Thread: They chose to fail.

Originally Posted by goober

In your world, maybe.

Yes, I live in the one where 2+2=4.

Not sure which one you hand out in.

Originally Posted by goober

You know, I linked to a document, and it had a column and the heading was Surplus or Deficit, and it listed surpluses for 1998,1999,2000 and 2001.
It showed Receipts, Outlays, Debt Held by the Public.

Here it is again, someone is crazy, either the OMB or you, you know how I'm betting.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/11s0467.pdf

Table 468, your own link destroys you.

That's just priceless.

Originally Posted by smurf

Yes, goober, you always go with the appeal to authority fallacy, especially when you can't understand what the numbers actually mean.

I have clearly explained the relationships between excess Social Security taxes, the Social Security Trust Fund, proceeds from debt issuance, receipts, outlays, total debt outstanding, and deficits or surpluses.

Meanwhile, you just grunt and point to a chart, the nuances of which, you obviously can't comprehend.

I'll tell you what, why don't you try to explain to me how the total debt outstanding increased while the government supposedly ran a surplus. Remember, "a loan is not income".

It's incredibly obvious to everyone except himself, that his own link nukes his claim. That table 468 is a bitch isn't it.

Originally Posted by machinehead61

You didn't understand my first post. From there on it went down hill. Isn't it intellectually stimulating exchanging insults? You learn so much from it.

Steve

I understood it, apparently you didn't.

Copy and pasting things you don't understand typically ends badly.

Originally Posted by 9aces

It's incredibly obvious to everyone except himself, that his own link nukes his claim. That table 468 is a bitch isn't it.

Ok ... question, I looked at both tables and trying to see where you guys are at odds.

First table receipts outweigh outlays ... 2nd table debt still increases.

Is this because insufficient amounts of the "surplus" were paid against the debt? ie interest on debt, caused debt to increase because of insufficient monies applied to the principal?

home example
At home for 1 month I saved 300 dollars ... my credit card payment I made was so low, the principal was greater at the end of the month from interest.

It definitely does not make sense to have a increase in debt ... when receipts outweigh outlays.

Originally Posted by 9aces

I understood it, apparently you didn't.

Copy and pasting things you don't understand typically ends badly.

Ok, Mr. God's gift to economic understanding, point out what I don't understand about this quote:

“This analysis supplies us with an explanation of the paradox of poverty in the midst of plenty.......

Moreover the richer the community, the wider will tend to be the gap between its actual and its potential production; and therefore the more obvious and outrageous the defects of the economic system. For a poor community will be prone to consume by far the greater part of its output, so that a very modest measure of investment will be sufficient to provide full employment; whereas a wealthy community will have to discover much ampler opportunities for investment if the saving propensities of its wealthier members are to be compatible with the employment of its poorer members. If in a potentially wealthy community the inducement to invest is weak, then, in spite of its potential wealth, the working of the principle of effective demand will compel it to reduce its actual output, until, in spite of its potential wealth, it has become so poor that its consumption is sufficiently diminished to the weakness of the inducement to invest.”

John Maynard Keynes
The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, 1936
p. 30-31

Steve

Originally Posted by smurf

Yes, goober, you always go with the appeal to authority fallacy, especially when you can't understand what the numbers actually mean.

I have clearly explained the relationships between excess Social Security taxes, the Social Security Trust Fund, proceeds from debt issuance, receipts, outlays, total debt outstanding, and deficits or surpluses.

Meanwhile, you just grunt and point to a chart, the nuances of which, you obviously can't comprehend.

I'll tell you what, why don't you try to explain to me how the total debt outstanding increased while the government supposedly ran a surplus. Remember, "a loan is not income".

Yes, it is so clear to you, that Myself, along with the Treasury, the OMB, FOX News, ABC, NBC and the encyclopedia Britannica, have missed what you and you nutty buddies have seen. You know, sometimes the authorities on a subject do know more about that subject than people who are clueless about that subject, this is one of those cases.

