I'm not sure what you're not getting here, Battle. The Government took in more than it spent. Social Security took in more than it spent. How do you turn these facts on their head and somehow turn this into a deficit?
Because the total debt increased. The government plays such political games and manipulates the process to make the government fiscal status look as rosy as possible, and it still runs a debt. The govt even uses cash accounting rather than accrual, cash accounting for any large business is impossible (possibly even illegal), for the government its insanely incorrect. Cash accounting is for simple transactions and companies that do not have significant inventory or property, extended accounts receivables, or significant obligations outside its fiscal year. So even stacking the deck in its favor, the government still cannot run a surplus and it has to move items "off budget" and trick people into thinking it at one time ran a surplus..
Those are government taxes not business rules and what does it have to do with me one of the People, a citizen, and the freedom and liberty to invest my money as I see fit, not as YOU see fit?
By using a completely inappropriate metric to measure a surplus or deficit that no one recognizes except a RW computer programmer with no background in accounting or economics. - - - Updated - - - Q.E.D.
Nothing cherry picked as in yours, this illustrates Republican control of spending and Democrat control of spending in $1,000's Republican 2001 $1,862,846 2002 $2,010,894 2003 $2,159,899 2004 $2,292,841 2005 $2,471,957 2006 $2,655,050 2007 $2,728,686 $16,182,173 Democrat 2008 2,982,544 2009 3,517,677 2010 3,457,079 2011 3,603,059 2012 3,537,127 2013 3,454,000 2014 3,504,000 $24,055,486 So 7.8T more spending under the Democrats and Obama and increase of 30% in just two years Care to justify that? What did we get for it? And deficits still almost 3.5 times higher than the deficits the Republicans handed them, STILL higher than the WORST Republican deficit during the recession/recovery of 2000/2001.
A 46.5% increase in spending by Bush and the Republicans. A 17.5% increase in spending under the Democrats and partly under Bush and partly under Obama. An increase in spending by the Republicans about 30 percentage points greater than the Democrats. Care to justify that?
$16T compared to $24T in spending. A 30% increase in just the first two years and then kept there, BTW you have to start with the last Republican budget and then compare the increase not with the already huge increase the Democrats had in 2008. More of your phony use of the data. An increase in spending by the Republicans about 30 percentage points greater than the Democrats. Care to justify that?
Great question. LOL, you take years when Bush was president and label them "Democrats", and when I show that spending increased 46.5% under the the Republicans versus 17.5% under the "Democrats", you say "phony use of data." Care to justify that? You've certainly never been one to lack gall. I'll let these guys respond to that bogus claim. The truth is that the nearly 18 percent spike in spending in fiscal 2009 — for which the president is sometimes blamed entirely — was mostly due to appropriations and policies that were already in place when Obama took office. ... Since pictures can convey information more efficiently than words, we’ll sum up the official spending figures in this chart. It also reflects our finding that Obama increased fiscal 2009 spending by at most $203 billion, accounting for well under half the huge increase that year. ... So by our calculations, Obama can fairly be assigned responsibility for — at most — 5.8 percent of the $3.5 trillion that the federal government actually spent in fiscal 2009, which was 17.9 percent higher than fiscal 2008. http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/ When Obama took the oath of office, the $789 billion bank bailout had already been approved. Federal spending on unemployment benefits, food stamps and Medicare was already surging to meet the dire unemployment crisis that was well underway. See the CBO’s January 2009 budget outlook. Obama is not responsible for that increase, though he is responsible (along with the Congress) for about $140 billion in extra spending in the 2009 fiscal year from the stimulus bill, from the expansion of the children’s health-care program and from other appropriations bills passed in the spring of 2009. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-spending-binge-never-happened-2012-05-22?pagenumber=2 Listening to a talk radio program yesterday, the host asserted that Obama tripled the budget deficit in his first year. This assertion is understandable, since the deficit jumped from about $450 billion in 2008 to $1.4 trillion in 2009. As this chart illustrates, with the Bush years in green, it appears as if Obama’s policies have led to an explosion of debt. But there is one rather important detail that makes a big difference. The chart is based on the assumption that the current administration should be blamed for the 2009 fiscal year. While this makes sense to a casual observer, it is largely untrue. The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House. http://www.cato.org/blog/dont-blame-obama-bushs-2009-deficit Having said that, it is impossible to look at the chart and not to see a large ramp up in outlays under George W. Bush — the president who reversed the direction of federal outlays, which had been falling. Indeed, it is perfectly reasonable to argue that much of the responsibility for 2009’s 25.2 percent rests with President Bush, and not with President Obama; in January 2009, before President Obama took office, the CBO released its forecast that fiscal year 2009 would see outlays of 24.9 percent of GDP based on pre-Obama policies. http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/09/03/yep-obamas-a-big-spender-just-like-his-predecessors/ Nope. Obama inherited the HUGE deficit from Bush, who squandered a HUGE surplus. The deficit has come down every year under Obama.
