Tax cut dont increase revenue

Superfreak said:
That is one way to look at it. But in reality, you could take any one of the expenses and say that it was "expense x" that pushed them over the amount of budgeted surplusses.

Bottom line is that the total actual expenses exceeded the actual revenues.... hence, the debt increased.

Side note: the surplusses still reduced the DEFICIT. Had revenues not come in at the levels they did, then the DEBT would have been increased by a larger deficit. ie... in 2000 the debt would have increased by MORE than 18 billion.

I think it is the difference between debt and deficit that people are getting confused on.

The debt is the cummulative amount of money our government owes. It is changed each year by a deficit (increase in debt) or a surplus (a decrease in debt). The deficit/surplus is determined by the ACTUAL results... not the budgeted expectations.
Click to expand...


You are correct that public debt increased during the 1998-2000 time frame. However, there also were budget surpluses during that time frame and "debt held by the public" decreased. The ACTUAL results from those three fiscal years are budget surpluses, a decrease in "debt held by the public" and an increase in "public debt."
 
Desh said:
Maybe no one is really confused and you just think they are?

It gives you a chance to use words like Cunt and the like.
Click to expand...

I have never used the C word desh. I simply called you a moron/retard with regards to economics. Which is quite accurate.
 
Dungheap said:
My understanding is that the only problem with the surpluses from a deficit reduction perspective is that the interest on the deficit increased more than the amount of the budget surpluses. That is, there was a budget surplus of X but the interest on the debt increased at X + Y. Hence, you have a budget surplus for a few fiscal years (98-00) but a net gain in debt.

No?
Click to expand...
They borrowed money to pay the interest. It is because they underbudgeted to trumpet a "success", then overspent. Debt does not increase when you pay the interest, it is only when you borrow more money that your debt increases while you pay the interest payments.
 
Dungheap said:
You are correct that public debt increased during the 1998-2000 time frame. However, there also were budget surpluses during that time frame and "debt held by the public" decreased. The ACTUAL results from those three fiscal years are budget surpluses, a decrease in "debt held by the public" and an increase in "public debt."
Click to expand...

True to all of the above. But again, a budget surplus doesn't mean squat if you do not stick to the budget. All that matters in the end is what happens to the nations debt. Did it go up or down? If it went up, the politicians sucked at their job. They have a nice little record of sucking at their jobs for the past 46 years.
 
Superfreak said:
True to all of the above. But again, a budget surplus doesn't mean squat if you do not stick to the budget. All that matters in the end is what happens to the nations debt. Did it go up or down? If it went up, the politicians sucked at their job. They have a nice little record of sucking at their jobs for the past 46 years.
Click to expand...


I agree that it is a bit of a shell game. They hide the intragovernmental holdings to make the picture a bit rosier. However, because those intragovernmental holdings are generally ignored they can report budget surpluses because those IG holdings are not budgeted items. So, they can budget X amount, stick to that budget and bring in revenues of X + Y, use Y to pay down the "debt held by the public" and still result in a net increase in "public debt" (debt held by the public plus the IG holdings) because the IG holdings were not included in the budget in the first place.
 
Dungheap said:
I agree that it is a bit of a shell game. They hide the intragovernmental holdings to make the picture a bit rosier. However, because those intragovernmental holdings are generally ignored they can report budget surpluses because those IG holdings are not budgeted items. So, they can budget X amount, stick to that budget and bring in revenues of X + Y, use Y to pay down the "debt held by the public" and still result in a net increase in "public debt" (debt held by the public plus the IG holdings) because the IG holdings were not included in the budget in the first place.
Click to expand...

True. It is because of this BS shell game that the only viable option is to then look to the total debt numbers each fiscal year end and determine whether or not the total debt increased or decreased. It is the only way we have of accurately determining the success or failure of our government fiscally.
 
Superfreak said:
True. It is because of this BS shell game that the only viable option is to then look to the total debt numbers each fiscal year end and determine whether or not the total debt increased or decreased. It is the only way we have of accurately determining the success or failure of our government fiscally.
Click to expand...

Right but the govt does not really want to present the figures compiled in that way for some strange reason.
 
evince said:
Bite my ass you little dweeb and face the facts your hero says his little napkin trick is full of shit and gives Clinton the credit for the surpluses of the 90s all in one fell swoop.

Neener ,neener ,neener you little wiener
Click to expand...

Of course he does, even though we know the Rep. House proposed the budgets for Clinton...
All presidents get the credit or the blame for what happens during their terms....well, except for Obama......Bush gets the blame for any bad stuff and Obama gets the
credit for any good stuff...it you can find any.
 
Superfreak said:
DESH... try to pay attention. YES, his policies helped to ensure that it was not worse than it was. HOWEVER, HE DID NOT PAY DOWN ANY DEBT. WHY do you refuse to look at the treasury site? Are you simply being obtuse? Or are you really that incapable of seeing what the ACTUAL results generated?

A BUDGET surplus is just an estimation of expectations. The ACTUAL numbers show you how close you came to your estimations. In 2000 they came within $18billion of their budget. But they still overspent. Not by much, but they did overspend.
Click to expand...

pwned
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top