digestible factcheck link I gave you: http://factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget ... r-clinton/
If that's too hard, why don't you try politicfact's specific explanation to another conservative wingnut who can't grasp the difference between "gross" and "net" and makes the same introductory errors you are making: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... -down-deb/
DAO: "now you're trying to argue that the national debt didn't increase every year under Clinton">>
Again you refer to "national debt" but you clearly haven't even made an effort to understand the nuances of what that phrase refers to. You can't talk intelligently about this topic until you do. Get off your butt, do a little homework and begin your education here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_national_debt
Daos: "Willful ignorance is never an attractive quality.">>
You've got that right.
***
Daos: "There is no "net" and "gross" national debt.">>
Actually there is far more nuance than even that. But if you can't even grasp that introductory concept, then there is no hope. Why don't you call the Treasury Dept. and ask them if there was a surplus in the '90's? Maybe they'll explain it to you. Serious. But there is no reason to think you would understand their answer because you don't even understand the questions. To understand their answer you would need to understand the meaning of the terms being used! Imagine that?
Why don't you read the most basic wiki on US debt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_national_debt
(gee, why does the word "gross" appear 18 times on that page? Why do they differentiate between "gross" debt and other kinds? Poor wiki, they don't know anything compared to you either...). Conservatives always struggle with nuance and anything other than black and white, on/off, up/down answers. They prefer simple answers to a complex universe.
Daos, smarter than the Congressional Budget Office, Speaker Gingrich, WSJ, Greenspan, Clinton and all the economists combined, but shucks, just doesn't understand the difference between "gross" national debt and "national debt" or what is done with surplus funds.
D.
-------------
"Receipts into any federal trust fund INCREASE the public debt, they do not reduce it. This is because the funds are immediately invested in Treasury securities so as to earn interest until obligated and expended, and any issuance of Treasury securities increases the public debt. When expended, Treasury securities are redeemed by the trust funds and the cash is used to fund the outlays authorized. This causes public debt to go down. Thus, an increase in debt associated with these trust funds is evidence of a SURPLUS of taxes and other receipts over expenditures made." --ibid
***
DAO: 'Dardedar, how much did the national debt increase by in...">>
Again you refer to "national debt" but you don't know what that term means. Here is your answer. You won't like it. It refers to years of surplus:
But what would the Treasury, GAO, OMB, CBO, presidents, congress and everyone else possibly know about the issue of Federal debt, compared to... you?---
Fiscal Year 1997-2004 Financial Reports of the U.S. Government
The Secretary of the Treasury, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), is required annually to submit financial statements for the U.S. government to the President and the Congress. GAO is required to audit these statements.
This page includes financial reports from fiscal year 1997 through 2004, along with related GAO publications."
http://www.gao.gov/financial/fy1997_fy2 ... ports.html
---
D.
---------------
President Clinton announces another record budget surplus
BUDGET SURPLUS
September 27, 2000
http://articles.cnn.com/2000-09-27/poli ... LLPOLITICS
***
In reply to Daos's comment on Apr 26, 2012 04:20:00...
DAO: "what in the world are you talking about?">>
Plagiarism. It's when you cite text as your own without reference, link or identification that it isn't yours. That's what you did. And you got busted.
DAO: "Me linking you the exact definition of debt and deficit?">>
You didn't give a link, or quotation marks. You did this on purpose. Your problem is with different and rudimentary aspects of federal debt, and what is done with surplus funds. Until you understand what is done with surplus funds, and how the purchase of T-bills affects gross federal debt, you will be entirely lost. This has been explained to you many times. You may have a learning disorder. Not understanding this is perfectly acceptable. It's complicated and your misunderstanding is very common. Not bothering to read even introductory material to correct you basic misunderstanding, is intellectual cowardice.
A bright red flag (and by red flag I mean a parade of clown cars with horns blaring and lights flashing) that your head is not partly up your bum but completely up your bum on this issue is that all of the experts, without exception, are against you. That's never a good place to be. We are to believe that those who put the government financial report together via GAO, OMB, Treasury etc. don't know what a surplus is, but that you do? It's not possible that a serious person could possibly believe this.
