Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

unblock

(52,116 posts)
10. if the gov't (outside socsec) runs a surplus, but socsec runs a bigger one, then total debt goes up.
Fri Jan 13, 2012, 06:05 PM
Jan 2012

the social security surplus goes into u.s. treasuries, which is intra-government debt.

so in the years under clinton in which we ran a surplus, by which i mean the federal government (outside of social security) spent less than it took in, that extra money was available to reduce the federal debt.

meanwhile, social security ran a surplus, taking in more than it paid out. the extra was invested in treasuries, which increased the federal debt.

so what's going on here? how is it possible that both parts of the government take in more than they spend and yet total debt increases? essentially only because we're counting the intra-government debt (i.e., treasuries) that social security is holding. in effect, this makes it sound bad only by ignoring the money "saved" by social security.

in short, you're counting the intra-government debt as a liability but ignoring the same intra-government debt as an asset.
that is, if you want to say that clinton didn't run a surplus because total debt actually increased, you have to give clinton credit for a big build up to the social security trust fund.

I take objection NathanTheGreat Jan 2012 #1
Then Maybe Dwight D. was onto something since tax rates for top tier incomes were 91% whathehell Jan 2012 #2
Wow NathanTheGreat Jan 2012 #14
Don't worry...They had plenty of accountants and loopholes whathehell Jan 2012 #19
Ok NathanTheGreat Jan 2012 #31
In Republican terms "getting real" means "uber-rich pay no taxes at ALL" whathehell Jan 2012 #34
I agree NathanTheGreat Jan 2012 #46
9% of your income *over a certain amount*. HughBeaumont Jan 2012 #36
It's marginal income... WCGreen Jan 2012 #44
I'm sorry but... kentuck Jan 2012 #3
But all is rosy now....(for the top 1%) izquierdista Jan 2012 #5
You got it! kentuck Jan 2012 #7
That's only true if your ignore Kellerfeller Jan 2012 #13
Errr... NathanTheGreat Jan 2012 #18
It was "headed downward" because of stupid decisions made by Wall Street and whathehell Jan 2012 #35
your mortgage is not analogous to intra-government debt unblock Jan 2012 #4
if the gov't (outside socsec) runs a surplus, but socsec runs a bigger one, then total debt goes up. unblock Jan 2012 #10
There is no trust fund NathanTheGreat Jan 2012 #17
Nice RW talking point there hootinholler Jan 2012 #22
yeah... NathanTheGreat Jan 2012 #28
Whatever you call it, we the people PAID for it. In fact, the Baby Boomers paid DOUBLE whathehell Jan 2012 #37
I didn't... NathanTheGreat Jan 2012 #45
Sounds like whathehell Jan 2012 #50
It's not a talking point NathanTheGreat Jan 2012 #53
Maybe not, but you certainly sound like a republican whathehell Jan 2012 #54
Indeed. Sometimes I think some people want to bury the trust fund in a back yard somewhere rather pampango Jan 2012 #33
you can't have it both ways. unblock Jan 2012 #25
What? NathanTheGreat Jan 2012 #27
you are counting them as a liability but not as an asset. that is a complete fraud. unblock Jan 2012 #32
It's a liability NathanTheGreat Jan 2012 #42
ok, let's break it down: unblock Jan 2012 #47
there's a problem NathanTheGreat Jan 2012 #49
here's one source: unblock Jan 2012 #52
Fuck the national debt...Reagan raised the debt limit something like twenty plus times, in 8 years. whathehell Jan 2012 #38
Yeah, I'm sure you do. tabasco Jan 2012 #12
The Congressional Budget Office NathanTheGreat Jan 2012 #16
So which is it? hootinholler Jan 2012 #23
Sorry NathanTheGreat Jan 2012 #30
You must be kidding.. whathehell Jan 2012 #40
Huh? NathanTheGreat Jan 2012 #41
Huh? whathehell Jan 2012 #51
Objection overruled. Major Hogwash Jan 2012 #20
Riddle me this NathanTheGreat Jan 2012 #43
Why are you spreading lies? tabasco Jan 2012 #56
Yes, I remember in the 80's when those repuke presidents were cutting taxes hughee99 Jan 2012 #6
Is this an attempt to be facetious or sarcastic? kentuck Jan 2012 #8
Not an attempt, I think it was a success. hughee99 Jan 2012 #9
I can't disagree with that... kentuck Jan 2012 #11
"...finish the job" is proven in how the house under GOP simply picked up where they left off. They deacon Jan 2012 #15
The Republicans are backed by big money and big business and big media.. DCBob Jan 2012 #21
I disagree. They have only just started tryiny to break up the country. L. Coyote Jan 2012 #24
they still think govt is evil unless it has to do with governing women's reproductive rights spanone Jan 2012 #26
They don't think it's "evil" when it works for the One Percent...When it works for the rest of us whathehell Jan 2012 #39
There are some on DU that bash Obama and democrats as much as possible. bluestate10 Jan 2012 #29
i wonder the same thing upi402 Jan 2012 #57
Good history YoungDemCA Jan 2012 #48
they had no opposition upi402 Jan 2012 #55
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»How the Republicans tore ...»Reply #10