If you draw a line around the US Government, the money that crosses that line both ways is roughly equal. There are four cash flows that cross that line.
Receipts, Outlays, Borrowing and Redemptions.
The difference between Receipts and Outlays is the Surplus/deficit.
The difference between Borrowing and Redemptions is the net change in debt held by the public.
Those flows should be roughly equal.
in 2000 receipts were 2025.2 billion
outlays were 1789.0 billion
for a surplus of 236.2 billion

Debt held by the Public went down from 3632.4 billion in 1999 to 3409.9 billion in 2000.

The Social Security Trust fund is money that doesn't cross that line.
It's an internal exchange between federal entities. It is not a part of the surplus deficit calculation.

Really, ask an accountant.

Originally Posted by michael h

Ok ... question, I looked at both tables and trying to see where you guys are at odds.

First table receipts outweigh outlays ... 2nd table debt still increases.

Is this because insufficient amounts of the "surplus" were paid against the debt? ie interest on debt, caused debt to increase because of insufficient monies applied to the principal?

home example
At home for 1 month I saved 300 dollars ... my credit card payment I made was so low, the principal was greater at the end of the month from interest.

It definitely does not make sense to have a increase in debt ... when receipts outweigh outlays.

Interest on debt is what? An expense.

If you haven't paid all your expenses, are your outlays complete?

As we've been telling Goober, his math doesn't work.

Originally Posted by machinehead61

Ok, Mr. God's gift to economic understanding, point out what I don't understand about this quote:

“This analysis supplies us with an explanation of the paradox of poverty in the midst of plenty.......

Moreover the richer the community, the wider will tend to be the gap between its actual and its potential production; and therefore the more obvious and outrageous the defects of the economic system. For a poor community will be prone to consume by far the greater part of its output, so that a very modest measure of investment will be sufficient to provide full employment; whereas a wealthy community will have to discover much ampler opportunities for investment if the saving propensities of its wealthier members are to be compatible with the employment of its poorer members. If in a potentially wealthy community the inducement to invest is weak, then, in spite of its potential wealth, the working of the principle of effective demand will compel it to reduce its actual output, until, in spite of its potential wealth, it has become so poor that its consumption is sufficiently diminished to the weakness of the inducement to invest.”

John Maynard Keynes
The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, 1936
p. 30-31

Steve

He does have a good point there though if you were paying attention, even if his overall theory is garbage.

I bolded it for you to make it easier.

When you look at it and go "duh, what's that mean", then you'll begin to understand how regulation and taxation (by that government control you so love) is doing exactly that.

Originally Posted by goober

Yes, it is so clear to you, that Myself, along with the Treasury, the OMB, FOX News, ABC, NBC and the encyclopedia Britannica, have missed what you and you nutty buddies have seen. You know, sometimes the authorities on a subject do know more about that subject than people who are clueless about that subject, this is one of those cases.

Are you the self proclaimed king of the appeal to authority fallacy?

I don't care what your betters told you to believe. I am only interested in the facts.

Originally Posted by goober

If you draw a line around the US Government, the money that crosses that line both ways is roughly equal. There are four cash flows that cross that line.
Receipts, Outlays, Borrowing and Redemptions.
The difference between Receipts and Outlays is the Surplus/deficit.
The difference between Borrowing and Redemptions is the net change in debt held by the public.
Those flows should be roughly equal.
in 2000 receipts were 2025.2 billion
outlays were 1789.0 billion
for a surplus of 236.2 billion

Debt held by the Public went down from 3632.4 billion in 1999 to 3409.9 billion in 2000.

The Social Security Trust fund is money that doesn't cross that line.
It's an internal exchange between federal entities. It is not a part of the surplus deficit calculation.

Really, ask an accountant.

If the excess Social Security taxes went into the Social Security Trust Fund and were invested into Treasury bonds, then those funds were proceeds from debt issuance, or "borrowing", as you put it. That means that if the Social Security Trust Fund has Treasury bonds as assets, then there was not a surplus. Remember, "a loan is not income".

If the excess Social Security taxes are simply receipts like all other taxes, then they cannot be used by the Social Security Trust Fund to invest in Treasury bonds. That means that there was a surplus, but Social Security has no assets and is insolvent.

Say it, goober.

Say that for there to have been a surplus, then there are no assets in the Social Security Trust Fund.

Say that Social Security is insolvent.