DAO: "so YOU could see what the literal definition of the word deficit and debt was">>
I don't need those definitions. I already know. I probably knew before you were born. And I also know what is done with surplus funds and how this has fooled you into thinking there wasn't a surplus when there unquestionably was. But this is all quite boring.
DAO: "you refuse to give any number for what you think the national debt was in 2000 or 2010.">>
There is no sense in talking about "national debt" with someone who doesn't know what the term means or what it refers to. And we know categorically that you don't know this because you said: "There is no national debt and "gross national debt."
"Receipts into any federal trust fund INCREASE the public debt, they do not reduce it. This is because the funds are immediately invested in Treasury securities so as to earn interest until obligated and expended, and any issuance of Treasury securities increases the public debt." --link already provided.
D.
-----------
All here in black and white: "Fiscal Year 1997-2004 Financial Reports of the U.S. Government
The Secretary of the Treasury, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), is required annually to submit financial statements for the U.S. government to the President and the Congress. GAO is required to audit these statements. This page includes financial reports from fiscal year 1997 through 2004, along with related GAO publications."
http://www.gao.gov/financial/fy1997_fy2 ... ports.html
***
Dardedar wrote on May 03, 2012
DAOS: "...I bet Dardedar was surprised when he found out... increased the national debt by... [blah blah blah]"
Again dear Daos, before you can even *begin* to speak intelligently about Federal Debt, (and rise to something beyond the equivalent of putting your hand in your armpit and making farting sounds), you will need to educate yourself about what the Federal Debt is, and the many different ways and aspects it is referred to. They are not the same. You haven't made this effort, perhaps because you are lazy. I've already done the work for you and provided you many resources, but perhaps also make use of the very introductory tract put out by the GAO, cited below. It has your answers, and reveals why all of the adults understand that we had years of surplus in the '90's and the only ones that disagree with this are a few internet cranks and crackpots who are uninformed and driven by their political ideology.
D.
----------------
"UNITED STATES FEDERAL DEBT ANSWERS TO FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Excerpt, page 10:
"In contrast, debt held by government accounts
(intragovernmental debt) and the interest on it represent a
claim on future resources. This debt performs largely an
internal accounting function. Special federal securities
credited to government accounts (primarily trust funds)
represent the cumulative surpluses of these accounts that have
been lent to the general fund. These transactions net out on
the government’s consolidated financial statements. Debt
issued to government accounts does not affect today’s
economy and does not currently compete with the private
sector for available funds in the credit market."
http://web.archive.org/web/201011110746 ... 4485sp.pdf
See also page 15.
***
NextD: "How does the Gross National Debt affect the National Debt again?">>
Good question. And it's answered nicely in this succinct and introductory 81 page FAQ put out by the GAO. Don't get up, let me get it for you:
http://web.archive.org/web/201011110746 ... 4485sp.pdf
Would you like some milk and cookies while you read it? Okay. Then it's a spanking and off to bed with you.
***
DAO: "your own article.... just refuted EVERYTHING that you've ever said...">>
Actually, in another bit of irony (let's call it a mini IQ test), even that little quote you cited, agrees perfectly with what I've said. But for you to understand this, you would need to understand the words being used here. And as before, and now again, you do not. In order for us to discuss this in English, you would need to understand the language being used. And you are apparently too lazy or dogmatic to go to that trouble.
DAO: "every time someone doesn't use the exact terminology of "National debt">>
No, not everyone. Just you. Even though these answers have been spoon fed to you, you don't still don't get it. Truly an amazing display of cognitive confusion and dogmatism in spite of overwhelming evidence.
DAO: "The national debt is... ">>
Please. Just stop. It's beyond embarrassing. Here's a little exercise for you. The word "surplus" occurs 64 times in the FAQ I've given to you. Do a word search and read each occasion, and the context, that it occurs. Start with the table of contents which addresses your misunderstanding directly: "What does it mean to have a budget surplus or deficit and how are they related to federal debt? . . . 15"
I can't blend the baby food any finer, I can't make this any simpler for you.
