The future of America

[Dodds]

But he didn't bring in more than he spent. That is fact.

He did, ignoring the data does not make you right.

First it was just clinton had a surplus, then it was a surplus because of inflation, then it's debt-to-GDP that makes it a surplus, now it's interest rates? Read the government charts, clinton spent more than he took in every year. If you want to compare his deficits to GDP, go right ahead, compare it to hot dog sales if you want. He still spent more than he took in. It doesn't matter if the GDP tripled, if you spend more than you take in, you don't have a surplus.

Oh man, repeating the same old shit does not make you right.

The GOP is free to make as many false claims as you are,and they make plenty for political gain, so what?

And the entire economic world is doing so for what reason?

Sure, every bit of evidence except the facts as stated by the government.

Why do you not understand this? Ok I will make this simple for you, if you have a credit card with $10,000 debt on it and you make $11,000 that year you have a surplus of $1000. Thats what happened.

I suggest you go back and look at what I said. I never said SS wasn't solvent, I said the actual money that we contributed to it has been borrowed by the government. SS is solvent as long as the politicians decide they need to pay it, which can change at any time. And by the way, you were going to tell me what clinton spent his "surplus" on, something about social security? Since the general fund owes SS several trillion dollars, this ought to be really interesting.

What you said was that the Government borrowed every single dollar that it takes in in SS. Not it doesn't. Your claim is false. it is also solvent.

Clinton ignores impeachment, calls for Social Security reform - CNN

My claim on the other hand, is true. Have a nice day Zee.

[Zeebadee]

Why do you not understand this? Ok I will make this simple for you, if you have a credit card with $10,000 debt on it and you make $11,000 that year you have a surplus of $1000. Thats what happened.

try this: If you have an income of $11,000, borrow $5000, and then spend $13,000, you don't have a surplus of $3,000. That is what happened.

What you said was that the Government borrowed every single dollar that it takes in in SS. Not it doesn't. Your claim is false. it is also solvent.

Every dollar of SS contributions not needed to make current payments, is invested in Treasury notes, in other words, borrowed by the government. There is no real money in the SS trust fund.

"The Social Security trust funds are invested entirely in U.S. Treasury securities."
Understanding the Social Security Trust Funds — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

No one said SS wasn't solvent. It's just as solvent as the general fund, since that's where it's money is currently or will be coming from once payments exceed contributions.

[Dodds]

try this: If you have an income of $11,000, borrow $5000, and then spend $13,000, you don't have a surplus of $3,000. That is what happened.

Emm nope. The reason the debt slowed down and even shrank in real terms under Clinton is because he brought in more than he spent. Deal with facts not fantasy.

FactCheck.org : The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

Been linked and ignored before.

Debt can go up in monetary terms and the deficit can be erased at the same time. You should really understand that.

Every dollar of SS contributions not needed to make current payments, is invested in Treasury notes, in other words, borrowed by the government. There is no real money in the SS trust fund.

"The Social Security trust funds are invested entirely in U.S. Treasury securities."
Understanding the Social Security Trust Funds — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

No one said SS wasn't solvent. It's just as solvent as the general fund, since that's where it's money is currently or will be coming from once payments exceed contributions.

Ah so you admit you were wrong, that is a step in the right direction, now if only you could live in the real world for a few minutes we might get somewhere. Also treasury bonds are sold to the fed in the creation of M1 money.

Also you ignored my question of why the entire economic world would lie about Clinton having a surplus.

[Zeebadee]

Emm nope. The reason the debt slowed down and even shrank in real terms under Clinton is because he brought in more than he spent. Deal with facts not fantasy.

FactCheck.org : The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

Been linked and ignored before.

" For social security, if more money comes in through the Social Security tax than goes out through Social Security payments, they are required by law to purchase US Treasury bonds with the excess money. So now the Treasury Department owes money to the Social Security Trust Fund (This in itself is not necessarily a bad thing: there is no sense in letting money sit around losing value to inflation). This debt is called intra-governmental debt.

When Factcheck states that there was a surplus, they are looking at only the public debt and are not including the intra-governmental debt. Looked at this way, yes, there was a surplus. So much money was coming in through Social Security taxes (and used to buy Treasury bonds) that the general fund exceeded the budget by several hundred billion.

Is this a valid way to view the matter? After all, the money the government owes itself shouldn't count, right? Well, yes, it should. The social security money was already earmarked for future social security payments, and the Social Security Trust Fund will want to get its money back when it comes time to make more payments. So yes, this is real debt and I can't think of any reason to exclude it.

