Lucky... 0 #51 August 14, 2010 QuoteQuoteLoans from one portion of government to another portion of government still have to be repaid. Did I write that they didn't? All I'm asking for is CONSISTENCY. Account for SS the same way in 1999 as in 2010. In 1999 SS produced an excess of income over expenditures but the right objected to counting it because it made Clinton look good. Now that SS has a shortfall the right wants to count it so that it makes Obama look bad. Kind of like Mike wanting to adjust Reagan's tripling of teh debt to a mere doubling by inflation normalizing 1989 dollars to 1981 dollars. Altho it can be true that that methodolgy determines a mere doubling, if we used the same process on Clinton's term, his debt increase wouldn't be 1.6T but 1.3T. It would be a greater difference but inflation was solow during this boom time. Reagan's mess yielded much higher inflation, so the disparity is much greater, rendering a much higher ratio of dollar vlaue from 1989 to 1981. Then there's trying to transpose nominal GDP for Real GDP in an effort to minimize GWB's mess. Mike wants to use one method for some timeframes and diff methods for others; big surprise. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #52 August 14, 2010 QuoteQuoteLoans from one portion of government to another portion of government still have to be repaid. Did I write that they didn't? All I'm asking for is CONSISTENCY. Account for SS the same way in 1999 as in 2010. In 1999 SS produced an excess of income over expenditures but the right objected to counting it because it made Clinton look good. Now that SS has a shortfall the right wants to count it so that it makes Obama look bad. Wrong. The right said that it was the SS surplus being borrowed from that created the Clinton 'surplus', which is (and was) correct.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #53 August 14, 2010 QuoteKind of like Mike wanting to adjust Reagan's tripling of teh debt to a mere doubling by inflation normalizing 1989 dollars to 1981 dollars. That's probably better than your bald-faced LIE that the debt numbers were all '1980 dollars'. Regardless, here's a quote for you, Lucky - you might recognize it: "As Kallend said, 1980's 1981 dollars vs 2010 1989 dollars." I changed the dates to show the timeframe you're speaking of now, but maybe you can tell us just WHO said that, Lucky? Quoteif we used the same process on Clinton's term, his debt increase wouldn't be 1.6T but 1.3T. Normalized to 2010 dollars, that's correct. QuoteIt would be a greater difference but inflation was solow during this boom time. Reagan's mess yielded much higher inflation, so the disparity is much greater, rendering a much higher ratio of dollar vlaue from 1989 to 1981. 1981 dollar in 1989: $1.36 1993 dollar in 2001: $1.23 My GOD - what a HUGE discrepency!!! QuoteThen there's trying to transpose nominal GDP for Real GDP in an effort to minimize GWB's mess. Ah, the OTHER Lucky lie - since you added the 'real' to your post while I was answering it. QuoteMike wants to use one method for some timeframes and diff methods for others; big surprise. And you want to lie about GDP types and normalizing of the debt numbers - no surprise at all.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #54 August 14, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteLoans from one portion of government to another portion of government still have to be repaid. Did I write that they didn't? All I'm asking for is CONSISTENCY. Account for SS the same way in 1999 as in 2010. In 1999 SS produced an excess of income over expenditures but the right objected to counting it because it made Clinton look good. Now that SS has a shortfall the right wants to count it so that it makes Obama look bad. Wrong. The right said that it was the SS surplus being borrowed from that created the Clinton 'surplus', which is (and was) correct. CONSISTENCY is all I ask of you. Please try harder.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 221 #55 August 14, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteLoans from one portion of government to another portion of government still have to be repaid. Did I write that they didn't? All I'm asking for is CONSISTENCY. Account for SS the same way in 1999 as in 2010. In 1999 SS produced an excess of income over expenditures but the right objected to counting it because it made Clinton look good. Now that SS has a shortfall the right wants to count it so that it makes Obama look bad. Wrong. The right said that it was the SS surplus being borrowed from that created the Clinton 'surplus', which is (and was) correct. CONSISTENCY is all I ask of you. Please try harder. The debts and borrowing should all be accounted for.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #56 August 14, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteLoans from one portion of government to another portion of government still have to be repaid. Did I write that they didn't? All I'm asking for is CONSISTENCY. Account for SS the same way in 1999 as in 2010. In 1999 SS produced an excess of income over expenditures but the right objected to counting it because it made Clinton look good. Now that SS has a shortfall the right wants to count it so that it makes Obama look bad. Wrong. The right said that it was the SS surplus being borrowed from that created the Clinton 'surplus', which is (and was) correct. CONSISTENCY is all I ask of you. Please try harder. The debts and borrowing should all be accounted for. And the surpluses too, in that case.