DescentBB

Well, we all know about the 14 trillion the Govt. owes to various entities. Well how about the unfunded liabilities (which at one time were funded)? Seems there is a $61.6 trillion unfunded liability sitting out there which is the real 800 lb gorilla.:

The $61.6 trillion in unfunded obligations amounts to $534,000 per household. That's more than five times what Americans have borrowed for everything else — mortgages, car loans and other debt. It reflects the challenge as the number of retirees soars over the next 20 years and seniors try to collect on those spending promises.

"The (federal) debt only tells us what the government owes to the public. It doesn't take into account what's owed to seniors, veterans and retired employees," says accountant Sheila Weinberg, founder of the Institute for Truth in Accounting, a Chicago-based group that advocates better financial reporting. "Without accurate accounting, we can't make good decisions."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... titialskip

This article is deliberately misleading (or the writer is an idiot). The $61 trillion is a projection of future obligations, but the author doesn't say how far out this projection goes. For all we know, it could be 100 years, which isn't alarming at all. Also, as with most spending projections from the government, the worst case scenario is presented. These almost never come to pass.

Yeah it's bad enough now as it is without making ★■◆● up.

null0010 wrote:This article is deliberately misleading (or the writer is an idiot). The $61 trillion is a projection of future obligations, but the author doesn't say how far out this projection goes. For all we know, it could be 100 years, which isn't alarming at all. Also, as with most spending projections from the government, the worst case scenario is presented. These almost never come to pass.

OK, let me add this to the list...

Projections of revenue are real dollars if the President in office when they don't materialize is a Republican.
Projections of government spending are 'not likely to come to pass' if the President in office is a Democrat.
Got it...
Waiting for your next update of How to interpret budget projections for the concerned citizen....

Will Robinson wrote:

null0010 wrote:This article is deliberately misleading (or the writer is an idiot). The $61 trillion is a projection of future obligations, but the author doesn't say how far out this projection goes. For all we know, it could be 100 years, which isn't alarming at all. Also, as with most spending projections from the government, the worst case scenario is presented. These almost never come to pass.

OK, let me add this to the list...

Projections of revenue are real dollars if the President in office when they don't materialize is a Republican.
Projections of government spending are 'not likely to come to pass' if the President in office is a Democrat.
Got it...
Waiting for your next update of How to interpret budget projections for the concerned citizen....

Kindly direct me to where I said anything about Republican or Democrat presidents.

null0010 wrote:...Kindly direct me to where I said anything about Republican or Democrat presidents.

You didn't, the correlation is one that I'm noting from the interpretations and the politics of the interpreter...
Just having a little fun

Will Robinson wrote:

null0010 wrote:...Kindly direct me to where I said anything about Republican or Democrat presidents.

You didn't, the correlation is one that I'm noting from the interpretations and the politics of the interpreter...
Just having a little fun

Kindly direct me to where I implied anything like that. Or are you just poking at strawmen again?

Didn't you imply that Bush had spent the surplus that Clinton left him on tax cuts for the rich even though the surplus was just a projection that never materialized?

Will Robinson wrote:Didn't you imply that Bush had spent the surplus that Clinton left him on tax cuts for the rich even though the surplus was just a projection that never materialized?

The difference is that there actually was a surplus during the Clinton years.

But you are right, it would be inconsistant to say that Bush spent a "projected" surplus while saying this figure is also just a projection, and therefore not very informative.

Really Then why did the National Debt Keep going up each year he was in office?

Fiscal Year End Total Debt

09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/repo ... stdebt.htm

The debt and the deficit are two different things.

Some readers wrote to us saying we should have made clear the difference between the federal deficit and the federal debt. A deficit occurs when the government takes in less money than it spends in a given year. The debt is the total amount the government owes at any given time. So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus. The debt the government owes to the public decreased for a while under Clinton, but the debt was by no means erased.

I take exception to this being somewhat misleading, or at the very least, could be put in more precise terms.

"debt the government owes to the public"

Robbing Peter to Pay Paul Accounting no wonder we Americans are so stupid. If you have a surplus why borrow? Are you that naive to actually believe what you are saying and to believe those creative accounting numbers being pushed?

Heretic wrote:If you have a surplus why borrow?

Because taxes aren't high enough to pay for government programs.

You are not helping the argument about a surplus if the government didn't bring in enough taxes to pay for their programs.

Heretic wrote:You are not helping the argument about a surplus if the government didn't bring in enough taxes to pay for their programs.

Clinton pushed as big of a tax increase as he possibly could in his first year without becoming completely unpopular. It's not exactly his fault that Americans don't seem to want to get out of debt.

This has nothing to do with the avg American but every thing to do with the government. You say there was a surplus I say there wasn't.

def·i·cit   
[def-uh-sit; Brit. also dih-fis-it]
–noun
1. the amount by which a sum of money falls short of the required amount. (for paying the National DEBT)
2. the amount by which expenditures or liabilities exceed income or assets. (THE DEBT)
3. a lack or shortage; deficiency. (NO SURPLUS TO PAY DEBT)

Null wrote:Because taxes aren't high enough to pay for government programs

Seems to fall within the definition of deficit does it not? If Clinton couldn't raise enough taxes to pay for everything the government needed to pay for he there for had no surplus.

Accountants say otherwise, flip.

Has there actually ever been a surplus since the creation of the Federal Reserve System, or has it always been described in terms of debt and deficit? I need to look that up.