DAO: "The national debt is the...">>
Again, just stop.
DAO: "If the sum of these two numbers is positive, then well done! You have a surplus.">>
Indeed we do. And I'll quote from *page 1,* indeed the 3rd sentence of this FAQ which you either are too lazy to read, or can't comprehend:
"The Congress and the President responded to the high deficits and rising debt over the 1990s by enacting several deficit reduction initiatives. These actions, along with economic growth, helped shrink annual deficits and led to 4 consecutive years of surpluses in fiscal years 1998 through 2001, which in turn reduced debt held by the public. " --ibid
So either the GAO, Treasury, CBO, OMB and all economists are too GD stupid to know what a surplus is/means... or maybe it's the case that you're just thick. And we don't need to guess about this, it's you.
DAO: "the national debt can go down since it hasn't happened since 1960, but there ya have it.">>
There you have it indeed. Dogmatism on display. Too dumb to understand the issue and to much of a fundamentalist to admit you don't understand. Knowledge is specialized and you have shown you don't even a high school understanding of this issue, yet we are to believe you know more than all (and I do mean all) of those who do have training in this field. So what's new? Another brilliant conservative genius that knows more than all of the experts.
D.
----------------
"Surplus.... The amount by which the government’s revenues exceed outlays in a given period." --definition, ibid. pg. 77.
Definition of different aspects of debt, page 74:
"Debt There are three basic measures of federal debt: (1) debt held by the public, (2) debt held by government accounts, and (3) gross debt.
Debt Held by the Public Federal debt held by all investors outside of the federal government, including individuals, corporations, state or local governments, the Federal Reserve banking system, and foreign governments. When debt held by the Federal Reserve
is excluded, the remaining amount is referred to as privately held debt.
Debt Held by Government Accounts (Intragovernmental Debt)
Federal debt owed by the federal government to itself. Most of this debt is held by trust funds, such as Social Security and Medicare.
Gross Debt (Total Debt) The total amount of outstanding federal debt, whether issued by the Treasury or other agencies and held by the public or federal government accounts.
U.S. Gross External Debt Debt owed by U.S. residents to nonresidents"
Contrast this with your ignorant comment made days ago: "Daos: "There is no national debt and "gross national debt."
***
DAO: "You're just mindlessly going by CBO">>
Nope. I know a little Glen Beck bell goes off in your head every time you think you can smear something as being associated with the CBO (I refer here to the Treasury, GAO, OMB, and *all* government entities involved with accounting), but that's just due to your not understanding the role of the CBO and the difference between when it makes predictions and when to does projections based upon the scoring of laws based upon assumptions given by politicians. But I explained this over a week ago and it sailed over your head.
DAO: "http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa101500b.htm">>
Your link says:
"Where the "surplus" came from
For the last few years, the government has not practiced deficit spending. That is, the government has been taking in more from taxes than it has been spending. As a result, the government has money left over -- a budget surplus.
An overall "downsizing" of government and a virtual end to the arms race have contributed to the surplus, but the vast majority is coming from excess Social Security taxes being paid by the workforce in an attempt to keep Social Security benefit checks coming once the "baby-boomers" start to retire. Both Vice President Gore and Gov. Bush agree that the total surplus will...."
Suggestion: perhaps you should read your own links. You will not find a legitimate economist, even with all of the wingnuts at your disposal, that will support the grade school nonsense you are peddling here. Try to find one and see.
DAO: "Maybe another article will help? Probably not but what the heck. http://mises.org/daily/542>>
Of course, Mises. Remember what I said about internet cranks and crackpots? That's these guys with bells on and horns blaring. No wonder you can't think.
