• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Republican wins Democratic New York House seat

The cash is used to purchase in US Treasury Securities, are you saying SS should keeps the cash in cash?

Where is the cash going to come from to fund those Treasuries? Ever tried to spend a treasury on your mortgage?
 
Where is the cash going to come from to fund those Treasuries? Ever tried to spend a treasury on your mortgage?


You sophistry is astounding:roll:

Should the SS Administration keep their funds in cash or not?
 
Last edited:
No, BUDGET deficits absolutely are not public debt plus intergovenmental holdings. That is absolutely wrong. Presidents do not budget social security tax surpluses, for one. You are making up your own definition of deficit to suit your incorrect argument.



A real issue, but a diversion from the topic at hand, which is that Clinton did in fact run budget surpluses for four years.

Better think about what you are posting as you make a fool of yourself. Total debt does indeed include PUBLIC DEBT PLUS INTERGOVT. HOLDINGS. you really need to get back into school or pay attention while in school.

As for the Clinton surplus where is that shown on the U.S. Treasury data? why doesn't a surplus reduce the debt?
 
Where is the cash going to come from to fund those Treasuries?

From tax collections paid to the US Treasury Department. Where else would you think they would come from?
 
From tax collections paid to the US Treasury Department. Where else would you think they would come from?

Tax collections now are 1.4 trillion in deficit so where is the money going to come from to pay for those Treasury bonds?
 
What they are saying is that they are against anything Social Security did. Folks of that ideological mindset opposed it in the Thirties and nothing has changed for them in 3/4 of a century.

What you and other liberals fail to understand is that SS surpluses are obligations that are due future retirees so using them steals from those obligations. Guess that is ok in your world.
 
Still waiting for an answer. How can a govt. running a 1.4 trillion dollar yearly deficit going to pay back the SS IOU's?

I'm still waiting for one too from you.


I don't expect to get one though.:roll:
 
Tax collections now are 1.4 trillion in deficit so where is the money going to come from to pay for those Treasury bonds?

Future need to pay for future SS recipients will be paid with future tax collection in addition to revenues collected from future SS FICA taxes. This is not rocket science. To tell me what is taken in today and how much it may be is irrelevant to the future. YOu do that by increasing FUTURE revenues. And i have no doubt that a self confessed conservative like yourself stands firmly behind the full faith and credit of the United States of America.

Right?
 
Last edited:
You think the CBO is the checkbook of the United States? Stop buying this bull****. Here are the numbers from the bank account of the United States which is the official record. You really need to learn how the CBO works and their accuracy. They make you look foolish.

Deficit by year. Show me the Clinton Surplus

Government - Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

1/20/1993 4,188,092,107,183.60
9/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38

10/1/1993 4,406,339,573,433.47
9/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32

9/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
10/2/1995 4,987,587,163,002.89

10/2/1995 4,987,587,163,002.89
10/1/1996 5,234,730,786,626.50

10/1/1996 5,234,730,786,626.50
10/1/1997 5,420,505,789,573.34

10/1/1997 5,420,505,789,573.34
10/1/1998 5,540,570,493,226.32

10/1/1998 5,540,570,493,226.32
10/1/1999 5,652,679,330,611.02

10/1/1999 5,652,679,330,611.02
11/1/2000 5,680,961,418,882.13

11/1/2000 5,680,961,418,882.13
1/19/2001 5,727,776,738,304.64
Here's the year-to-year difference based on the source for your numbers ...


chart1.jpg
 
What you and other liberals fail to understand is that SS surpluses are obligations that are due future retirees so using them steals from those obligations.
What are using them for?
 
Better think about what you are posting as you make a fool of yourself. Total debt does indeed include PUBLIC DEBT PLUS INTERGOVT. HOLDINGS. you really need to get back into school or pay attention while in school.

As for the Clinton surplus where is that shown on the U.S. Treasury data? why doesn't a surplus reduce the debt?

Do you think that repeating false information repeatedly makes it less false? It doesn't; it just makes you look more dishonest. Budget deficits concern the balance between BUDGETED items and revenue. They are calculated by looking at the debt held by the public -- not the gross debt. You can't make up your own definitions whenever it suits you. If you want to use gross debt you better go back and recalculate those defict numbers you keep citing for Bush.

http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf
 
Back
Top Bottom