I'm just not sure how that boils down in real terms Null and this in a thread titled that I owe $534,000.00 Perpetual BS

Debt and deficit are indeed two different things…

And, if indeed Clinton did reduce the deficit, putting it in terms of a “surplus” is disingenuous at best.

You can’t have any “surplus” until you pay off the debt…It’s a play on words. And people buy it…hook, lie and sinker.

There was a budget surplus under Clinton's administration. Just as many others have said, a budget surplus does not mean paying back all of the debt. It just means that a goverment's expenditures are less than the amount of money the goverment is taking in.

Still positive growth.

“budget surplus”

This is the exact piece of disinformation I am talking about, you cannot have a “budget surplus” while you still have debt.

Unless of course your debt isn’t part of your budget…don’t believe me…try that in you home “budget”.

You can either have a deficit or not have a deficit, but you can't have a “surplus” while still in debt.

Spidey wrote:“budget surplus”

This is the exact piece of disinformation I am talking about, you cannot have a “budget surplus” while you still have debt.

Unless of course your debt isn’t part of your budget…don’t believe me…try that in you home “budget”.

You can either have a deficit or not have a deficit, but you can't have a “surplus” while still in debt.

Of course you can have a budget surplus while still being in debt. Budget surplus is a reference to only one period not a reference to the debt as a whole. So in any particular period if income exceeds allocated debts you have a surplus for that particular period.

It is my experience that any govt. agency that see's it is having money left over from their budget at the end of their fiscal year (surplus), spends the surplus. If they don't spend the surplus, they will see their budget reduced the following year by the amount of the surplus. To say there is a surplus because you paid some of your debt is ignorance at best. In short, the surplus was still spent in order for next years budget to not be reduced. Just like every other govt. agency would do.

Whitewater wrote:

Spidey wrote:“budget surplus”

This is the exact piece of disinformation I am talking about, you cannot have a “budget surplus” while you still have debt.

Unless of course your debt isn’t part of your budget…don’t believe me…try that in you home “budget”.

You can either have a deficit or not have a deficit, but you can't have a “surplus” while still in debt.

Of course you can have a budget surplus while still being in debt. Budget surplus is a reference to only one period not a reference to the debt as a whole. So in any particular period if income exceeds allocated debts you have a surplus for that particular period.

Only if you chose not to increase debt payments during that budget period.

That simply implies the debt is a static unchanging payment. (that’s not how my budgets work)

This of course implies your debt will never get paid down. And in theory your debt will continue to increase, while running “budget surpluses”…lol

…………..

Hell, I can have a “budget surplus” any time I want…all I have to do is stop paying any bills I choose…..

That simply implies the debt is a static unchanging payment. (that’s not how my budgets work)

This of course implies your debt will never get paid down. And in theory your debt will continue to increase, while running “budget surpluses”…lol

Lol, Exactly. This means you are destined to continually be in an evergrowing debt until it finally cannot sustain itself and eventually collapses. Intentional House built on Sand.

EDIT: Or likewise, you can pump it up so big that it finally bursts .

Some definitions, to get us all on the same page:

"deficit" - the amount taxes fall short of government expenditures in one year
"surplus" - the amount taxes surpass government expenditures in one year (note that you cannot have both a deficit and a surplus in the same year.)
"debt" - the amount the government has borrowed to cover deficits year after year (including interest; this is usually done in the form of Treasuries.)

"reducing the deficit" - means taxes still fall short, but not by as much as before (note that this is also incompatible with "surplus".)
"reducing the debt" - means there is a surplus which is being used to make payments against the amount borrowed.

Are those government specific definitions? Because they don’t jive with the dictionary…I guess that’s what my problem is here…I don’t speak governmentspeak.

Surplus…

excess money: an amount of money remaining after all liabilities have been met

Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

So…I give up if anybody still believes you can have a surplus, while the largest liability that ever existed still looms.

Liability…

debt: something for which somebody is responsible, especially a debt

Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

General definitions are not the same as technical/specialized definitions.

If you have a mortgage, but have a job that can cover all your bills and the minimum for the mortgage and still have some left over to save or spend - you have a surplus with a debt.

Yes, as long as the payments for the mortgage are included in the budget.

That's the great thing about one's own inventions, you can define them how you like. You, yourself said it's a play on words and not plain speech. I usually do that when I try to make something sound more appealing than it really is.

Spidey wrote:Yes, as long as the payments for the mortgage are included in the budget.

You can choose not to pay anything on that mortgage either. Foreclosure isn't instantaneous.

Individuals have more freedom on choosing what to spend their money on than corporations or governments.

Spidey wrote:Hell, I can have a “budget surplus” any time I want…all I have to do is stop paying any bills I choose…..

The federal government has a tremendous amount of flexibility…hell, they can take entire wars “off budget”.

fliptw wrote:

Spidey wrote:Yes, as long as the payments for the mortgage are included in the budget.

You can choose not to pay anything on that mortgage either. Foreclosure isn't instantaneous.

Individuals have more freedom on choosing what to spend their money on than corporations or governments.

If he refuses to pay the mortgage the bad result is iminent and rapid relative to the government printing money to push the inevitable snowball further down the hill with no remorse for the growth of the problem. And then they have the balls to demagogue and create class warfare to blame half the country for their criminal act (would be criminal in civilian accounting if you tried it resulting in their boot on your neck)...so, yea, other than those differences....