It should be noted that even without the Social Security money the deficit did go down most years and came within $18 billion of being a completely balanced budget (down from $430 billion under Bush Sr). The expenditures most years increased only modestly as compared with Bush Sr and especially George W Bush. So for this Clinton and Congress during that time period should be commended. However, I see no way to call a $18 billion deficit a "surplus". "
Factcheck.org and the Clinton Surplus

Also been linked and ignored before. The FactCheck item includes only the public debt, and ignores the intragovernmental holdings. Sure, the public debt went down, but the intragovernmental holding went up more.

Debt can go up in monetary terms and the deficit can be erased at the same time. You should really understand that.

Sure, no problem with that. But when you spend more than you bring in, you can't have a surplus.

Ah so you admit you were wrong, that is a step in the right direction, now if only you could live in the real world for a few minutes we might get somewhere. Also treasury bonds are sold to the fed in the creation of M1 money.

I wasn't wrong, there is no money in the SS trust fund. It's all IOUs.

Also you ignored my question of why the entire economic world would lie about Clinton having a surplus.

Obviously, when I said, "...except the facts as stated by the government." I was pointing out that your statement was untrue.since the government IS part of the economic world. If you have evidence to support such a claim, I'd like to see it.

[Dodds]

" For social security, if more money comes in through the Social Security tax than goes out through Social Security payments, they are required by law to purchase US Treasury bonds with the excess money. So now the Treasury Department owes money to the Social Security Trust Fund (This in itself is not necessarily a bad thing: there is no sense in letting money sit around losing value to inflation). This debt is called intra-governmental debt.

When Factcheck states that there was a surplus, they are looking at only the public debt and are not including the intra-governmental debt. Looked at this way, yes, there was a surplus. So much money was coming in through Social Security taxes (and used to buy Treasury bonds) that the general fund exceeded the budget by several hundred billion.

Is this a valid way to view the matter? After all, the money the government owes itself shouldn't count, right? Well, yes, it should. The social security money was already earmarked for future social security payments, and the Social Security Trust Fund will want to get its money back when it comes time to make more payments. So yes, this is real debt and I can't think of any reason to exclude it.

It should be noted that even without the Social Security money the deficit did go down most years and came within $18 billion of being a completely balanced budget (down from $430 billion under Bush Sr). The expenditures most years increased only modestly as compared with Bush Sr and especially George W Bush. So for this Clinton and Congress during that time period should be commended. However, I see no way to call a $18 billion deficit a "surplus". "
Factcheck.org and the Clinton Surplus

Also been linked and ignored before. The FactCheck item includes only the public debt, and ignores the intragovernmental holdings. Sure, the public debt went down, but the intragovernmental holding went up more.

Again Government bonds are sold to the Fed to create M1 money. Not my fault you don't understand this. Having the surplus in Treasury bonds is a way to combat inflation and keep the SS income at its real value.

Sure, no problem with that. But when you spend more than you bring in, you can't have a surplus.

This is where you are wrong. You can spend more than you bring in and still have a surplus. It depends what you spend the surplus on.

I wasn't wrong, there is no money in the SS trust fund. It's all IOUs.

No there are treasury bonds in the SS fund, not IOUs.

Obviously, when I said, "...except the facts as stated by the government." I was pointing out that your statement was untrue.since the government IS part of the economic world. If you have evidence to support such a claim, I'd like to see it.

Not obvious, and all that you have shown here is your misunderstanding of events. Again just because debt goes up does not mean there was no surplus.

[Zeebadee]

This is where you are wrong. You can spend more than you bring in and still have a surplus. It depends what you spend the surplus on.

I'm sure you see the fallacy of that statement. If you had a real surplus, and spent it, the books would balance, debt would neither go up or down. Since the government's figures show the debt going up every year, it's obvious that there was no surplus.

No there are treasury bonds in the SS fund, not IOUs.

The bonds are a promise to pay, with interest, money borrowed. How is this different from an IOU?

Not obvious, and all that you have shown here is your misunderstanding of events. Again just because debt goes up does not mean there was no surplus.

Debt goes up because spending exceeds income. Perhaps you could explain how that generates a surplus.

[Dodds]

Does this thread really show the future of America? Rewrites of history and the same old shit being argued by the same old people who don't have a fucking clue? I actually think that is pretty accurate.

