So NO YOU DON'T KNOW WTF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT The United States government adopted a unified budget in the Johnson administration in 1968, beginning with the 1969 budget. The surplus in the Social Security OASDI (Old Age Survivors and Disabilities Insurance) budget offsets the total deficit, making it appear smaller than it otherwise would. The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, however changed this so that the two Social Security Trust Funds, and the operations of the Postal Service, are considered to be 'off-budget' and are excluded from the unified budget. This means that the Social Security Tax is not counted as revenue to the General Fund, and interest paid to the Trust Funds is counted as an expense to an external entity. Often Federal budget reports will contain two sets of numbers for the yearly Federal Budget: an 'off-budget' deficit (or surplus) and an 'on-budget' deficit (or surplus) the former of course including the receipts and outlays of these budgets, but by law for purposes of balancing the budget they are 'off-budget'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_budget Many argue that the Social Security surplus consequently masks the true deficit of the federal government. In the more than two decades that Social Security has been off-budget, the rest of government has run a surplus in only two years: 1999 and 2000. YET DEBT STILL INCREASED, LOL If you make $100,000 a year and your expenses are $98,000 a year but your debt increases, did you balance your budget????
Weird how the right wing clowns can't understand what a yearly budget Actually is regardless of debt. Shockingly so Budget deficit/surpluses are related to YEARLY revenues versus YEARLY expenses, PERIOD. IT'S CALLED A YEARLY BUDGET. Money coming in versus money going out. Simple Revenues minus expenses equals a surplus, a balanced budget or a deficit ZERO to do with debt...
From the Treasury web site http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/current Total debt on 30 Sept 1999 = 5,656,270,901,633.43 Total debt on 30 Sept 2000 = 5,674,178,209,886.86 Debt increased $17,907,308,253.43 Total debt on 30 Sept 2001 = 5,807,463,412,200.06 Debt increased $133,285,202,313.20 No surplus. Pick a year, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, obola, there is no surplus. Give it up, you cannot change the numbers, no matter how much you finagle and squirm, the numbers from the Treasury's own web site prove you wrong.
A balanced budget has nothing to do with debt? Where does that annual budget deficit or surplus come from or go to? I can tell you are in way over your head when the crazy name calling starts.
All you are saying is that the govt moved some expenses "off budget" - exactly what I have written repeatedly. A balanced budget is not the issue, it never was in this discussion. You cannot divorce the national debt from the annual budget, to claim that the annual budget deficit/surplus has nothing to do with the national debt is total stupidity.
Budget is what they say they are going to spend, the Treasury shows what was actually spent. On budget there is a surplus, actual spending there never was one.
Do you have a mortgage? Did you pay off that mortgage? Debt is immaterial to a review of the budget. Money comes in, money goes out. The deficit is really about cash flow. So what if the total debt rises or falls in a year as long as the nation is doing well and the economy is functioning at or near full capacity. Say I make 100 grand a year, have a 400 grand mortgage, a car payment and other debts. My net assets might be less than I like but as long as my yearly expenses are less than 100 grand, everyone wins. The insistence on talking about long term debt is just a political game, nothing else.
$16T in spending under Republican control, $24T under Democrat, 30% increase in just two years by the Democrats, care to justify that? I am well versed on the various government spending no need to waste your or my time on it. AHHH the wars had wound down and even at their peak were about $100B a year. So you are trying to claim that the increase from the last Republican budget deficit of $161B to two years later the Democrat $1,400B was due to counting the cost of the wars that had wound down? And exactly what was this suffering under the Bush tax cuts? The 52 months of full employment, the rising middle class incomes, the soaring tax revenues which enable the lowering of the deficit to a paltry $161B, even adding in the $100B a year for the wars just $261B, my what we would give to have deficits that low again. Yes thanks to the previous two years of Democrats control of congress and refusing to do anything about it, but then the recession was already 2/3's over when Obama took office and ended in June before any of his stimulus was acted upon, and the job lose rate bottomed out the month he took office and had already receded greatly by June. All he had to do was enact policies to get us into a full blown recovery, instead he has done the exact opposite and proposed more of the same. And NAH-NAH-NAH is Soooooooo grown up.
"All you are saying is that the govt moved some expenses "off budget" - exactly what I have written repeatedly. " You MEANT FUTURE EXPENSES? THAT created debt. A YEARLY budget IS as I described AND we've had 4 surpluses under BJ Bill (3 after he vetoed the GOP's $792+ billion tax cut)... More money coming in to the treasury than going out Oct 1 to September 30th and the YEARLY BUDGET is balanced OR has a surplus...
LOL, Really? This chart, based on historical figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, shows the total deficit or surplus for each fiscal year from 1990 through 2006. MESSAGE FROM THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY 1999 Unified budget surplus $124..4 BILLION GOA , Page 106 http://www.gao.gov/financial_pdfs/fy99cfs.pdf
"$16T in spending under Republican control, $24T under Democrat, 30% increase in just two years by the Democrats, care to justify that?" YOU ARE TRYING TO SAY THE PREZ IS RESPONSIBLE THEN TURN AROUND AND GIVE CREDIT FOR GOP CONGRESS??? lol, IGNORING the fact that the GOP had Congress for MUCH of the period you give the \Dems "credit" for having Congress, lol
You seem to be talking about two things that are completely different, the deficit and the debt. The debt increased because of two untaxed wars, massive tax cuts, Medicare Part D and the aging of the boomers along with incredible increases in health care costs for Medicaid and Medicare. The deficits were a direct result of the war, the tax cuts, increases in health care costs, more boomers retiring, massive loss of jobs and incomes and the quasi-depression. The deficits are yearly, the debt is a running tally of the delta between what we get in taxes and what we spend over time. Like most who take your position, you harp constantly about both of them while understanding neither. Your sole desire is to blame democrats and excuse the GOP tax and spend policy going back to Reagan. Since no amount of data will ever change your mind, this conversation is a complete waste of time.