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 221 #57 August 15, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteLoans from one portion of government to another portion of government still have to be repaid. Did I write that they didn't? All I'm asking for is CONSISTENCY. Account for SS the same way in 1999 as in 2010. In 1999 SS produced an excess of income over expenditures but the right objected to counting it because it made Clinton look good. Now that SS has a shortfall the right wants to count it so that it makes Obama look bad. Wrong. The right said that it was the SS surplus being borrowed from that created the Clinton 'surplus', which is (and was) correct. CONSISTENCY is all I ask of you. Please try harder. The debts and borrowing should all be accounted for. And the surpluses too, in that case. If you borrow, it is a debt, and needs to be listed. You cannot include the lenders capital as your own asset. Do you claim your bank's complete financials on your yearly taxes, or just your mortgage?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #58 August 15, 2010 I think you and I are not discussing the same thing.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 221 #59 August 15, 2010 QuoteI think you and I are not discussing the same thing. Possibly. It sounds like you are wanting to include SS funds in an economic overview, when SS should not be considered. At the same time you are wanting to disallow the mention of the money borrowed from those funds as well.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #60 August 16, 2010 QuoteQuoteI think you and I are not discussing the same thing. Possibly. It sounds like you are wanting to include SS funds in an economic overview, when SS should not be considered. At the same time you are wanting to disallow the mention of the money borrowed from those funds as well. Nope. I just want in either included or excluded CONSISTENTLY from one administration to another.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 221 #61 August 16, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteI think you and I are not discussing the same thing. Possibly. It sounds like you are wanting to include SS funds in an economic overview, when SS should not be considered. At the same time you are wanting to disallow the mention of the money borrowed from those funds as well. Nope. I just want in either included or excluded CONSISTENTLY from one administration to another. I'll go with that. Include the debt that is incurred from the borrowing the funds, but the surplus is it's own animal and cannot be counted.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #62 August 16, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI think you and I are not discussing the same thing. Possibly. It sounds like you are wanting to include SS funds in an economic overview, when SS should not be considered. At the same time you are wanting to disallow the mention of the money borrowed from those funds as well. Nope. I just want in either included or excluded CONSISTENTLY from one administration to another. I'll go with that. Include the debt that is incurred from the borrowing the funds, but the surplus is it's own animal and cannot be counted. HUH? Surplus is negative debt / debt is negative surplus - you just want Clinton's legacy minimized. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 221 #63 August 16, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI think you and I are not discussing the same thing. Possibly. It sounds like you are wanting to include SS funds in an economic overview, when SS should not be considered. At the same time you are wanting to disallow the mention of the money borrowed from those funds as well. Nope. I just want in either included or excluded CONSISTENTLY from one administration to another. I'll go with that. Include the debt that is incurred from the borrowing the funds, but the surplus is it's own animal and cannot be counted. HUH? Surplus is negative debt / debt is negative surplus - you just want Clinton's legacy minimized. Your bank has money to lend you, do you claim it as income? Do you include it into your personal budget? Edit to add: By your way of thinking: Yearly income=100,000/yr Personal loans and mortgage = 500,000 Bank has 1,000,000 to loan out ACTUAL NET WORTH = 600,000 BUT . . . in reality, the numbers from the bank cannot be included.