DAO: "Once again I'll ask. If you disagree with the treasuries numbers,">>
You don't know how to read numbers because you don't understand the words being used. I've already cited the Secretary of the Treasury referring to the surplus (to those watching closely, note he specifically brags it is "accrual-based," and that's actually an important distinction). Again:
"Financial Report of the United States Government 1999"
"The 1997 Balanced Budget Act proposed to eliminate the Federal deficit by fiscal 2002. In fact, it reached its goal 4 years ahead of schedule, producing the first budget surplus ($69 bil lion) in a generation in 1998."
GAO, page 4: http://www.gao.gov/financial/fy99cfs.pdf
"A MESSAGE FROM THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
"I am pleased to present the fiscal year 2000 Financial Report of the United States Government....
"The U.S. Government is again reporting an accrual-based surplus, which this year is $46 billion. Additionally, this past year the size of the Federal debt held by the public has been reduced by $223 billion." --Paul H. O’Neill, Treasury Secretary (2000)
http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/00frusg.pdf
"For fiscal year 2001, our results were an accrual-based deficit of $515 billion in contrast to a $127 billion budget surplus reported last fall." http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/01frusg.pdf --Paul H. O’Neill, Tresury Secretary
I didn't bother to look at 1998. Who is one to believe regarding "the treasuries numbers?" The head of the agency or Dim bulb Dao? This is not a close call.
DAO: "If you go by the real numbers used by the US Treasury,">>
The Treasury says four years of surplus. They even wrote a little tract explaining it to you. They even have a kiddies section and I even got the link for you. Stop digging. You've got bupkis.
***
Dao: "The Treasury does not say that at all.">>
Doesn't say what? They say there was a surplus, just like everyone else (except you and a few internet cranks) and I have cited this repeatedly.
Dao: "I've already... posted the exact numbers of our intragovernmental holding and public debt surplus and deficits.">>
Then you should know there was a surplus. Do you not know what "a surplus" is? You certainly don't seem to know what is done with surplus funds. Should I tell you again? No, I think about six times is enough.
Dao: "tell me what you think the national debt went up by...">>
It is an interesting pickle, surplus exists, debt numbers go up. Child doesn't understand! That's why years ago I started a thread on this in the forum I administrate, and then gave you the link. Perhaps you have a learning disorder.
Dao: "Quoting politicians who have been....">>
I've been referring to all government agencies involved with the task of government accounting. The existence of the surplus is not remotely controversial, even in your rightwing circles (lunatics like Mises excluded). Apparently you know more than all of the experts. I'm very impressed.
Dao: "old silly argument of using CBO">>
What does the CBO know about such things compared to you? Aren't you curious why you can't find any reputable source that agrees with you? I'm not.
Dao: "then quoting factcheck.org">>
Oh, you mean this:
"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. http://factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget ... r-clinton/
Yes, what would an award winning factchecking organisation know about checking facts? Compare to you. I suspect you can't accept this basic reality because it means you would have to adjust some of your faith based supply-side beliefs. You've probably been getting this wrong for a long time.
Dao: "If you want to be taken seriously.">>
Obviously I have no interest in being taken seriously or I wouldn't still be talking to you.
Dao: "Go to the treasuries website.">>
Actually, why don't you call them on the phone? Tell them you can't be bothered to read their FAQ, or you don't understand it, and you would like a person to explain to you why a budget surplus doesn't cause the Gross National Debt to go down. Maybe they'll abide your elementary error. I could call them but, I'm not the one with problem: US Department of the Treasury, General Information, (202) 622-2000
After that, come back here and we'll have a nice big crow prepared for you to dine on. Oh wait, who am I kidding. You're not going to believe the US Treasury! What do they know compared to you?
Dao: "Unless you think there's a vast right wing conspiracy that took over the treasury and rewrote all the numbers?">>
The numbers are fine. You don't know what is done with surplus funds. Note: "Trust fund total surpluses add to debt held by government accounts,..." --FAQ, pg. 22. The fact that this is the case, does not change the fact that there was a four year budget surplus.