Say that your hero's crowning achievement is a colossal failure that is only going to become more of a debacle as the Baby Boomers retire en masse.

Or say that there was never a surplus, I don't care which.

Just quit reiterating like a trained parrot, "surplus, surplus, squawk, authorities say, surplus, squawk".

All that proves is that you are incapable of understanding that which happened, but you are more than willing to proudly proclaim your ignorance, all the while bleating, "because my masters said so".

Originally Posted by smurf

Are you the self proclaimed king of the appeal to authority fallacy?

I don't care what your betters told you to believe. I am only interested in the facts.



If the excess Social Security taxes went into the Social Security Trust Fund and were invested into Treasury bonds, then those funds were proceeds from debt issuance, or "borrowing", as you put it. That means that if the Social Security Trust Fund has Treasury bonds as assets, then there was not a surplus. Remember, "a loan is not income".

If the excess Social Security taxes are simply receipts like all other taxes, then they cannot be used by the Social Security Trust Fund to invest in Treasury bonds. That means that there was a surplus, but Social Security has no assets and is insolvent.

Say it, goober.

Say that for there to have been a surplus, then there are no assets in the Social Security Trust Fund.

Say that Social Security is insolvent.

Say that your hero's crowning achievement is a colossal failure that is only going to become more of a debacle as the Baby Boomers retire en masse.

Or say that there was never a surplus, I don't care which.

Just quit reiterating like a trained parrot, "surplus, surplus, squawk, authorities say, surplus, squawk".

All that proves is that you are incapable of understanding that which happened, but you are more than willing to proudly proclaim your ignorance, all the while bleating, "because my masters said so".

Well either what you just posted is true
OR
You don't understand what really happened


Do we agree on that?

Originally Posted by goober

Well either what you just posted is true
OR
You don't understand what really happened


Do we agree on that?

I understand perfectly what happened, and that which I posted is true.

I have given you ample opportunity to explain what it is that you believe happened, but all that you have done is parrot that which you have been told, even after I have shown the inherent contradiction.

I would like to hear how you believe that the excess Social Security (and Medicare) taxes went to the Social Security (and Medicare) Trust Fund, and were invested into Treasury bonds (upon which they became a loan to the U.S. Government), all the while remaining receipts of the general fund, so as to be able to claim a surplus. Please enlighten us as to how those funds can be both receipts and loan proceeds.

Otherwise, admit that either the surplus was phony, or that Social Security is insolvent.

Originally Posted by smurf

I understand perfectly what happened, and that which I posted is true.

I have given you ample opportunity to explain what it is that you believe happened, but all that you have done is parrot that which you have been told, even after I have shown the inherent contradiction.

I would like to hear how you believe that the excess Social Security (and Medicare) taxes went to the Social Security (and Medicare) Trust Fund, and were invested into Treasury bonds (upon which they became a loan to the U.S. Government), all the while remaining receipts of the general fund, so as to be able to claim a surplus. Please enlighten us as to how those funds can be both receipts and loan proceeds.

Otherwise, admit that either the surplus was phony, or that Social Security is insolvent.

I'm going with "You don't understand what happened and you are making no effort to understand what happened"
Because it fits the facts.

You keep whining "Appeal to Authority Fallacy"
But when you claim to see something that no one else sees (at least no one who is regarded as an authority on the subject)
You have a burden a proof.

And when you are using terms in a domain, you have to adhere to what those terms mean in that domain.

A surplus or deficit is the difference between receipts and outlays.
Your claim, if I can parse it out of your twisted ramblings, is that receipts were actually lower than claimed, and Clinton borrowed money from Social security and counted it as receipts.
So your claim hinges on the willingness of the OMB, the Treasury, the CBO etc. to lie and falsify numbers to make Clinton look good.
Because if the numbers they release are true, then there was a surplus in 2000, (and 1998,1999 and 2001).


And for proof, you take a number (that has a very specific meaning) and you interpret it as meaning something else.

And this has been explained to you a hundred times at least, and you persist for some reason, to believe that everyone is stupid, except you and a couple of your buddies.
And the link that unites all these people who believe what you believe, is that none of them ever took a course in accounting or economics.

That is the "Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy"