jimpeel
Member
A great juxtaposition. The "surplus" was as non-existent as the "Gore presidency".
Does the "surplus" also include all of those "off budget" items?
Last edited:
The Real Debt
- Thread starter telomerase
- Start date
- Status
Does the "surplus" also include all of those "off budget" items?
w4rma
member
Arguing over Non-Existent Budget Surpluses
by Harry Browne
President Bush has sent Congress a $2.12 trillion budget. It might appropriately be titled, "We're All Big Spenders Now."
Of course, neither President Bush nor members of Congress are the least bit alarmed by the size of the budget. All the attention is focused on the supposed disappearance of those wonderful budget surpluses. Congressmen who have never given a thought to fiscal prudence are suddenly distressed that the government will be squandering trillions of dollars of surpluses it was supposed to enjoy over the next ten years.
But they needn't get so exercised. In reality, there hasn't been a true federal surplus since the Eisenhower administration — nor a series of surpluses large enough to be worthy of the name since the 1920s.
Background
Since its inception, Social Security has taken in more money every year than it's paid out to Social Security recipients.
So the Social Security Administration lends the excess money to the U.S. Treasury to cover the Treasury's budget deficits. The reasoning is that it's better to keep those reserves in Treasury bonds than to play the horses with them.
…
http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/BudgetSurpluses.htm
Notice that there is a graph here that shows the national debt slowing it's rate of increase during the Clinton/Gore presidency, which drastically increases once the Republican Party gains control of the White House.
jimpeel
Member
Notice also that the graph only shows a decrease in the rate of increase; not a decrease. There are no negative numbers there.
Clinton didn't have to deal with a wartime economy. He only used up half the arsenal lobbing cruise missiles into Kosovo (illegally, I might add). Those resources are now having to be replaced.
I find it interesting how the President always gets the blame for the profligate spending habits of the Congress. What part of "Congressional Appropriations Committee" is so foreign to the detractors that they cannot grasp the meaning?
One of the biggest problems we have with budgetary items is the hidden spending that is caused by the Congress authorizing unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats the authority to make law through "regulations". There is not now, nor has there ever been, any authority for the Congress to assign its powers to other entities at any level; yet they do exactly that all the time.
How much dose anyone here think the regulations put in place by Carol Browner, EPA head under Clinton, cost America?
Reagan tried to lower taxes without decreasing spending and then had to raise taxes to new heights 3 times to fix the mess allowing for a small cut during his last year.
Bush has lowered taxes and increased spending. The bill will come due and it will be huge.
If I could find one politician who didn't lie through their teeth and would actually cut government spending I'd be a happy man.
Bush has lowered taxes and increased spending. The bill will come due and it will be huge.
If I could find one politician who didn't lie through their teeth and would actually cut government spending I'd be a happy man.
Accountant coming through.
Hate to break it to you guys, but that graph you are aruging about means NOTHING. The important question to look at is what is your debt compared to your assets? If I have 150 K mortgage debt, but I make 50 K a year. I'm fine. If I have a 700 K mortgage debt and still only make 50 K a year I'm toast. See what I'm getting at. Looking at our debt ratio compared to the population doesn't make any sense. Compare your debt to your assets.
87 billion for Iraq may sound like a lot, but what is it as a percentage of our GDP? 1%, 2%? Don't know just guessing. What was the cost of WWII, most of our GDP?
Just something to think about. I hate politicians too.
And I think they are all lying sacks of crap that steal our money and hurt our productivity. I hate both parties. I just hate one less than the other.
Hate to break it to you guys, but that graph you are aruging about means NOTHING. The important question to look at is what is your debt compared to your assets? If I have 150 K mortgage debt, but I make 50 K a year. I'm fine. If I have a 700 K mortgage debt and still only make 50 K a year I'm toast. See what I'm getting at. Looking at our debt ratio compared to the population doesn't make any sense. Compare your debt to your assets.
87 billion for Iraq may sound like a lot, but what is it as a percentage of our GDP? 1%, 2%? Don't know just guessing. What was the cost of WWII, most of our GDP?
Just something to think about. I hate politicians too.
And I think they are all lying sacks of crap that steal our money and hurt our productivity. I hate both parties. I just hate one less than the other.If you want to really throw up, read "Breach of Trust" by Dr. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. He was elected as a Republican in 1994, pledging as part of his campaign to serve no more than three terms. He served three terms then left as pledged.
It ain't a pretty picture.
It ain't a pretty picture.
Malone LaVeigh
Member
Not being burdened with an education in accounting, I have to question that assertion. I see those numbers all the time being used as an excuse for going into debt for this one $87 bil from the same people that claim that Bush's tax cut is stimulating the economy.
The GDP is meaningless. A lot of numbers generated by shuffling money between accounts at major banks. Banks create money by lending it to businesses that turn around and spend it at other businesses that turn around and spend it again. Each time it counts toward GDP. What counts is how much money, in some kind of constant dollar, does this represent to the population. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but $87 bil comes to about $1000 per taxpaying household (very rough est based on < 100MM households). Some day it's going to have to be paid or will just help to weaken the dollar.