Dao: "You link this quote as if it helps your argument "The U.S. Government is again reporting an accrual-based surplus,..." --Paul H. O’Neill, Treasury Secretary (2000) "
Yes, I think citing the Treasury Secretary referring to the surplus helps my argument. You said don't use the CBO, go to the Treasury. Treasury, like everyone else, says surplus. But you don't grasp what is done with surplus funds.
Dao: "you either don't understand that intragovernmental holdings exist, or just refuse to count them as deficits or as part of the national debt.">>
As addressed in the FAQ, they are a function of internal accounting. If I were to loan money from one bank account to another, I wouldn't count it as net debt. The government counts it as gross debt. When they do this, it fools some of the children who go on websites and read numbers in charts they don't understand. They make the elementary mistake of thinking gross debt should go down when there is a budget surplus. It doesn't. Boring.
The reason why I put all of this information together is because this regularly pops up with confused conservatives that can read numbers in a chart but don't know what they mean. Next time a wingnut pops up and says there wasn't a surplus, I'll have these further references ready.
Dao: "do you just think to yourself "Well Intragovernmental holdings don't count,...">>
When we have a budget surplus, intragovernmental debt goes up. As I told you over a week ago:
"Until you understand what is done with surplus funds, and how the purchase of T-bills affects gross federal debt, you will be entirely lost. This has been explained to you many times. You may have a learning disorder. Not understanding this is perfectly acceptable. It's complicated and your misunderstanding is very common. Not bothering to read even introductory material to correct you basic misunderstanding, is intellectual cowardice."
I hate intellectual cowardice.
***
Dardedar wrote on May 03, 2012 18:28:56
Dao: "Care to dispute any of these numbers then?">>
Not at all. When there is a surplus, Gross Federal Debt can (and certainly will in the short term) go up, as I've said from the beginning. What you haven't understood from the beginning is that Gross Federal Debt is quite independent of a budget surplus. Thus the complete and utter futility of your attempting to claim there wasn't a surplus based upon your reference to Gross Federal Debt (which you sloppily refer to as "National debt" which has at least three basic parts as I've covered above).
Again, for the 5th time:
"Receipts into any federal trust fund INCREASE the public debt, they do not reduce it. This is because the funds are immediately invested in Treasury securities so as to earn interest until obligated and expended, and any issuance of Treasury securities increases the public debt. When expended, Treasury securities are redeemed by the trust funds and the cash is used to fund the outlays authorized. This causes public debt to go down. Thus, an increase in debt associated with these trust funds is evidence of a SURPLUS of taxes and other receipts over expenditures made. You are trying to use one surplus to argue that another one didn't exist." --link already provided.
Dao: "little more from http://justfacts.com/nationaldebt.asp ">>
Something written by "James D. Agresti." I don't know his qualifications but if you look at his charts, you will clearly see the Clinton surpluses.
Let's look at this chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CBO_- ... nt_GDP.png
It uses GDP but that's not relevant to my point. Look at the years '98 to 2000 or so. GDP is X for a given year. That's our fixed point. Revenue is R, Outlay is O. Since R is greater than O for those given years, we have a surplus.
Dao: "* PolitiFact,... wrote that there were "several years of budget surpluses" during Bill Clinton's presidency.">>
Of course they did. Because there were surpluses and they're not buffoons. As you have been snooping around the google looking for a reed to grasp on to, I am glad you are finding you don't have one.
Dao: "* Using the same criterion PolitiFact applied to Bush's presidency (change in gross national debt), the national debt rose every year of Clinton's presidency:">>
This dumb dumb makes the *exact* same mistake you are making. Gross Federal Debt going up is quite independent of, and not relevant to there being a budget surplus, which there was under Clinton. This is because surplus funds aren't stored under a mattress, they are sunk into Treasury notes, which increase Gross Federal Debt. There are different kinds of Federal debt and it's not useful to pretend they are all the same. This kind is the equivalent to me loaning money from one of my bank accounts to another. On paper this looks like I've increased my debt load, but looked at objectively, in the big picture, it's just internal accounting. Loaning money from one pocket to another.
