Free Republic

“Here, go chew on this...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2403132/posts";

The actual deficit is much larger.

Here, go chew on this...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2403132/posts

“You still struggling to read that monthly statement!”

You are still ignoring what the numbers mean.

You still struggling to read that monthly statement!

“So I guess that portion of my paycheck for SS that goes to the federal govenment is not income. lol!”

Not for the general fund, no. Those Treasuries held by SS will have to be redeemed at some point. Just like any note.

I’m done with you.

So I guess that portion of my paycheck for SS that goes to the federal govenment is not income. lol!

“When you learn to read you’ll find that on and off budget is included in the budget outlays.”

The deficit/surplus thing includes them. The difference between SS outlays and receipts off-budget is by law invested in Treasuries. These liabilities are counted as INCOME for the purposes of computing deficits or surpluses, but the are NOT INCOME.

“Feel embarrassed yet? You should!”

There’s nothing less becoming than ignorant arrogance. Perhaps you should look into fixing that flaw.

When you learn to read you’ll find that on and off budget is included in the budget outlays.

Feel embarrassed yet? You should!

SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS AND THE DEFICIT/SURPLUS BY MONTH OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT
http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts1009.txt

“There was no BUDGET deficit in 2001. You are wrong and dense.”

Outlays exceeded income. So, yes... there was.

In 2001, Treasure reported receipts of about $2 trillion, but that includes an “off-budget” line-item for social security to the amount of $507 billion. This on-budget, off-budget treatment began under LBJ.

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html

Funny - I thought it was always about the illegal part and not the legal part.

There was no BUDGET deficit in 2001. You are wrong and dense.

“pedant.”

Projection.

pedant.

“There was no BUDGET deficit in 2001. You are wrong and dense.”

The Treasury ran a deficit in 2001. They reported it as a surplus. You can claim anything if you report liabilities as income.

Just what were you trying to prove bringing this up vis-a-vis Bush? Are you trying to defend the Gore campaign?

“intergovernmental debt”

Oh, BTW... it’s “intragovernmental debt”. Intergovernmental debt is another thing entirely.

There was no BUDGET deficit in 2001. You are wrong and dense.

“There you go confusing budget debt, intergovernmental debt, and national debt.”

There you go confusing reality with what the government tells you. It doesn’t matter what Treasury defines as income. It doesn’t matter what Treasury defines as a deficit or surplus. What matters is whether or not it really IS a deficit or a surplus. It was a deficit in 2001. Spin it however you like.

I’m done, sonny. You are off in never-never land where economics doesn’t matter and ENRON-style accounting tricks are financial truth. Again, I don’t give a damn what they call it. I only care about what it actually IS.

There you go confusing budget debt, intergovernmental debt, and national debt.

“Good grief! It’s just a simple meausre of the difference between receipts and outlays of the frikin’ budget! Damn you are dense!”

Sonny, you can keep believing that cooked books meant the GOP Congress didn’t spend more than income, but that doesn’t make it so. You brought the Treasury “surplus” crapola into this discussion as proof of something... What was that again?

I really don’t give a flying fig what Treasury uses to define these terms. REAL DEFINITIONS indicate that was NOT A REAL SURPLUS! Not in reality. Only in government la-la land.

End of story.

"I’m not in the least confused. You, however, think those surpluses based on liabilities are relevant. They aren’t."

Good grief! It's just a simple meausre of the difference between receipts and outlays of the frikin' budget! Damn you are dense!

cut the crap, Rab.. people really need to grow up and drop the RINO stuff... Bush was not a “fiscal” conservative.. I honestly don’t remember him even claiming he was a fiscal conservative... in actuality the fiscal conservative in 2000 was McCain the man so many love to hate... I’m not defending McCain in this, but just saying... because Bush was a good Christian man people assumed he would be the whole banana, but he always said he was a “compassionate” conservative — which is pretty much what Mike Huckabee would be and look how close Huck came in 2008....

“They exist in the budget transactions but not in the intergovernmental debt or overall national debt. That’s what is confusing you.”

I’m not in the least confused. You, however, think those surpluses based on liabilities are relevant. They aren’t.

Income is NOT LIABILITIES. T-bills and bonds are notes and liabilities.

“The budget deficit/surplus is simply the accounting of receipts minus outlays. Receipts are: income taxes, corporate taxes, excise taxes, and custom duties. That’s called federal revenue.”

You are ignoring one big non-income revenue source that creates your non-surplus: Social Security Treasury purchases and the sale of other bonds. That is counted - against GAAP - as income. It is not. This is what you do not understand about your numbers and why you do not understand why those books are cooked.

"You continue to believe government numbers. I’m just pointing out that from an accounting perspective, those surpluses DID NOT EXIST."

They exist in the budget transactions but not in the intergovernmental debt or overall national debt. That's what is confusing you.

The budget deficit/surplus is simply the accounting of receipts minus outlays. Receipts are: income taxes, corporate taxes, excise taxes, and custom duties. That's called federal revenue.

