my platform as presidential candidate - what's yours?
POSTED BY: rue
UPDATED: Monday, June 3, 2024 14:50
VIEWED: 27072
PAGE 13 of 27
Quote:
Originally posted by 1KIKI:
https://www.thoughtco.com/definition-of-national-debt-1146136
The national deficit is officially calculated at the end of the fiscal year. When outlays outnumber revenues in value, the government must borrow money to make up the difference. One of the ways the government borrows money to fund the deficit is by issuing Treasury securities and savings bonds.
The national debt, on the other hand, refers to the value of those Treasury securities issued. In a sense, one way to consider these two distinct, but related terms is to view the national debt as accumulated national deficits. The national debt exists as a result of those national deficits.
https://money.howstuffworks.com/difference-between-u-s-deficit-nationa
l-debt-.htm
In simple terms, a budget deficit is the difference between what the federal government spends (called outlays) and what it takes in (called revenue or receipts). The national debt, also known as the public debt, is the result of the federal government borrowing money to cover years and years of budget deficits.
This is a repeat post, which I have already replied to. Does this mean you disagree with the facts I laid out, or did you pass over them? The Interest on the Federal Debt is a Line Item on the Federal Budget. It is an Outlay, calculated every month (or perhaps just estimated calculation). It is NOT excluded from the Federal Budget. The Revenues must surpass not only the New Expenditures/outlays, but also the Interest on The Debt, before a Surplus can be declared.
Quote:No, this is wrong, incorrect, false.
It's possible to have a yearly surplus (no deficit), and still not be able to pay down the accumulating debt (national debt).
The Interest on The Debt is a portion of Budget which is Non-Discretionary. It is part of Mandatory Spending.
Today CBO released a new report, which partially covers this, the same way they have covered the same topic in other reports. It is not a new concept or practice.
www.cbo.gov/publication/55331
Do you have some source of reference which clearly and unambiguously defines the Federal Budget, the Deficit, as NOT including the Interest?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The United States federal budget is divided into three categories: mandatory spending, discretionary spending, and interest on debt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_spending
Starting with debt at 50% GDP in n 1989
https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to-gdp-and-m
ajor-events-3306287
year debt($b) %GDP events
1989 $ 2,857 50 % Bush 41 budgets. S&L Crisis.
1990 $ 3,233 54 % Desert Storm.
1991 $ 3,665 59 % Recession.
1992 $ 4,065 62 %
1993 $ 4,411 64 % Clinton signed Budget Act
1994 $ 4,693 64 % Clinton budgets.
1995 $ 4,974 65 %
1996 $ 5,225 64 % Welfare reform.
1997 $ 5,413 62 %
1998 $ 5,526 61 % LTCM crisis. Recession.
1999 $ 5,656 58 % Glass-Steagall repealed.
2000 $ 5,674 55 % Budget surplus.
2001 $ 5,807 55 % 9/11 attacks. EGTRRA.
2002 $ 6,228 57 % War on Terror
2003 $ 6,783 59 % JGTRRA. Iraq War.
2004 $ 7,379 60 % Iraq War.
2005 $ 7,933 60 % Bankruptcy Act. Katrina.
2006 $ 8,507 61 % Bernanke chaired Fed.
2007 $ 9,008 62 % Bank crisis.
2008 $10,025 68 % Bank bailout. QE.
2009 $11,910 83 % Bank bailout cost $250b. ARRA added $241.9b.
2010 $13,562 90 % ARRA added $400b. Payroll tax holiday ended. Obama Tax cuts. ACA. Simpson-Bowles
2011 $14,790 95 % Debt crisis. Recession and tax cuts reduced revenue.
2012 $16,066 99 % Fiscal cliff
2013 $16,738 99 % Sequester, Government shutdown.
2014 $17,824 101% War cost $309 billion. QE ended. Debt ceiling crisis.
2015 $18,151 99 % Defense = $736.4 b.
2016 $19,573 104% Defense = $767.6 b.
2017 $20,245 103% Congress raised debt ceiling.
2018 $21,516 105% Trump tax cuts.
2019 $22,776 106% Defense = $956.5 b.
2020 $24,057 (est.) 106% Defense = record $989 b.
2021 $25,333 (est.) 106%
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:The balance looks like a Libtard FAke News site. FY1989 was not a Bush 41 Budget. It was a Reagan Budget Year. Bush 41 was President during the 2nd half of FY1989, and his first Budget for submission and approval was FY 1990, which took effect October 1989.