Dao: "I've seen some liberals try and argue that Clinton had "Surpluses" even though the national debt went up.">>
It's not just "liberals," it's everyone, no exceptions, who knows anything about this issue at a high school level or anything about basic accounting. Have you called the Treasury yet? If not, perhaps you live near a high school and can go and talk to an economics teacher. Your errors here are grade school.
***
Clearly you don't, or you would address my claim that a surplus is defined as revenues exceeding outlays, and measurement of gross federal debt, is not never, not *ever,* a way to determine whether a budget surplus has been obtained.
Dao: "You are trying to make an amazingly ridiculous case.">>
Yes, the notion that all of the branches of government responsible for accounting practices, actually know a bit more about this issue than you. The "ridiculous" notion that a surplus is not measured by a referring to gross federal debt which includes internal government loans.
Dao: "finding the real deficit for any given year is as simple as adding two numbers together.">>
Then you should be able to find an economist on the planet that agrees with you. Why haven't you done that? I know why.
Dao: "the unified budget "does not account for the intergovernmental debt.">>
Explain why it should. After you show how all of the economists and all branches of the government have no idea of how to do accounting, I do definitely see a Nobel Prize in your future. Then you can perhaps go on to show how evolution is wrong and all of the climatologists are wrong about the earth warming. And yet the answers are so simple! If only the experts would listen to you.
Dao: "the CBO claim a surplus by not counting hundreds of billions of dollars of debt that was borrowed from social security surpluses...">>
Actually, you are just factually wrong again. As was shown in my very first response to you, via factcheck, the surpluses were so strong, it doesn't even matter if you count SS or not. And that's quite extraordinary.
Dao: "If the country ran a surplus, the national debt goes down. It's that simple.">>
Conservatives love simple answers to a complex universe. I hope this exchange has been useful to people. It's very difficult for humans to change their minds about things. It's one of the hardest things we do. You've given an excellent display of how hard it is, and the depths of irrationality you will descend to in order to preserve your emotional devotion to your heavy investment in the false belief that Clinton didn't have surpluses. For you to admit that would require you to admit to being wrong about this for a very long time.
Dao: "Do you actually believe that the US ran a surplus of... [blah blah blah]?">>
Every economist in the world believes that. Note:
"The Largest Surplus in History:
The $123 billion surplus in 1999 is the largest dollar surplus in history, even after adjusting for inflation;
The surplus, expected to be about 1.4% of GDP, is the largest surplus as a share of the economy since 1951;
1999 is the second year in a row of surplus, marking the first back-to-back surpluses since 1956-57;
The Largest Debt Reduction in History:
Over the last two years, America has paid down $140 billion in public debt, the largest debt pay-down ever;
The debt held by the public is $1.7 trillion lower than was projected when President Clinton took office;
As a result, in 1999 alone, interest payments on the debt were $91 billion lower than projected.http://clinton3.nara.gov/WH/Work/102899.html
Dao: "If so, why did we have to borrow 1.4 trillion dollars?">>
Revealing again that you don't understand what is done with surplus funds. They are largely used to purchase Treasury Securities, which in a rather irrelevant sense (for your purposes), is considered "borrowing." What would you suggest we should do with surplus funds, put them in a mattress? And let's give this one another kick:
Dao: "I've seen some liberals try and argue that Clinton had "Surpluses" even though the national debt went up.">>
Since the following people have directly referred to the surpluses during Clinton, we are then to believe that they are liberals:
Both Treasury Secretaries under Bush
Alan Greenspan (Ayn Rand devotee)
Newt (moon colony) Gingrich
And of course... you're very own, George, W. Bush:
"And as we debate this issue, always remember: The surplus is not the government's money; the surplus is the people's money." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/on ... 022701.htm
You know, when your argument is reduced to referring to those people (and many many more uber conservatives), as "liberals," it's a pretty bright and shiny clue that your argument is all wet. I told you to do your homework. You didn't listen. Not listening is why you don't learn to correct your errors.
https://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/cont ... ment-28718
***
Excerpts from G.W. Bush (registered liberal), going on about the "surplus," while addressing Congress, Feb. 2001:
"My budget has funded a responsible increase in our ongoing operations. It has funded our nation's important priorities. It has protected Social Security and Medicare. And our surpluses are big enough that there is still money left over."
