aratoeldar likes to use first names when he's trying to drive home one of his usually incorrect points
creepy
YOU SHUT YOUR WHORE MOUTH, CHRISTINE.
aratoeldar likes to use first names when he's trying to drive home one of his usually incorrect points
creepy
like witchcraft?i find myself leery of people who align themselves with a single party. there's dipshits on both sides, and smart people on both sides.
i think the tea party is right on with a lot of what they preach, but the party is run by dip shits who will practice something else.
Its interesting but still not that simple. Rarely do potus policies have an immediate impact on such things. Also note that the figures aren't calculated the same way every year. Until 2000 they simply didn't count social security and medicare as debt, which is why we had a mythical surplus in clintons final years. Plus there a lot of other external factors at play that effect our gdp, none of which under the presidents control and most importantly, presidents don't set budgets. Congress does. The prez makes requests and signs things but there are a few hundred people to blame for the final tally.
This statement is not quite right. It's the type that I find in email chains all the time. Clinton erased the federal deficit no matter how you account for social security and medicare (cash or accrual basis).
he did not erase the federal deficit, it was an accounting trick. it does matter how you account for those things because they still have to be paid for.
No, there wasn't. It has jack shit to do with accrual accounting. Borrowing from Social Security is still borrowing. It's still fucking debt. Intra-governmental debt - ie, the money that the rest of the federal government owed Social Security - is still debt. To only count public debt is like saying you shouldn't count the fact that you borrowed ten grand from your grandmother to pay off your credit cards.What you're describing is the difference between accrual and cash basis accounting. It's no trick. David Blaine and Criss Angel weren't called in to make money disappear. And no matter how you slice it, he operated a surplus mostly as a result of the increased social security taxes. On a cash basis, his surplus was ridiculously high. On an accrual basis (the non-"trick" way), there was still a ~$60 billion surplus each year!
there's a damn good chance if you refer to someone on this forum as "Chris", you'll be correct.
My name's not Chris. Guess what it is!
No, there wasn't. It has jack shit to do with accrual accounting. Borrowing from Social Security is still borrowing. It's still fucking debt. Intra-governmental debt - ie, the money that the rest of the federal government owed Social Security - is still debt. To only count public debt is like saying you shouldn't count the fact that you borrowed ten grand from your grandmother to pay off your credit cards.
And even when you only count public debt, the surplus was never 60 billion. The budget was still 18 billion dollars from being balanced. We did not operate with a surplus.
In bold above would be considered debt and is part of the accounts payable on the balance sheet using an accrual accounting approach.
Here's fiscal year 1998 accrual accounting basis from the Treasury Department performed retrospectively showing ~$69 billion in surplus using accrual accounting of social security and medicare.
http://fms.treas.gov/fr/98frusg/98frusg.pdf
Here's the raw data from the CBO covering the relevant time periods for Social security data (cash basis).
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10871/HistoricalTables.pdf
Now you show me where you think this -$18 billion comes from.
come on
give us a hint
You seriously can't be that stupid. It's in her username. Her name is Bunny.
I think she's a stripper
I think my joke was too subtle
come on
Funny though that not many of them know that the Obama administration has cut spending
you are so blindly partisan ignorant it is disturbing.