we pay debt service on the actual budget, not projected surpluses.
Why would we pay "debt service" on
any surpluses?
You should be more careful about the way you word things if you want to carry on this deception. You should say that "we pay debt service on the actual
debt." And yes, when, e.g., the Treasury borrows money from the Social Security Trust Fund to cover budgeted spending, interest is paid on that borrowing. The Treasury pays interest to the Social Security Trust Fund — currently 3.8%, I believe. One part of the federal government pays interest to
another part of the federal government. Sadly for you, even correctly worded deceptions don't carry any weight.
>>It is absolutely stunning how you railed against the lies and performance of Bush
So you agree that Bush43's administration lied and performed poorly.
>>Obama said his stimulus would create shovel ready jobs
12.3 million private-sector added in the last sixty-two months. And counting.
>>it created large numbers of people dropping out of the labor force
Demographic trends.
>>adding 8.2 trillion to the debt
The price of Bush43's failures.
You wasted a lot of time posting this
Didn't take long, and I don't consider it a waste. It would have been if I'd posted it in an effort to help you understand these issues. You either have no interest in that, or are incapable of it, or both. I posted it to refute the BS you spewed about economic policy and its effects over the past thirty-five years.
>>focusing on projected numbers
Where did I use any projected numbers?
>>Don't recall 9/11 being projected and that cost 1 trillion dollars according to the GAO.
If you add up the actual costs of the Chaingang Group's
reaction to 9/11, the figure is much, much higher. And you might want to think about all the people who were killed or seriously wounded in Iraq as a consequence of that miserably inappropriate reaction. Hard to place a dollar figure on all that. And then there's the fact that those foreign policy wizards IGNORED EXPLICIT WARNINGS OF AN IMMINENT ATTACK. So in reality, it was very clearly "projected."
>>I posted the Treasury site that doesn't show a Clinton surplus but that is being ignored.
I explained why it should be dismissed. Surpluses and deficits relate to current budgets, not accumulating debt where the interest is paid
TO the federal government.
>>Do you always ignore information from your bank because what you are dong is ignoring the information from the Bank of the U.S.?
No I'm not. Yer playing yer usual game of obfuscation. I ignore marketing assholes who tell me to invest my retirement savings in highly volatile commodities.
>>did you take an accounting course that taught you that keeping more of what you earn(tax cuts) is an expense to the govt?
Fwiw, I did study accounting in graduate school. But I knew going in that revenues are revenues. I knew that in the first grade. You might learn it someday.
>>Prove it with Treasury data?
Now
that would be a waste of time. Only a complete idiot would think otherwise. No sense trying to inform people who suffer from that limitation.
>>You sound like a young kid focusing on some leftwing professors rhetoric.
You sound like what you are.
>>Inflation adjusted numbers mean absolutely nothing to the taxpayers nor the deficit or debt.
A concept that is over yer head, is it? I can sympathize. But if you don't adjust for inflation, you cannot meaningfully compare deficits from more than a few years apart. Stay with it. You may be able to handle this fairly simple concept at some point.