"Last year, government spending shot up 8 percent. That's far more than our economy grew, far more than personal income grew and far more than the rate of inflation. If you continue on that road, you will spend the surplus and have to dip into Social Security to pay other bills."
"I hope you'll join me in standing firmly on the side of the people. You see, the growing surplus exists because taxes are too high, and government is charging more than it needs. The people of America have been overcharged, and, on their behalf, I'm here asking for a refund." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/on ... 022701.htm
***
Dao: "[your] thinking that Intragovernmental holdings aren't actually debt.">>
It's debt, but:
a) it's differs (greatly) from debt owed to foreign nations (for instance), and
b) it is in *no way* a measurement of whether a budget surplus has been obtained (for reasons stated)
Dao: "That's about 1/3rd of our national debt,...">>
But "national debt" is more than one thing. There are different aspects of it, and they differ greatly. Your mistake lies with not understanding these different aspects of debt, and how a surplus is measured.
Dao: "I think we've reached an impasse.">>
Indeed. If you come up with something new, rather than the same old duck and avoidance, feel free to post it in our forum (we don't censor), and I'll unpack it with due diligence: http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/
Dao: "Unless you think the Treasury is just counting debt it doesn't need to count in order to make our debt situation look worse than it is?">>
The Treasury necessarily counts the purchase of T-bills as a form of gross federal debt when budget surplus funds are used in this way. This is just honest accounting and it doesn't change the fact that a surplus exists. This is internal government debt and rather than something to get your deficit hawk knickers in a twist about, is actually good news.
D.
------------
"Using the Bush White House's own numbers, the federal government under Bill Clinton grew at an annual rate of 3.4 percent. But over the past four years under George W. Bush and his Republican Congress, the federal government has grown at a staggering rate of 10.4 percent. More damning is the fact that... George Bush never once vetoed a congressional bill." --Republican Joe Scarborough, "Rome Wasn't Burnt in a Day”, pg. 29 (2004)
***
Dao: "the guy that's been ducking and dodging for a week...">>
If you think you have an important point or question that I have not addressed, simply post it in our forum and I'll respond to it promptly and directly. I think we have imposed your remedial intro to government debt class on the fine folks in this forum long enough. As the record clearly shows here, I respond to points and questions directly, something you almost never do.
Dao: "We owe it, and have to pay it back.">>
To ourselves, thus gross debt but not net debt. Not that you know the difference.
Dao: "Otherwise, why would they count it?">>
How would you know?
Dao: "your fantasy world where you can rob social security and the other trust funds blind...">>
As your Bush said before congress: "My budget... has protected Social Security and Medicare. And our surpluses are big enough that there is still money left over." --ibid
Was your Bush lying before congress? Isn't that a no no?
Dao: "unfortunately for you the treasury does keep track.">>
And unfortunately for you, the treasury says there was a surplus.
Dao: "is there actually a way for the national debt to go down?">>
Indeed. Good question. Post it in our forum and I'll answer it with a specific example I have handy.
Dao: "If the imaginary Clinton surplus which was "so strong" wasn't enough to bring it down, does it require an ultramega strong surplus to do that?">>
Post that one too.
D.
----------------
"Who gave us the surplus?" http://www.cato.org/publications/commen ... us-surplus (republicans of course)
"Return the Surplus to Those Who Earned It" http://www.cato.org/publications/commen ... -earned-it
Doggone it, don't tell me the libertarians over at the Cato Institute also got fooled into thinking there was a surplus too. Yep. Seems everyone got fooled except our resident genius, Daos. What are the odds of that?
