Posted on 10/11/2006 7:25:30 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
That's just simply not true. Whatever you think of x42's policies (or his predecessors'), their mantra was to reverse "12 years of failed economic policies" with "deficits as far as the eye can see." He said it so much, how can you even forget it?
That said, I agree the cause/effect is complex. I've been following some interesting posts regarding public debt that make the whole thing look sorta jokey. Seems as though they are all lying to us.
Clinton never did anything to help the economy. Can you name one thing he did? One thing he actually did, not what he took credit for?
Nope.
You are incorrect.
I'll try again.....What one thing did Clinton do, name one thing he actually did to improve the deficit.
*Looking at watch*
lol. i didnt answer you because i didn't read your whole post. as for what he did, as i recall, he signed budgets with lower deficits than anyone else has in the last 60 years. I suppose you want to credit the 94 takeover, right? Fine, credit it. But you can't then have it both ways. Either the deficit was better or it wasn't. If it was better, Clintoon gets credit for signing the budgets. This concludes your civics lesson.
"He signed budgets"
Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!
You are such a toadie.......
Embarrassing.
Ann Coulter was right, the tragic part about you folks on the left is you can't argue rationally, or even frame a debate. Tragic. Human souls lost in perpetuity......
The tragic part about you is that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Hmmm, is that what "Intragovernmental Holdings" are?
Yes. Following is a description from page 228 of the Analytical Perspectives from the most recent U.S. Budget:
Debt Held by Government Accounts
Trust funds, and some special funds and public enterprise revolving funds, accumulate cash in excess of current needs in order to meet future obligations. These cash surpluses are generally invested in Treasury debt.
Investment by trust funds and other Government accounts has risen greatly for many years. It was $254 billion in 2005, as shown in Table 16–4, and is estimated to rise to $311 billion in 2007. The holdings of Federal securities by Government accounts are estimated to grow to $3,904 billion by the end of 2007, or 42 percent of the gross Federal debt. The percentage is estimated to rise gradually in the following years, as the trust funds and several major revolving funds and special funds continue to accumulate surpluses.
The large investment by Government accounts is concentrated among a few trust funds. The two Social Security trust funds—Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance—have a large combined surplus and invest $546 billion during 2005–07, which is 65 percent of the total estimated investment by Government accounts. The funds for Federal employee retirement also invest a large share of the total. The principal trust fund for Federal civilian employees is the civil service retirement and disability trust fund, which accounts for 11 percent of the total investment by Government accounts during 2005–07. The military retirement trust fund and the special fund for uniformed services retiree health care account for another 13 percent. The two Medicare trust funds—Hospital Insurance and Supplementary Medical Insurance—account for another 9 percent. Altogether, the investment by Social Security, Medicare, and these three Federal employee retirement funds is almost as much as the total investment by Government accounts during this period. At the end of 2007, they are estimated to own 92 percent of the total debt held by Government accounts. Many of the other Government accounts also increase their holdings of Federal securities during this period.
The following table lists the actual trust funds that hold the intragovernmental debt:
DEBT HELD BY GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTS (billions of dollars)
Investment or disinvestment Holdings
----------------------------- end of
2005 % of 2006 2007 2007 % of
Description actual total est. est. est. total
---------------------------------- ------ ----- ------ ------ ------- -----
Old-age and survivors trust fund.. 163.6 64.4 171.7 185.9 1973.7 50.6
Civil Service retirement & disabil 28.9 11.4 30.0 30.5 721.2 18.5
Hospital insurance trust fund..... 12.9 5.1 18.4 20.6 316.2 8.1
Disability insurance trust fund... 10.5 4.1 8.3 6.6 208.1 5.3
Military retirement trust fund.... 0.0 0.0 16.9 9.1 203.3 5.2
Uniformed Services Retiree Health. 17.0 6.7 30.3 32.3 115.5 3.0
Unemployment trust fund........... 9.6 3.8 -8.7 13.6 59.7 1.5
Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.... 1.2 0.5 1.3 0.0 49.5 1.3
Employees life ins & health benfts 3.1 1.2 3.0 2.7 47.7 1.2
Supplementary medical insurance... -0.2 -0.1 11.4 9.5 38.1 1.0
Housing and Urban Development..... -0.3 -0.1 0.8 0.3 31.7 0.8
Highway and Airport trust funds... -1.8 -0.7 1.4 -1.3 18.4 0.5
Other government accounts......... 9.5 3.8 -5.2 1.6 120.8 3.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total investment in Federal debt.. 254.0 100.0 279.5 311.4 3904.0 100.0
Source: Budget of the United States Government, FY 2007,
Analytical Perspectives, page 229, table 16-4
This so-called budget crisis is not a technical problem because everyone's got lots of number links and nobody agrees. What it all boils down to is that a few thousand years ago we'd have been happy to have just seven years of plenty. What we got now is more like seventy years of plenty but the 'forces of darkness' come up with never-ending complaints.
btw, I do consider myself a Bible scholar, but your reference really clicked. Thanks.
What's the National Debt?
Government is a "pay-as-you-go" system because the real "trust fund" for Social Security is the U.S. economy, and it will draw on it as needed for future bills. Because it can tax, unlike corporate pensions, there is no need for separate funding.
The Social Security trust fund was invented as a fiction to make an increase in payroll taxes politically palatable at a time when higher income taxes were not. The money was never actually intended to be saved for future Social Security. That was just the lie used to sell it.
That said, the only figures that matter are the consolidate deficit ($247B) and debt ($4.8T). The government debt to itself in the "trust funds" could vanish without consequence.
See #111.
The funding source for government is the U.S. economy.
Withdrawals for current expenses are called taxes.
Because the government can tax, it does not need trust funds to draw on like private pensions.
A government trust fund with actual assets is socialism, i.e. government ownership of the economy.
That is a BAD idea.
(Even cash is not a real asset for the government because they are just debt instruments, the same as the current bonds.)
Better to leave real assets in private hands to earn taxable income.
Your explanation doesn't factor in the much greater costs to current workers of the SSI and Medicare system. Because when they were founded pay as you go was easy: 20 workers to one retiree. Retirees only lived an average of 3 years after retiring. Now the ratio is 3:1, moving to 2:1 and the average age spent on the program is something like 15 years.
So if you are one of the brave 21st century workers you can expect much higher taxes to pay for all this. At best we'll have crumbling infrastructure, reduced spending in all other areas and weaker defense to keep the tax burden on those brave few young workers in line. At worst they will be worked like slaves to provde "promised" benefits to elders who are already (on average, and in many cases dramaticaly) richer than they are (or may ever be.)
20 year olds working at McDonalds in Compton to pay greens fees for rich retired dentitsts in Palm Beach.
Maybe that is fair and sustainable. Maybe not. Time will tell.
I'd like my "real assets" of SSI in my hands, not that pack of pedophiles and real estate scammers in Washington. But, alas, they don't want to fork it over for me to mannage.
yeah!
While this is a step in the right direction, a deficit of some $250 billion in one year is nothing to be proud of. Bush and Republicans need to get serious about cutting spending.
Nice, but it ought to be something better than what we ignorantly refer to as a "surplus".
I think its sensational. We lost a lot on 9/11.
"It seems you've accepted the fact that our country is going to be lost."
Get a grip Dude. We've come from a deficit of over 500 bil to just half of that in five years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.