I guess you have to ask yourself why foreign countries like Korea, Japan, Germany and Australia find America a good place to invest in manufacturing plants but you do not. The only thing I can think of is that you are trying to teach the American worker a lesson about uppity-ness.
Ooohhh.... Government accounting smoke and mirrors. Excuse me while I shudder. Cash vs. Accrural accounting only comes into play for Corporations seeking a tax avoidance strategy - it's pretty much irrelevant where it comes to Government accounting, Battle. There's no secret black magic voodoo accounting tricks at play here - it's basic vanilla debt rollover: Step 1 - Social Security runs a surplus which by law it has to invest in nonmarketable Government debt - Gross debt goes up accordingly. Step 2 - The Government takes this money it received from Social Security and combines it with it's own surplus to pay off some of the maturing Debt held by the public - Net Debt goes down. If the Government Budget was perfectly balanced, all that would happen is that the reduction in Net Debt would equal the increase in Gross Debt. Here are some practical numbers for the FY98-01 time period: Gross Debt: +$0.401 Trillion Net Debt: -$0.452 Trillion What's so hard to understand about this?
Hate that there are so that see this a great thing. I would prefer that it was record high returns. To give more of money back to who earned it. The people.
And run up trillions more debt so that "the people" can stick more billions in their offshore trust accounts. We've seen that movie before.
On accrual, you are grossly incorrect. As I suspected, accrual is required by law for most for-profit corporations. Accrual accounting allows expenses to be matched with revenue when the transaction is extended in time, it more accurately represents the economics of the business and the financial health. Social security is a perfect example of accrual accounting - the government receives revenue and incurs a debt at the same time, but the debt is not paid until many years later. Under cash accounting, when the person pays the social security tax only the revenue is shown on the books, the obligation to pay social security to the person is not visible. The same with government retirement programs (including military retirement), DoD development and production programs, in fact almost everything the govt does spans multiple years. No corporation could legally do what the government does, and by using cash accounting the govt violates standard accounting principles, and the govt does it to hide the financial facts. As to the debt, you are playing games. Here is the debt for your period: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/de...tYear=1998&endMonth=09&endDay=30&endYear=2001 09/30/1998 to 09/28/2001 debt held by the public 3,733,864,472,163.53 3,339,310,176,094.74 (decreased by about $395 Billion) intragovt debt 1,792,328,536,734.09 2,468,153,236,105.32 (increased by about $676 Billion) total debt 5,526,193,008,897.62 5,807,463,412,200.06 (total debt increased by $281 Billion) No surplus. Its in plain black and white on the govts own web site. No matter how much tap dancing you do, you cant change the numbers. There is no surplus.
That assumption means you think government is necessary for economic success which is a fallacy other than the very things government is supposed to do like regulate monopolies, punish fraud, and stop illegal force. Problem is government is now the monopoly, commits fraud, and engages in illegal force.
SS is not a "debt" as there is no contractual obligation by the Govt to pay the debt. The Govt can change the SS beneficiary conditions at any time. I'm sorry, where is the word "surplus" or "deficit" on the Treasury page again? I don't see it. Maybe someone else can direct me to where it is.
Total debt is the total amount of money that has been borrowed. The budget has different meaning, but is either an accounting of receipts and expenditures for a given period (usually a year or month) or it can be a plan for spending and receipts for the future. It is true that the budget has an effect on the debt in that when the Govt runs deficits, it ultimately must borrow money. But the error you and the RW computer programmer make is the faulty assumption that in any given year, the difference between receipts and expenditures (e.g. the deficit or surplus) must necessarily equal the amount borrowed. That is not true. The Govt does not start a FY with zero in its till, then count up exactly what it took in and expended during the year, and borrow that exact amount. It is also not true that every time the money goes out of the Govt or every time money comes in that it is an expenditure or receipt. Borrowing money, for example, is not a "receipt", and paying down debt is not an "expenditure." This is explained by the OMB here: 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 This demonstrates why the underlying methodology of the RW computer programmer with no background in accounting or economics is wrong. He erroneous assumes (or is intentionally deceiving) that the change in debt in any given year must equal the deficit or surplus. It does not. And that is why the fact that the total debt did decrease by $116 billion in 2000 is evidence that there was a true surplus in that time frame, even if the time frame doesn't perfectly conform to a fiscal years. It shows that the government was in fact paying down the total debt in that time frame, even when you exclude SS.
Your post says 2 things: 1 - that the government clearly, unequivocally should be doing accrual accounting, not cash accounting. "The budget treats borrowing and debt repayment as a means of financing, not as receipts and outlays" is almost a textbook definition of accrual accounting, yet the government uses cash accounting which DOES treat borrowing and debt repayment as receipts and outlays BY DEFINITION. 2 - that the OMB even in its "explanation" above, thinks some debt is debt, and some debt doesn't count. The OMB thinks the govt can borrow from itself and somehow this doesn't count - as if it doesn't have to be repaid and does not represent future obligations. Total BS and just brightly points out the crazy lengths the govt will go to make itself look better than it is. The directors and officers of any corporation that operated as your OMB describes would be on trial for Treasury, Justice, and SEC violations, plus have a host of lawsuits from investors who were swindled by misleading financial statements. And it comes back to the govt does cash accounting, and in cash accounting the only relevant item is the exchange of cash, not whether a future debt is incurred. In cash accounting, the surplus/deficit equals the running debt.
This principal of accounting is the same as in the corporate world. When a corporation borrows money, it is not revenue. The fact that it runs a profit doesn't mean that its total liabilities or debt has been paid down. Where does it say that some debt "doesn't count"? Total BS and just brightly points out the crazy lengths the govt will go to make itself look better than it is. The directors and officers of any corporation that operated as your OMB describes would be on trial for Treasury, Justice, and SEC violations, plus have a host of lawsuits from investors who were swindled by misleading financial statements. When debt is incurred it is reflected in the debt. That is simply wrong, as I have proved to you. Can you find any reliable source to back up that ridiculous assertion?
No, absolutely incorrect. The government does NOT follow the same rules of accounting that apply to the corporate world. No corporation can move items "off budget", that is strictly illegal. No for profit C corp can use cash accounting either. When an entity using cash accounting borrows $1Million this year which it must repay next year as $1.1Million, this year it will show revenue of $1Million. The debt does not show up on its books and the company looks healthy, but next year it will show $1.1Million in expenses. It makes the company look good this year when it is not, it has a massive expense looming next year. Using accrual, in this years statement it would show a bottom line debt of $100,000, that is the true financial condition of the company. The govt is playing games because it makes and enforces the rules, its kicking the can down the road every year. The govt is lying about its financial condition.