***
Nextdoor spams his little debt bit, on schedule. Let me go on a little tear here for our resident deficit hawk greenhorns.
NextD: "5-4-2012 – Daily Update @9:05pm, EST (US National Debt now exceeds GDP!!!) National Debt........$[blah blah blah] (Trillion)>>
I remember when I was young and dumb (early 80's) and thought debt was bad. Certainly not the way to go. I was going to be smart, save up and pay cash down. My uncle (who grew up poor), was at the time a millionaire a couple times over (back in the 80's when it was a bigger deal), and he said no, there is smart debt and dumb debt, and you definitely want to leverage smart debt to build wealth faster than you could otherwise. He was right.
Nextdoor passes along this knee jerk wank about debt but he consistently leaves out a very essential bit of context. Without it, his data is nearly useless. With out it, it needlessly scares him and the kiddies (like Daos). That context is.... how much equity, net worth does the US have? What is *that* number?
Naive deficit hawks, who only see a big number but don't understand this context, really aren't saying anything useful. Sometimes naive deficit hawks like to use a home budget as an analogy. They go on about how a family with this sort of debt ratio would be bankrupt. Or even worse, they like to go on about how the US is already "broke" or "bankrupt." These people are idiots.
Lets use their analogy to a family budget. US gross debt is around yearly GDP. This is historically high, it would be good if it was lower. It probably will be. But it matters what that debt is used to finance. If it is solid infrastructure and investment in society and things that will pay back in the future (like a thriving economy decimated from a Great Recession), it's money well spent and not too high at around one year GDP. Unfortunately, in this case it's largely to finance Bush and republican warmongering stupidity and needless wars and tax cuts for the rich and for the purpose of concentration of wealth at the very top (references upon request).
I came to the US in 1987 with a high school degree and $300 in my pocket. With hard work, my own businesses and using debt smartly, I now have five homes and will buy two more this summer. Note: my debt is about *six times* my yearly income. Is that a bad thing? No. It's a very good thing and this ratio will even go more in this direction when I buy two additional properties this summer. My debt may go to 10 times my yearly income. Remember, if we use GDP as a crude measure of income, the US is at 1x right now. Not using your available debt to leverage value in the future *is dumb* (this is partly why Greenspan spoke against using surpluses to paying down debt too quickly).
The wealthiest country in the world per capita? Luxembourg. The country with the greatest debt per person? Luxembourg. This is not by accident, it's very much on purpose. Nextdoor cites the "Share of Debt Per Individual" in the US is as "$50,101." Does he know what the per capita external (national) debt is in Luxembourg?
Answer: $3,696,467.
Is this a problem? No. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... ernal_debt
So, how much is the US worth? What is the essential context behind this terrifying, 100% of GDP, $15 trillion debt that has Nextdoor peeing his pants every night?
"Total Assets of the U.S. Economy $188 Trillion, 13.4x GDP" http://rutledgecapital.com/2009/05/24/t ... n-134xgdp/
Subtracting $15T, leaves us about $173T in the plus. That's way better than my debt of 6x my yearly income.
D.
-----------------
Even FOX News can see through this: "The Federal Budget Crisis Hoax" http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/04/ ... z1JBYrDG00
***
Para: "I would hope you'd have assets to cover your debt,">>
But of course. Homes owned free and clear. Assets to debt is a couple hundred k in positive area (it was a lot better before Bush).
Compare this with US assets of *13 times* debt.
daos: "not sure I've ever seen anyone that knows as little about economics....">>
Yes, the very same Daos who knows more than every economist in the world and every branch of government involved with accounting. He doesn't know what a surplus is, and certainly not how to measure one, but he knows we didn't have one in the 90's because a wingnut on the internet told him.
Btw Daos, I'll be reposting all of my detailed explanations to you regarding your misunderstandings about budget surpluses on our forum where they can serve as a useful resource for others who have fallen for the same rudimentary mistakes you have. I'll pass the link along shortly. Feel free to join in with those questions you think I am afraid to address.
***
Current link to date.
