|
willbeurdaddy -> RE: US Debt rises from 41% to 53% of Gross National Product (GDP) (12/22/2009 1:45:27 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: rulemylife
quote:
ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
quote:
ORIGINAL: rulemylife
quote:
ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
You can respond to the Treasury department links I posted that show exactly what Ive said. But that would actually take acknowledgement that there was no surplus.
Then re-post them.
Because what you are saying is that the Treasury Department was in direct contradiction of the Congressional Budget Office.
No, that isnt what Im saying. Im saying that the cited numbers from the CBO are correct PUBLIC DEBT numbers. However a decrease in the PUBLIC DEBT does not mean there was a budget surplus. The TOTAL DEBT, as shown in the link I posted that Brain cant figure out how to use (entering two dates is really hard, I know) increased every year. There are probably TOTAL DEBT numbers in the CBO site somewhere, but all of them come out of Treasury anyway. The CBO is responsible for BUDGETS, not for reporting the actual results, thats Treasury. The link to Treasury shows the PUBLIC DEBT, the INTERGOVERNMENTAL DEBT and the TOTAL DEBT...you know...the one on the National Debt Clock thats over 12 trillion now.
I previously posted, when we argued this on another thread, the CBO figures showing a reduction in the national debt corresponding to the surpluses.
If you still doubt those surpluses maybe you can explain what the Republican Congress and White House were arguing about how to spend what you claim did not exist.
federal budget Resources | BNET
After three decades of federal budget deficits, a budget surplus was realized in 1998.
...........
During his 1999 State of the Union address, President Clinton presented the framework of a plan to use most of the federal budget surplus to build the trust funds for Social Security and Medicare to levels that are required to provide benefits to the large baby-boom generation as it reaches retirement age. (The problems facing Social Security are addressed in greater detail in the online debate entitled: "Will Social Security survive into the 21st century?.") As part of this plan, Clinton proposed to invest some of the surplus in government managed retirement accounts that invest funds in the stock market. He proposed that the rest of the surplus be used to fund new initiatives in education, health care, national defense, and pollution abatement.
Many conservatives, on the other hand, argue that the economy would operate more efficiently with less government intervention. They believe that a federal budget surplus is unlikely to be saved or used to reduce the national debt since there will always be pressure to use the funds to satisfy requests from special interest groups that are engaged in rent-seeking behavior.
Many of these conservatives believe that the federal budget surplus provides an historic opportunity to reduce the size of government by providing tax cuts. These tax cuts, in their view, would transfer funds that would ultimately have been used for government spending back to private consumption and investment alternatives.
In the summer of 2001, the Bush administration successfully sponsored tax cut legislation that, combined with the aftereffects of the attack on the World Trade Center and the recession beginning in 2001, have eliminated the budget surplus.
Until you can explain how the deficit increase every year as shown in the Treasury web site, yet there were supposedly "surpluses" this thread is over for me. As usual you keep citing references to public debt and to budget estimates instead of responding directly. Your usual bullshit.
|
|
|
|