Let me put it another way: If it's such a small amount, why don't we just pay for it? Put a small war tax on the economy, and 1% should be no problem. We all know the answer, that raising our taxes enough to pay for it would be political suicide, and probably collapse the economy.
Waitone
Member
I think funded deficit spending other than for national emergencies to be wrong. Unfunded committments are wrong period.
The debate of $87 billion is hypocritical at best. Congress was sweating and pinching pennies and wondering how to justify it to the folks back home. Congressment then would go back to a committee rooom where they were hashing out a medicare drug bill which would start at $250 billion as a gift to all senior americans whether they wanted it or not.
Now to my simple mind if $87 billion is wrong then $250 billion is 3 times as wrong.
The flap is over whose ox is gored. It has nothing to do with principal.
The debate of $87 billion is hypocritical at best. Congress was sweating and pinching pennies and wondering how to justify it to the folks back home. Congressment then would go back to a committee rooom where they were hashing out a medicare drug bill which would start at $250 billion as a gift to all senior americans whether they wanted it or not.
Now to my simple mind if $87 billion is wrong then $250 billion is 3 times as wrong.
The flap is over whose ox is gored. It has nothing to do with principal.
Malone, perhaps. The hard thing here is that the gov. doesn't have to obey the same accounting rules that all of us normal folks do. So what the gov considers a surplus I would consider an accrued liability. Go figure.
So disregard GDP, go by our revenue. Any way you want to look at it, it makes looking at the debt as a single solid number over time kind of misleading.
So disregard GDP, go by our revenue. Any way you want to look at it, it makes looking at the debt as a single solid number over time kind of misleading.
Correia, that's fine, but the GDP is not an asset in the sense that the national debt is a debt. The government does not have access to the GDP, which according to the CIA's world factbook is 10.4 trillion. If the government says it's going to take away 100% of what everyone produces, I may not have a serious problem with that because I have no debt (well, a few hundred dollars, but it's covered by assets), but other people probably will. The government can't just annouce they're going to take 90% of next year's GDP - 7T to cover the debt and 2T for the budget - because people depend on that money to cover their own debts. There's really no difference between going from 25% or 31% (or whatever the hell they are now for the median tax bracket) tax brackets to 90%, and going from 25% to 26%. In either case, the government is taking away money that individuals may have been counting on to pay future debts.
I know GDP is defined as total goods and services produced, but where do they get the numbers for GDP, and who is "they," the GAO? Do the figures come from the IRS? Isn't that illegal? IRS data are only supposed to be used for tax purposes, are they not? And who else would have access to information about which money transfers were for goods and services, and which (determined by exclusion) were loans or debt payments?
I know GDP is defined as total goods and services produced, but where do they get the numbers for GDP, and who is "they," the GAO? Do the figures come from the IRS? Isn't that illegal? IRS data are only supposed to be used for tax purposes, are they not? And who else would have access to information about which money transfers were for goods and services, and which (determined by exclusion) were loans or debt payments?
Uh, everyone talking about Clinton not reducing the debt, look at the chart posted in this thread. By its methodology, the debt did actually go down under Clinton's last two years. Furthermore, Clinton's use of cruise missiles is just as illegal as the war in Iraq and Afghanistan-- both of which are blatently unconstitutional.
I'm not arguing that Clinton deserves responsibility.
Also the idea that the president can do nothing and it is congress that causes deficit spending is patently absurd-- the president signs all these laws, or they don't become laws.
And if you haven't noticed, our president isn't talking about reducing the debt... he's coming out with ever higher figures for everything all the time...
Bush clearly wants to increase the debt to accomplish his agenda... and whether you think it is worth it or not, we really should be in a situation where he doesn't have that power.
If the government didn't have the money to prosecute a war the public supported, the public would have plenty of money to voluntarily put forth to achieve it. REmember, every dollar the government takes in in taxation destroys 100 dollars of income for that american after 15 years or so.... the taxation does massive damage to the economy. If we didn't have it, people would have more wealth than they knew what to do with and would be spending it like crazy on charities and national defense, etc.... these things would b e much better funded.
Taxation destroys economic growth, and forces all government programs to be starved for money that people would freely give to accomplish the same goals if they didn't have to pay tax.
I'm not arguing that Clinton deserves responsibility.
Also the idea that the president can do nothing and it is congress that causes deficit spending is patently absurd-- the president signs all these laws, or they don't become laws.
And if you haven't noticed, our president isn't talking about reducing the debt... he's coming out with ever higher figures for everything all the time...
Bush clearly wants to increase the debt to accomplish his agenda... and whether you think it is worth it or not, we really should be in a situation where he doesn't have that power.
If the government didn't have the money to prosecute a war the public supported, the public would have plenty of money to voluntarily put forth to achieve it. REmember, every dollar the government takes in in taxation destroys 100 dollars of income for that american after 15 years or so.... the taxation does massive damage to the economy. If we didn't have it, people would have more wealth than they knew what to do with and would be spending it like crazy on charities and national defense, etc.... these things would b e much better funded.
Taxation destroys economic growth, and forces all government programs to be starved for money that people would freely give to accomplish the same goals if they didn't have to pay tax.
- Status