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #64 August 16, 2010 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote I think you and I are not discussing the same thing. Possibly. It sounds like you are wanting to include SS funds in an economic overview, when SS should not be considered. At the same time you are wanting to disallow the mention of the money borrowed from those funds as well. Nope. I just want in either included or excluded CONSISTENTLY from one administration to another. I'll go with that. Include the debt that is incurred from the borrowing the funds, but the surplus is it's own animal and cannot be counted. HUH? Surplus is negative debt / debt is negative surplus - you just want Clinton's legacy minimized. Your bank has money to lend you, do you claim it as income? Do you include it into your personal budget? Edit to add: By your way of thinking: Yearly income=100,000/yr Personal loans and mortgage = 500,000 Bank has 1,000,000 to loan out ACTUAL NET WORTH = 600,000 BUT . . . in reality, the numbers from the bank cannot be included. The gov will continue to operate in teh red as usual or in the black, so the net result is usually - but occassionally + as with Clinton and Eisenhower and actually in 1969 under a brief tax increase. There may have been other surpluses, but they only translated to debt reduction in the times I posted. Anyway, a suplus or a deficit is just a measure of that year's economic receipts vs outlays, so they are all relevant as a result of that year. So under Clinton with his last 3 years you would just have the surplus read a zero? Yea, that's reasonable . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #65 August 16, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI think you and I are not discussing the same thing. Possibly. It sounds like you are wanting to include SS funds in an economic overview, when SS should not be considered. At the same time you are wanting to disallow the mention of the money borrowed from those funds as well. Nope. I just want in either included or excluded CONSISTENTLY from one administration to another. I'll go with that. Include the debt that is incurred from the borrowing the funds, but the surplus is it's own animal and cannot be counted. So you DO want to have it both ways to suit your agenda. Typical hypocrisy.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 221 #66 August 16, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI think you and I are not discussing the same thing. Possibly. It sounds like you are wanting to include SS funds in an economic overview, when SS should not be considered. At the same time you are wanting to disallow the mention of the money borrowed from those funds as well. Nope. I just want in either included or excluded CONSISTENTLY from one administration to another. I'll go with that. Include the debt that is incurred from the borrowing the funds, but the surplus is it's own animal and cannot be counted. So you DO want to have it both ways to suit your agenda. Typical hypocrisy. Social security is it's own entity, just because you are borrowing FROM it does not mean that if it increases it's own funds, that the increase is counted as an off set to the loan. Again, if SS was a bank, would you count the banks holdings as your income just because you have a mortgage with them?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #67 August 16, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI think you and I are not discussing the same thing. Possibly. It sounds like you are wanting to include SS funds in an economic overview, when SS should not be considered. At the same time you are wanting to disallow the mention of the money borrowed from those funds as well. Nope. I just want in either included or excluded CONSISTENTLY from one administration to another. I'll go with that. Include the debt that is incurred from the borrowing the funds, but the surplus is it's own animal and cannot be counted. So you DO want to have it both ways to suit your agenda. Typical hypocrisy. Social security is it's own entity, just because you are borrowing FROM it does not mean that if it increases it's own funds, that the increase is counted as an off set to the loan. Again, if SS was a bank, would you count the banks holdings as your income just because you have a mortgage with them? What part of CONSISTENT is it that you don't understand?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 221 #68 August 16, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI think you and I are not discussing the same thing. Possibly. It sounds like you are wanting to include SS funds in an economic overview, when SS should not be considered. At the same time you are wanting to disallow the mention of the money borrowed from those funds as well. Nope. I just want in either included or excluded CONSISTENTLY from one administration to another. I'll go with that. Include the debt that is incurred from the borrowing the funds, but the surplus is it's own animal and cannot be counted. So you DO want to have it both ways to suit your agenda. Typical hypocrisy. Social security is it's own entity, just because you are borrowing FROM it does not mean that if it increases it's own funds, that the increase is counted as an off set to the loan. Again, if SS was a bank, would you count the banks holdings as your income just because you have a mortgage with them? What part of CONSISTENT is it that you don't understand? So, what you are saying is that you do include the banks funds in your income statement.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
