• 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!

Surprise! Huge US Budget Surplus Shatters Record

Deuce said:
First off, that quote is in a much larger context. Neil was saying that the material that makes up life is so abundant in such a vast universe, that it's basically a statistical certainty that some form of life exists out there somewhere. He was saying for us to believe that we're some super special, magical occurrence when we're made of literally the most common stuff in the universe is egocentric.

And you're now grossly extrapolating what I was saying. I didn't say their numbers were bad, or wrong. They are projections, and projections can be wrong when unexpected things crop up. For example, a large lump sum payment from bank settlements might not have been reflected in those projections, throwing off the numbers for June.

Do you get it now? It's not a live feed. That's it. That's my criticism.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.
 
Conservative said:
Who is "OUR"? Too many people have no concept of leadership and that is the problem today. Obama was hired to fix the problem not to be a figure head. He has failed as his resume showed he would. He lacked any leadership experience and executive experience acting instead like a King, "do as I say" and that isn't the way our govt. works. He is a community agitator and that shows up daily.
Click to expand...

Citizens. Congress works for us, its our job to make them do their job. The Presidents job is to approve and execute the laws, not to be a leader. Its an administrative position and we need to return it to that, not continue to treat it as a celebrity.
 
jonny5 said:
Citizens. Congress works for us, its our job to make them do their job. The Presidents job is to approve and execute the laws, not to be a leader. Its an administrative position and we need to return it to that, not continue to treat it as a celebrity.
Click to expand...

LOL, ok, you really are very naïve, Congress doesn't work for us or Congress would be doing the will of the people which is to develop policies that create jobs, incentives, and promotes the private sector. It is the President's Job to provide the leadership to get things done. If that isn't the case why even elect a President? I do agree that it is treated as a celebrity and that is why Obama is given a pass when it comes to the terrible results we have today.
 
The entire government works for the People. Sadly, it has been ingrained into the minds of the public that this is not the case.

"When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty."
- Thomas Jefferson

It is sad to see that the American people have lost the backbone and testicular fortitude to uphold the system of government as it has been written in order to prevent the tyranny of this day and age.
 
Conservative said:
You see, therein lies the problem, results don't matter to you and the question is why? Do you have any idea what leadership is and the responsibilities of leadership? Do you really think that the list that you posted are POSITIVE accomplishments? Why doesn't unemployed/debt/gdp growth bother you? Do you really have such low expectations in our leaders?
Click to expand...

actually, yes, I have very low expectations of our "leaders," in the WH, Congress, and Sup. Ct. ... and they usually meet my expectations and rarely exceed them ... Bush actually managed to come in under my low`expectations ... not easy to do ... as critical as I am of Obama, I can't help but wonder how he would have done had he not had to deal with an opposition bent on destroying his presidency from the beginning and putting party over country to do it ... whenever I see McConnell, Boehner, Cantor, and the other clowns, I actually get a little sick to my stomach ... in a way, Obama has done remarkably well under the circumstances ...
 
windowdressing said:
actually, yes, I have very low expectations of our "leaders," in the WH, Congress, and Sup. Ct. ... and they usually meet my expectations and rarely exceed them ... Bush actually managed to come in under my low`expectations ... not easy to do ... as critical as I am of Obama, I can't help but wonder how he would have done had he not had to deal with an opposition bent on destroying his presidency from the beginning and putting party over country to do it ... whenever I see McConnell, Boehner, Cantor, and the other clowns, I actually get a little sick to my stomach ... in a way, Obama has done remarkably well under the circumstances ...
Click to expand...

Well, your opinion is indeed yours. Why is it you buy what you are told and do no independent study? Amazing since you have such a low expectation of the Presidency that you would seem to hold Bush to a much lower standard probably based upon what you read. Why am I not surprised? There isn't one economic number of Obama's today that is better than the average Bush numbers. Bush was judged by the 2008 numbers not the entirety of his Presidency so in terms of GDP growth, total unemployment, labor force numbers, debt Bush has done a much better job than Obama and did so with Democrats in control of the Congress his last two years. Too bad. Then there is this which the media ignores.

Zambia 2013 - a set on Flickr

What I see today is a very lazy public that does as little work as necessary verifying what they are told. Funny, when I see Obama and Reid I have the same reaction as you. The difference however is my reaction is based upon actual results not rhetoric. Guess that comes from the 35 yrs I spent in the Business world which provided for my family quite well.
 
Conservative said:
Well, your opinion is indeed yours. Why is it you buy what you are told and do no independent study? Amazing since you have such a low expectation of the Presidency that you would seem to hold Bush to a much lower standard probably based upon what you read. Why am I not surprised? There isn't one economic number of Obama's today that is better than the average Bush numbers. Bush was judged by the 2008 numbers not the entirety of his Presidency so in terms of GDP growth, total unemployment, labor force numbers, debt Bush has done a much better job than Obama and did so with Democrats in control of the Congress his last two years. Too bad. Then there is this which the media ignores.

Zambia 2013 - a set on Flickr

What I see today is a very lazy public that does as little work as necessary verifying what they are told. Funny, when I see Obama and Reid I have the same reaction as you. The difference however is my reaction is based upon actual results not rhetoric. Guess that comes from the 35 yrs I spent in the Business world which provided for my family quite well.
Click to expand...

you can't get to the 2008 numbers overnight ... he needed time to squander the surplus he was given ...

you don't have a clue to what I read (my level of education, etc.), but go ahead and speculate ... I've been working for even longer than you and suspect that my wife and I have provided for our family as well (maybe even better than) you have for yours ... the difference between us, is that I care more about my fellow citizens than you and don't automatically think the worse of them .. there are many, many reasons people struggle, and most people who are poor work hard for their poverty ... the growing economic, social, and political inequality in this country concerns me, and eventually, if we don't create a more equitable society, it'll be the end of us ... but I don't expect shortsighted and greedy cons like you to understand that ...
 
windowdressing;1062059857]you can't get to the 2008 numbers overnight ... he needed time to squander the surplus he was given ...
Click to expand...

There was no surplus, there was a Projected Surplus not an actual surplus. We went into recession in March 2001 and then 9/11 happened or did you forget?

you don't have a clue to what I read (my level of education, etc.), but go ahead and speculate ... I've been working for even longer than you and suspect that my wife and I have provided for our family as well (maybe even better than) you have for yours ... the difference between us, is that I care more about my fellow citizens than you and don't automatically think the worse of them .. there are many, many reasons people struggle, and most people who are poor work hard for their poverty ... the growing economic, social, and political inequality in this country concerns me, and eventually, if we don't create a more equitable society, it'll be the end of us ... but I don't expect shortsighted and greedy cons like you to understand that ...
Click to expand...

If you buy what you are told by the media and ignore non partisan sites like bls.gov, bea.gov, and the U.S. Treasury then you fit into the classification of a poorly informed liberal. If you provided well for your family then why would you try to destroy the system that allowed you to do that? Do you have any idea what Obama is doing to this economy? You give me a lot of rhetoric that says you care but if you truly care you would demand results not just words.

How does having 21 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers, over 100 million Americans on some form of taxpayer welfare, almost 50 million on food stamps, record numbers on disability, stagnant GDP growth, and an additional 6.2 trillion added to the debt good for this country and your fellow citizens?

Did you have any kids? If so how are they doing? Any time during raising those kids that you applied "tough" love? I had two and they are great knowing that it is their responsibility to take care of themselves and if they need help I am there. In today's world "I" is the govt. and the govt. helps no one but themselves maintain power and dependence.
 
Conservative said:
There was no surplus, there was a Projected Surplus not an actual surplus. We went into recession in March 2001 and then 9/11 happened or did you forget?
.
Click to expand...

Do you really think out right lying helps your argument?