[Dodds]

I'm sure you see the fallacy of that statement. If you had a real surplus, and spent it, the books would balance, debt would neither go up or down. Since the government's figures show the debt going up every year, it's obvious that there was no surplus.

So you deny the surplus because it does not fit into your very narrow idea of what a surplus is.

Norway as a country has has a surplus of 9% of GDP until 2008 then it was 3% of GDP, Norway still has national debt, does that mean Norway did not have a surplus? In other words you are looking for a partisan argument against an economic fact.

The bonds are a promise to pay, with interest, money borrowed. How is this different from an IOU?

If the bonds were gold bars would you have a problem with them?

Debt goes up because spending exceeds income. Perhaps you could explain how that generates a surplus.

Budgets are proposed on many things, the increase of debt in monetary terms would be one of them, perhaps you could explain how you ignore the obvious facts that more was taken in than was projected to how that does not equate to a surplus?

In other words you are arguing from ignorance. You have found something that an economic illiterate would cling onto and claim that as the basis of a sound argument. It has already been shown to you by several members that there was in fact a surplus, it has also been shown that every argument you have made has been flawed in many ways. Yet you cling to your belief in spite of all the data. Sorry Zee, you are wrong, every argument and every source you have posted has been a joke.

A surplus does NOT have to be spent on debt in order to make it a surplus. To think otherwise is just stupid.

[General Zaroff]

What Zeebadee can't seem to grasp is that any issuance of Treasuries causes the debt to increase...

[Zeebadee]

So you deny the surplus because it does not fit into your very narrow idea of what a surplus is.

No, I deny the surplus because it never existed.

Norway as a country has has a surplus of 9% of GDP until 2008 then it was 3% of GDP, Norway still has national debt, does that mean Norway did not have a surplus? In other words you are looking for a partisan argument against an economic fact.

Once again, you want to declare a surplus based on a comparison to GDP. So what?

If the bonds were gold bars would you have a problem with them?

Absolutely not, since gold bars wouldn't need to be redeemed by taxpayers to make SS payments. Taxpayers have to redeem treasuries before any payments can be made.

Budgets are proposed on many things, the increase of debt in monetary terms would be one of them, perhaps you could explain how you ignore the obvious facts that more was taken in than was projected to how that does not equate to a surplus?

Why don't you just post the income and outgo figures and let us see that more was taken in than spent?

In other words you are arguing from ignorance. You have found something that an economic illiterate would cling onto and claim that as the basis of a sound argument. It has already been shown to you by several members that there was in fact a surplus, it has also been shown that every argument you have made has been flawed in many ways. Yet you cling to your belief in spite of all the data. Sorry Zee, you are wrong, every argument and every source you have posted has been a joke.

Then simply tell me why the U.S. government says that the total debt went up every year under clinton?? Show me where the figures are wrong!

A surplus does NOT have to be spent on debt in order to make it a surplus. To think otherwise is just stupid.

Then where did this mythical surplus go? Why would we borrow money if we had a surplus??

What Zeebadee can't seem to grasp is that any issuance of Treasuries causes the debt to increase...

You haven't been paying attention. It's exactly my point that the debt went up because clinton borrowed money from SS and other sources and issued treasuries to do so.

[Senor Hoint]

Once again, you want to declare a surplus based on a comparison to GDP. So what?

Zee, unless you compare things to GDP they have no meaning. Nominal terms aren't particularly useful.

Then simply tell me why the U.S. government says that the total debt went up every year under clinton?? Show me where the figures are wrong!

Another one who doesn't understand inflation or how things are measured in economics...

[General Zaroff]

You haven't been paying attention. It's exactly my point that the debt went up because clinton borrowed money from SS and other sources and issued treasuries to do so.

The money was invested (by law) into treasuries. Thus the debt went up, and the federal government booked revenue counted toward the surplus. And that makes sense, because the trust fund earns interest on those securities. But you went astray with all of this meaningless talk about intra-governmental debt. It is quite irrelevant, really, because it is still money paid to the government. The "trust fund" is actually quite nonsensical, because SS is no different from any other item in the budget (except for self-imposed restraints).

All the SSA has to do is redeem those bonds at Treasury, which they are doing as we speak. Treasury gives them their money, thus reducing intra-governmental debt. Concurrently, they issue new debt to cover payments to SS. Thus, net debt neither increases nor decreases.

Conclusion: yeah, there was a surplus, but you are thinking about it all wrong.