Not true by a long shot. As long as there are the alphabet news organizations, fools that live and vote in the United States, and a Democrat Party it will never be over.

“Hey, I never said he was perfect!”

True.

“You are aware that a budget is submitted and passed each year before the end of each fiscal year, right?”

Too well.

“You continue to have no clue as to the difference of budget debt, intergovernmental debt, and national debt.”

You continue to believe government numbers. I’m just pointing out that from an accounting perspective, those surpluses DID NOT EXIST.

“More horsecrap from you. The budget is paid by receipts which are income taxes, corporate taxes, excise taxes, and custom duties.”

Wow... You really DON’T understand how the system works and what that intragovernmental debt actually is....

I was responding to another FReeper.

However, Gillespie said be believed the GOP should present itself as anti-illegal immigration but not anti-immigrant in the debate.

As if that was a new policy! The GOP has always supported LEGAL IMMIGRATION. IOW - Unnecessary pandering.

"Those surpluses were due to an increase in the SS taxes. By law, an SS surplus MUST be put in Treasuries to finance the government. The Treasure Department counts these notes as “income”, but they ARE NOT INCOME."

More horsecrap from you. The budget is paid by receipts which are income taxes, corporate taxes, excise taxes, and custom duties.

Try reading this for once numbnuts! Sheeze.........

http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts1009.txt

"Anti-Immigrant"

Have to be more specific than that. What exactly does this mean? Does the mix of immigrants have any bearing? Are we supposed to support immigration no matter what detrimental effects it has and who it is bringing into this country? Is he suggesting that we need to support millions of Muslim 'legal' immigrants? Or perhaps suggesting we need to support 'legal' immigrations of tens of millions of culture destroying third worlders? Illegal immigration is a major problem and issue but we also need to revisit the whole 1965 immigration act and the effect it is having on us, our culture and our nation.

Hey, I never said he was perfect!

*sigh*

When the US Treasury says there was a deficit for a particular month or year or say there was a surplus for a particular month or year, that is simply receipts minus budget outlays.

You are aware that a budget is submitted and passed each year before the end of each fiscal year, right?

You continue to have no clue as to the difference of budget debt, intergovernmental debt, and national debt.

You’re clueless! No other way around it.

Let’s get this straight also. Bush was a rino filled with rino republicans in his cabinet, but the liberal destroyed him. They made his presidency fail as much as his actions.

John Gibson's new book details this perfectly.

http://www.amazon.com/How-Left-Swiftboated-America-Conspiracy/dp/0061792896

http://www.foxnewsradio.com/2009/11/30/how-the-left-swiftboated-america-the-media-conspiracy-to-make-you-think-gw-bush-was-the-worst-ever/#axzz0Z7vpmZQV

“Those BUDGET surpluses were due to a Republican Congress. I’m sorry that you are too dense that you continue to confuse budget bedt, intergovernmental debt, and national debt.”

Those surpluses were due to an increase in the SS taxes. By law, an SS surplus MUST be put in Treasuries to finance the government. The Treasure Department counts these notes as “income”, but they ARE NOT INCOME.

“Yes, those are BUDGET surpluses and deficits. That’s how they ae defined. You keep confusing national debt, intergovernmental debt, and budget debt.”

You keep confusing the concept of actual deficit (as in income - outlays) with something else entirely. Liabilities are not income, they are liabilities. Defending Bush’s spending based on this is asinine. I keep trying to point out to you that what the government says is a surplus isn’t, but you just refuse to understand.

You probably believe Obama’s unemployment numbers too.

....”which is why they need to be kept out of power until they do “get it”.”

Easier said than done, and they know it. When push comes to shove, they know darn well that WHOEVER they finance and shove down our throats come ‘12, is who most will support in order to beat Obama.

"So, I guess you really liked Clinton. He had these “surpluses” for a number of years. They weren’t real, but he had them."

Those BUDGET surpluses were due to a Republican Congress. I'm sorry that you are too dense that you continue to confuse budget bedt, intergovernmental debt, and national debt.

Yes, those are BUDGET surpluses and deficits. That’s how they ae defined. You keep confusing national debt, intergovernmental debt, and budget debt.

At least I understand the meaning of the far right hand column in the US Tresury monthly statement linked below. You on the other hand haven’t a clue as to what the column means as you have proven over and over.

SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS AND THE DEFICIT/SURPLUS BY MONTH OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT
http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts1009.txt

“Yes, those are BUDGET surpluses and deficits. That’s how they ae defined. You keep confusing national debt, intergovernmental debt, and budget debt.”

Nope. You are confusing accounting tricks with actual surpluses. In short, you are confusing book keeping with economics. If you can define income anyway you want, you will always post a “surplus”, but that is not how accountants define income. Liabilities are NOT INCOME.

“At least I understand the meaning of the far right hand column in the US Tresury monthly statement linked below. You on the other hand haven’t a clue as to what the column means as you have proven over and over.”

So, I guess you really liked Clinton. He had these “surpluses” for a number of years. They weren’t real, but he had them.