Other readers have noted a USA Today story stating that, under an alternative type of accounting, the final four years of the Clinton administration taken together would have shown a deficit. This is based on an annual document called the "Financial Report of the U.S. Government," which reports what the governments books would look like if kept on an accrual basis like those of most corporations, rather than the cash basis that the government has always used. The principal difference is that under accrual accounting the government would book immediately the costs of promises made to pay future benefits to government workers and Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries. But even under accrual accounting, the annual reports showed surpluses of $69.2 billion in fiscal 1998, $76.9 billion in fiscal 1999, and $46 billion for fiscal year 2000. So even if the government had been using that form of accounting the deficit would have been erased for those three years.
FactCheck.org : The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton
 
winston53660 said:
Do you really think out right lying helps your argument?

Other readers have noted a USA Today story stating that, under an alternative type of accounting, the final four years of the Clinton administration taken together would have shown a deficit. This is based on an annual document called the "Financial Report of the U.S. Government," which reports what the governments books would look like if kept on an accrual basis like those of most corporations, rather than the cash basis that the government has always used. The principal difference is that under accrual accounting the government would book immediately the costs of promises made to pay future benefits to government workers and Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries. But even under accrual accounting, the annual reports showed surpluses of $69.2 billion in fiscal 1998, $76.9 billion in fiscal 1999, and $46 billion for fiscal year 2000. So even if the government had been using that form of accounting the deficit would have been erased for those three years.
FactCheck.org : The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton
Click to expand...

You see, unlike you I don't believe the USA story is the bank account of the United States and I don't see a surplus at the Treasury Website so anyone can say anything but the reality debt service is only paid on the debt and there was debt service increasing every year under Clinton so we can continue to play this game but the reality is no matter how many times you make the claim or how many times the claim is made by others there was NO SURPLUS, NONE, NADA

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus |
 
Conservative said:
You see, unlike you I don't believe the USA story is the bank account of the United States and I don't see a surplus at the Treasury Website so anyone can say anything but the reality debt service is only paid on the debt and there was debt service increasing every year under Clinton so we can continue to play this game but the reality is no matter how many times you make the claim or how many times the claim is made by others there was NO SURPLUS, NONE, NADA

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus |
Click to expand...


The guy as well as you don't know the difference btwn a budget deficit/surplus and debt.
 
winston53660 said:
The guy as well as you don't know the difference btwn a budget deficit/surplus and debt.
Click to expand...

The explain it to us all so we all see how brilliant you are. What makes up the debt and what do we pay debt service on?
 
Conservative said:
LOL, ok, you really are very naïve, Congress doesn't work for us or Congress would be doing the will of the people which is to develop policies that create jobs, incentives, and promotes the private sector. It is the President's Job to provide the leadership to get things done. If that isn't the case why even elect a President? I do agree that it is treated as a celebrity and that is why Obama is given a pass when it comes to the terrible results we have today.
Click to expand...

According to the constitution leading is not the presidents job. The congress makes the laws and thus policy. The President wields executive power. We elect a President so we can have one single person commanding the military and making day to day decisions about running the govt as well as make decisions when away on foreign business. THis was before instant communications.
 
Conservative said:
The explain it to us all so we all see how brilliant you are. What makes up the debt and what do we pay debt service on?
Click to expand...

I have to explain this to the self proclaimed Captain of Business?:lamo

Your sophistry knows no bounds.
 
jonny5 said:
According to the constitution leading is not the presidents job. The congress makes the laws and thus policy. The President wields executive power. We elect a President so we can have one single person commanding the military and making day to day decisions about running the govt as well as make decisions when away on foreign business. THis was before instant communications.
Click to expand...

Yes, and it is the President's economic and foreign policy agenda that is voted on by the Congress. You seem to confuse appropriations with leadership and the responsibilities of leadership
 
winston53660 said:
I have to explain this to the self proclaimed Captain of Business?:lamo

Your sophistry knows no bounds.
Click to expand...

No, you have to put up or shut up for a change. I have posted the site showing no Clinton surplus yet you don't believe it so I am waiting for your proof that you know what the budget deficit and debt is made up of?
 
