Fact: You should not include Intragovernmental Debt in the National Debt

That's what a trust fund, isn't? Something that'll be there when you're entitlement comes due?

Oh great! And this "number", what is it backed up by? More numbers I assume? Gee, that's really comforting! Knowing that my SS benefits only exist in a government computer somewhere, and, are in fact, worth as much as the government's integrity. That's worth a lot, isn't it?

 

So, a Ponzi scheme? Sounds like a Ponzi scheme.

 

What a bunch of convoluted BS. These accounting gimmicks and practices would make an Enron executive blush.

 

What would you rather have them do? At least this way they allow interest to accrue. This would be no different then them just keeping a number on the side. Intragovernmental debt should not be included in public debt. It is double accounting and makes our debt a lot larger than it really is.

 

You owe them to clinton they allowed him to claim a surplus.

 

He did have a surplus when it comes to spending - income/corporate taxes. But like I have said time and time again, taxes can not be used to pay off the national debt. So instead Clinton, did what was required by law, and took his surplus social security payments and paid down the public portion of the national debt. But he did this by swapping public debt with intragovernmental debt.

This is meaningless because in the future that portion of intragovernmental debt will be swapped back to public debt.

This entire economic system is purely run through balance sheets and accounting. The nonbank public is the last resort to anything involving debt and money creation.

 

sorry, that's not borrowing from themselves... thats spending tax revenue

 

Well it creates debt, so it is borrowing from themselves. They've already debited the system by taking the $200 out then they spend it, and they add $200 in debt. There are $400 in net assets being created out of $200.

That my friend, is "borrowing from yourself".

 

no, its spending money you promised to save.

 

at some point though it does become real debt. Just because it is borrowed from within different government departments doesn't mean the debt doesn't exist...it just means that it might be an obligation of another department thats all.

 

Thread debunked.

 

in a way, you are explaining the way fractional reserve banking works, so in your example what is happening is that the money supply is growing which is inflationary!

 

No, that is not what is happening at all. "Net Assets" increase... aka

$200 - Debit (Which is cash)
$200 - Credit (Which is cash)
$200 - Treasury (Which is a non-cash asset)

So the money supply does not change which is my point. All that changes is the Govt has given themselves a piece of paper saying how much they can spend in the future.

To pay off Intragovernmental debt the operation will be reversed.

They will borrow $200, pay themselves $200, then credit your account for $200. In the end all that will happen is intragovernmental debt will be swapped with public debt.

But the statement is still true. Intragovernmental debt should not be included in the nation's overall debt.

 

Bump, just so people can continue to see how stupid every one is. I can literally show people exactly what is happening with intragovernmental debt and they will still believe I am wrong. Funny how no one ever shows any facts on their end.

Do you guys not want to even try to find out the truth, or are you so set in your partisan ways that you will dismiss anything that doesn't fit in your agenda?

 

The National Debt really should be around $9.9 trillion. And the fact of the matter is the national debt really is just money you have in your pocket. So really we should be spending more money.

True story!

 

Why not make the national debt 999999 trillion? That way our GDP would be hella bigger and we'd all be hella richer!

 

Another cop out, there is a target of economic growth you want to achieve. Balancing productivity, consumption, velocity of money, and quantity of money all together to reach your target inflation rate.

Spending too much could be disastrous, spending too little can be disastrous. But when you have 10% unemployment, a savings rate over 5%, and you are at 70% capacity utilization, you have plenty of room for more spending. PLENTY!

 

Hey, when you gotta print n spend you gotta print n spend.

 

That is true. Exactly what Jon Huntsman said, and Reagan/Bush's top economic adviser. No reason to cut spending when a lack of spending is your problem!

 

That's what the printing presses are for!

 

Yep, it's amazing what happens when people have money instead of sitting on their couches waiting for jobs.

 

Because our currency would collapse immediately following.

 

oh, right. that pesky printing press and its darned inflation! but wouldn't goods and services be infinite as well if we make our money supply infinite? right that's how lord maynard said it would work right?