You’re going to just love this one! Oregon is now going to allow high school kids to take their tests, etc in their ‘native language’ to graduate.

Oregon students could graduate using native language ...
Dec 4, 2009 ... PORTLAND — Some Oregon high school students who possess only intermediate English skills but read and write well in their native language ...
www.statesmanjournal.com/article/20091204/UPDATE/91204038

[snip]PORTLAND — Some Oregon high school students who possess only intermediate English skills but read and write well in their native language will be able to qualify for a diploma using those native language skills.
The policy is aimed at students who have strong academic skills in their first language and who immigrate to the United States in their mid-teens or later

“Ed Gillespie said Tuesday the GOP should present itself as anti-illegal immigration but not anti-immigrant in the debate”

This guy hasn’t been living under a rock...he knows damn well we were never ANTI-IMMIGRANT! And if he thinks for one nanosecond that we are ever going to soften our position on path to citizenship-amnesty, he’s sadly mistaken.

Yes, those are BUDGET surpluses and deficits. That’s how they ae defined. You keep confusing national debt, intergovernmental debt, and budget debt.

At least I understand the meaning of the far right hand column in the US Tresury monthly statement linked below. You on the other hand haven’t a clue as to what the column means as you have proven over and over.

SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS AND THE DEFICIT/SURPLUS BY MONTH OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT
http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts1009.txt

A quick scan shows none of the GOPbots that attacked me yesterday responding to this story.

Go figure.

“That is how budget deficits and budget surpluses are defined.”

I pointed out that those surpluses are not real surpluses. Liabilities are not income. The argument started because you were defending Bush on the basis of an federal accounting surplus and I responded by pointing out that said surplus was not real - exactly what Bush said in 2000.

So, Al Gore, have a good day.

Gillespie said he against illegal immigration. What more do you want?

"Please tell me what was wrong with what he said. "Ed Gillespie said Tuesday the GOP should present itself as anti-illegal immigration but not anti-immigrant in the debate.? "

Because it's a lie to make anyone against amnesty look like a racist. We, who have fought against amnesty and unregulated mass illegal immigration have never been 'anti-immigrant' and this pro amnesty jerk knows it. Must we be lied about by the right along with the left???

Do you want to amnesty 12 to 20 million illegal aliens and their millions of anchor babies?

AMNESTY....What does 20 million people actually look like?

Do you realize if this AMNESTY happens we are in effect creating the equivilant population of over 17 of our states to this country? And that’s not even considering the chain migration that is in every amnesty bill or the millions of illegal alien anchor babies intent on carrying out the terror of their Mexican drug cartels. (Remember, anchor babies are US citizens..voters....who aren't counted in the illegal alien numbers!)

Please look at what giving amnesty to as many as 20,000,000 illegal alien foreign nationals actually represents. More than the population of 16 states and DC!

According to the 2000 census, 18,785,867 is the total populations combined of Wyoming, Dist. of Columbia, Vermont, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Maine, Idaho, Nebraska, West Virginia, New Mexico and Nevada.

THINK about that!

http://towncriernews.blogspot.com/search?q=what+does+amnesty+look+like

“We must face the fact that MOST of our GOP ‘leaders’ are for amnesty and being ‘soft’ on this issue.....
IMO, AMNESTY is going to happen, and it will happen with the help of the GOP leadership “

Yeah?
How did that McCain/Bush/Kennedy pro amnesty bill go in the Us Senate then?
Heck they couldn't even get that bill to pass, even with Bush, McCain, and the so-called Republican leaders, and a huge number of Democrats backing it.
It FAILED woefully.
Unless the Democrats have a suicide wish for 2010, they'd be well advised to heed what voters are saying, which is "NO AMNESTY".

okay, I guess this is why they call them The Stupid Party...

WHAT do they not understand about this?

- admit ONLY immigrants who are willing to apply in their home country, go through screening and background checks, and wait their turn

- admit ONLY immigrants who are willing to become fluent in English and adopt American values and traditions

- admit ONLY immigrants who are willing and able to support themselves and their families financially

- limit the NUMBER to as many as we can reasonably accomodate in a given year

- do not ADMIT applicants from militant Islamic and whack-job anti-American countries

It’s not rocket science, guys...

Even better, make our immigration laws the exact same as the immigrant's country of origin. Like Mexico's prohibitions on political activities and property ownership. Also their work restrictions, income requirements, language requirements, etc. Another good example is Saudia Arabia's prohibition against Christianity.

If we only had these types of common sense recripical requirements, we'd end up with a lot fewer immigrants.

Dont worry, Rush Limbaugh says that there’s a world of difference between the repubs and the dems....

What did the party do under Gillespie? Wither...

Now he wants to tell the party what to do now.

Ed, if you were such a brain trust, why didn’t you pass off our party in better condition?

The claim that the Republican party has been anti-immigrant, is a leftist’s claim. Why are you spewing it?

This RINO sounds just like a Dem, he’s spewing their talking points.

And this guy led the party. I rest my case.