The problem is they borrowed from social security in the amount of over 3 trillion dollars so far and this can only be paid back by the current tax payers. Is that fair to the public?
The deficit can be determined at any given time by determining what period you want to cover. At the US Treasury site it explains that, "You can think of the total debt as accumulated deficits plus accumulated off-budget surpluses." It effectively means that in a given FY period subtract the beginning debt from the end debt and the deficit for that period equals the CHANGE in the debt. (not the debt itself.) What is "fake" about Clinton's so called surplus, they used voodoo math and overlooked the fact that all off budget surpluses instantly become debt as soon as that money is "loaned" to the general treasury. This does not slight the fact that Clinton was an excellent fiscal president.
Cool., AND YET THE YEARLY BUDGET (MONEY COMING IN VERSUS GOING OUT) HAD 4 SURPLUSES UNDER BJ BILL... Yes, the two AREN'T mutually exclusive DESPITE right wingers OPINIONS. Debt CAN increase WHILE the treasury has a balanced budget or even surplus.
Well I think the number is actually $2.7 trillion from SS and then the rest from OTHER payroll taxes. Weird how Ronnie Reagan cut taxes for the rich AND then hid the costs by upping taxes on SS in the tune of the $2.7+ trillion... TO HIDE THE COSTS OF HIS TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH!
THAT is ONLY the DEBT part. What a YEARLY BUDGET IS IS MONEY COMING INTO TREASURY VERSUS MONEY LEAVING TREASURY. Nothing more. Nothing less Take Revenues subtract expenses and you get a balanced budget, surplus or deficit FOR THE YEAR
Why is it so hard for you to read the Treasury numbers? There was no surplus in any year from Carter forward. None. Go to Treasury Direct (I've given you the link multiple times, and shown the numbers) and see for yourself.
I'm talking about the middle and lower class and small business. The progressive war on this group needs to stop. Attacking through taxes and regulations that only help global tax avoiding corps. Like GE, Apple, Monsanto, Facebook, and other progressive donors.
You seem to like paper projections instead of actual spending. Debt cannot increase if there is a balanced budget because there would be no need to borrow. A surplus would mean the debt is actually paid down. I know, a concept really foreign to a democrat. Maybe a democrats idea of a budget is like their idea of a utopia. Nonexistent.
Are you again claiming the Treasury numbers say there no surplus? You know better than that. I've showed you these Treasury numbers several times now. Here is your source, US Treasury Department, Monthly Treasury Statement (MTS) for Sept 30, 2000, summarizing the budget, receipts, outlays, surplus or deficit for FY2000: http://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/fsreports/rpt/mthTreasStmt/mts0900.pdf Front page: Page 2: Page 3: Page 5: Summary: "On budget" receipts: $1.544 trillion "On budget" outlays": $1.457 trillion On-budget surplus: $87.175 billion. Total receipts: $ 2.025 trillion Total outlays: $1.827 trillion Total surplus: $237 billion I went to Treasury and saw for myself. Now everyone else can too.
We are all for a FICA tax cut, and eliminating the FICA income cap and investment income exemption to pay for it. This conservative war on the middle and lower class and small business has to stop. The richest 1% now are getting about 20% of the nation's income and have a bout 40% of the nation's wealth. Isn't that enough for you? For some, or many, more is never enough.
Record revenues must be the reason Obama is requesting an even larger budget that will increase the deficit even more.
No, there was a surplus on actuals, as well as projections of trillions of surpluses in the future. False. BUDGET DEFICIT OR SURPLUS AND MEANS OF FINANCING When outlays exceed receipts, the difference is a deficit, which the Government finances primarily by borrowing. When receipts exceed outlays, the difference is a surplus, and the Government automatically uses the surplus primarily to reduce debt. The Government’s debt (debt held by the public) is approximately the cumulative amount of borrowing to finance deficits, less repayments from surpluses, over the Nation’s history. Borrowing is not exactly equal to the deficit, and debt repayment is not exactly equal to the surplus, because of the other means of financing such as those discussed in this section. The factors included in the other means of financing can either increase or decrease the Government’s borrowing needs (or decrease or increase its ability to repay debt). For example, the change in the Treasury operating cash balance is a factor included in other means of financing. Holding receipts and outlays constant, increases in the cash balance increase the Government’s need to borrow or reduce the Government’s ability to repay debt, and decreases in the cash balance decrease the need to borrow or increase the ability to repay debt. In some years, the net effect of the other means of financing is minor relative to the borrowing or debt repayment; in other years, such as 2009, the net effect may be significant, as explained later in this chapter. Borrowing and Debt Repayment The budget treats borrowing and debt repayment as a means of financing, not as receipts and outlays. If borrowing were defined as receipts and debt repayment as outlays, the budget would always be virtually balanced by definition. This rule applies both to borrowing in the form of Treasury securities and to specialized borrowing in the form of agency securities. The rule reflects the common-sense understanding that lending or borrowing is just an exchange of financial assets of equal value—cash forTreasury securities—and so is fundamentally different from, say, paying taxes. In 2010, the Government borrowed $1,474 billion from the public, bringing debt held by the public to $9,019 billion. This borrowing financed the $1,293 billion deficit in that year as well as the net effect of the other means of financing, such as changes in cash balances and other accounts discussed below. In addition to selling debt to the public, the Treasury Department issues debt to Government accounts, primarily trust funds that are required by law to invest in Treasury securities. Issuing and redeeming this debt does not affect the means of financing, because these transactions occur between one Government account and another and thus do not raise or use any cash for the Government as a whole. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/spec.pdf p. 129