Conservative said:
No, you have to put up or shut up for a change. I have posted the site showing no Clinton surplus yet you don't believe it so I am waiting for your proof that you know what the budget deficit and debt is made up of?
Click to expand...

Surplus occurs when : (revenue - expenditure) > 0

The existence of debt is irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
Conservative said:
No, you have to put up or shut up for a change. I have posted the site showing no Clinton surplus yet you don't believe it so I am waiting for your proof that you know what the budget deficit and debt is made up of?
Click to expand...

You posted a blog. In the past I have posted the Treasury department the CBO and Fact check all saying there was a BUDGET surplus by either accounting measure.
 
Kushinator said:
Surplus occurs when : (revenue - expenditure) > 0

The existence of debt is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Interesting, so when you look at the budget of the United States and you see a line item for Interest expense that is just a placeholder and the amount in there isn't really an expense?

We all know that deficits are a revenue minus expenses when expenses are higher than revenue. That deficit is added to the debt and all those deficits added together total almost 17 trillion dollars.
 
winston53660 said:
You posted a blog. In the past I have posted the Treasury department the CBO and Fact check all saying there was a BUDGET surplus by either accounting measure.
Click to expand...

I posted the link to the Treasury data, you have a problem with that then take it up with them. What you and all others want to ignore is that accrued expenses for money taken from Intergovt. holdings is an expense and led to deficits every year under Clinton.
 
Conservative said:
I posted the link to the Treasury data, you have a problem with that then take it up with them. What you and all others want to ignore is that accrued expenses for money taken from Intergovt. holdings is an expense and led to deficits every year under Clinton.
Click to expand...

fms.treas.gov fr 98frusg 98frusg.jpg

Sorry Charlie how ever you want to add it up the US treasury disagrees with you

http://fms.treas.gov/fr/98frusg/98frusg.pdf
 
winston53660 said:
View attachment 67150390

Sorry Charlie how ever you want to add it up the US treasury disagrees with you

http://fms.treas.gov/fr/98frusg/98frusg.pdf
Click to expand...

Until you learn there are two parts of the expense budget of the United States this effort is fruitless and you continue to make a fool out of yourself.

Deficit/Surplus= revenue +/- (Public Debt PLUS Intergovt. holdings)

Clinton supporters want to ignore Intergovt. holdings but won't ignore it when they turn 65 and the money isn't there. This is total ignorance and partisan bs to claim Clinton had a surplus when SS/Medicare money was put into the General Budget replaced with an IOU

If you take enough money out of intergovt. holdings chances are you would never have a deficit but that isn't the total picture and you ought to know that
 
Conservative said:
Until you learn there are two parts of the expense budget of the United States this effort is fruitless and you continue to make a fool out of yourself.

Deficit/Surplus= revenue +/- (Public Debt PLUS Intergovt. holdings)

Clinton supporters want to ignore Intergovt. holdings but won't ignore it when they turn 65 and the money isn't there. This is total ignorance and partisan bs to claim Clinton had a surplus when SS/Medicare money was put into the General Budget replaced with an IOU

If you take enough money out of intergovt. holdings chances are you would never have a deficit but that isn't the total picture and you ought to know that
Click to expand...

One more time:

The principal difference is that under accrual accounting the government would book immediately the costs of promises made to pay future benefits to government workers and Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries.

FactCheck.org : The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton
Click to expand...

The relevant links are there.
 
winston53660 said:
View attachment 67150390

Sorry Charlie how ever you want to add it up the US treasury disagrees with you

http://fms.treas.gov/fr/98frusg/98frusg.pdf
Click to expand...

What you want to ignore again as usual are the two parts of the budget, Public and intergovt. holding. I suggest you learn both sides and when you take money from intergovt holdings(SS/Medicare} that money is targeted for the future and thus is an expense that is due in the future. Taking that money now and replacing it with an IOU doesn't create a surplus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom