Prev: millions in fees
Next: Come again?
From: Mike on 4 Aug 2010 11:51
The kicker is while it is true excess SS funds are carried as an ASSET in
the ANNUAL budget, because currently there is more SS income than there are
expenditures . The fact, is by law all the excess SS funds must be held in
US Treasury Bonds, thus part of the ever growing national debt, by trillions
of dollars under BO(ZO) and the Dimocrats in Congress, that will soon need
to be redeemed WITH Interest. ;)




"RD Sandman" <rdsandman(a)comcast[remove].net> wrote in message
news:Xns9DC972F4767C1hopewell(a)216.196.97.130...
> Cliff <Clhuprichguesswhat(a)aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
> news:dqkc561s4ofcolkpfq73q6ea8om0bam129(a)4ax.com:
>
>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 12:37:41 -0500, RD Sandman
>> <rdsandman(a)comcast[remove].net> wrote:
>>
>>>Cliff <Clhuprichguesswhat(a)aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
>>>news:ljg256h2k73d1ajgmq91j0s9782p5q4n64(a)4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 15:49:07 -0500, RD Sandman
>>>> <rdsandman(a)comcast[remove].net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Under Clinton's
>>>>>last two years it showed a slight surplus.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy05/pdf/hist.pdf A surplus for 4
>>>years after a 4 year decline in
>>>> size of the year's added deficits.
>>>
>>>From your cite:
>>>
>>>Clinton's large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security
>>>tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost
>>>of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total
>>>deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social
>>>Security wasn't counted. But even if we remove Social Security from
>>>the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and
>>>$86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal
>>>budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.�
>>>
>>>He only could show any surplus for 4 years *if* he also counted the
>>>Social Security surplus. Without that surplus from SS being counted,
>>>he only showed a surplus in budgeted items for the last two years of
>>>his administration, which I have already stated.
>>>
>>>See also.
>>>
>>>http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy05/pdf/hist.pdf
>>>
>>>Go to Table 1.1 on page 22. Look under "On Budget", "Surplus or
>>>Deficit" for the years Clinton was in office. You will see a surplus
>>>only in 1999 and 2000.
>>
>> That would be the very same surplus you denied existed.
>
> No, it isn't. I haven't claimed that there was no budget surplus in 1999
> or 2000.... I said that there wasn't one in 1992 - 1998. You claimed
> that Clinton had FOUR years of budget surplus. I have also stated that
> even though Clinton had those budget supluses (and I have given him kudos
> on that) he did not reduce the national debt.
>
>
>> Can you have it both ways? How?
>
> Haven't tried to. You have to learn to comprehend what is actually said.
>
> --
> Sleep well tonight,
>
> RD (The Sandman)
>
> I ask people why they have deer heads on their walls. They
> say it is because it is such a beautiful animal. Hmmmm, I think my
> wife is very attractive, but I only have pictures of her.


 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: millions in fees
Next: Come again?