Originally posted by 1kiki:
The United States federal budget is divided into three categories: mandatory spending, discretionary spending, and interest on debt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_spending
Starting with debt at 50% GDP in n 1989
https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-by-year-compared-to-gdp-and-m
ajor-events-3306287
year debt($b) %GDP events
1989 $ 2,857 50 % Bush 41 budgets. S&L Crisis.
1990 $ 3,233 54 % Desert Storm.
1991 $ 3,665 59 % Recession.
1992 $ 4,065 62 %
1993 $ 4,411 64 % Clinton signed Budget Act
1994 $ 4,693 64 % Clinton budgets.
1995 $ 4,974 65 %
1996 $ 5,225 64 % Welfare reform.
1997 $ 5,413 62 %
1998 $ 5,526 61 % LTCM crisis. Recession.
1999 $ 5,656 58 % Glass-Steagall repealed.
2000 $ 5,674 55 % Budget surplus.
2001 $ 5,807 55 % 9/11 attacks. EGTRRA.
2002 $ 6,228 57 % War on Terror
2003 $ 6,783 59 % JGTRRA. Iraq War.
2004 $ 7,379 60 % Iraq War.
2005 $ 7,933 60 % Bankruptcy Act. Katrina.
2006 $ 8,507 61 % Bernanke chaired Fed.
2007 $ 9,008 62 % Bank crisis.
2008 $10,025 68 % Bank bailout. QE.
2009 $11,910 83 % Bank bailout cost $250b. ARRA added $241.9b.
2010 $13,562 90 % ARRA added $400b. Payroll tax holiday ended. Obama Tax cuts. ACA. Simpson-Bowles
2011 $14,790 95 % Debt crisis. Recession and tax cuts reduced revenue.
2012 $16,066 99 % Fiscal cliff
2013 $16,738 99 % Sequester, Government shutdown.
2014 $17,824 101% War cost $309 billion. QE ended. Debt ceiling crisis.
2015 $18,151 99 % Defense = $736.4 b.
2016 $19,573 104% Defense = $767.6 b.
2017 $20,245 103% Congress raised debt ceiling.
2018 $21,516 105% Trump tax cuts.
2019 $22,776 106% Defense = $956.5 b.
2020 $24,057 (est.) 106% Defense = record $989 b.
2021 $25,333 (est.) 106%
Of those Fake numbers you posted, I'm not sure if you are just flailing, or just believing anything thrown you way.
For example, in FY 2000, the Interest on The Federal Debt was $361.997 Billion. Libtards claim that Slick Willie had a SURPLUS Budget of $236 Billion. Treasury shows that the Debt INCREASED by $18 Billion.
According to your Libtard Maths, the pretend Surplus of $236 would have reduced the Debt by that amount, but then the Interest of nearly $362 erased that decrease, leaving $18 in Debt increase.
Because, of course, Libtard Maths show that 235 + 18 = 362.
If that is your honest argument, I cannot fathom trying to enlighten you any further.
I have yety to find any source or reference that does not clearly state Interest is Part of The Budget, it is included in Outlays, it is already included in the calculation of Deficit, it is not separate from the Budget or the Deficit.
If it helps you, here is the current Monthly Treasury Statement. Look at the Figure 1 on Page 4. They clearly show that the "Net Interest" on the Federal Debt is part of the Outlays, part of the calculation of Deficit/Surplus.
https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/files/reports-statements/mts/mts0519.p
df
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
JO, SIX ... The reason why there won't be droids for everyone is because the economics doesn't work.
You both are prime examples of why that is so: Low skilled repetitive labor is the first to be automated. So, what does that do to low-skilled labor? (Truck unloaders, Amazon shippers, McDonald's hamburger flippers)? They'll be automated out of jobs.
Tell me - COULD you afford a droid on no job?
Of course not.
Extend that thinking to everyone who could be automated out of a job (which is basically everyone) and then tell me: How can everyone who is automated out of a job afford their own droid? I think you have a "George Jetson" view of modern/future life. In reality, I think it's going to be much tougher for everyone, assuming that most of us even survive.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Not every droid has to cook and clean for you.
Technology always gets cheaper.
VR headsets are a few hundred bucks today and are a thousand times better than the multi-million dollar machines in the mid 90's.
You can't base any of this off of what we have today.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SIX, it would have to be EXTREMELY cheap ... free... to expect that homeless people who're scrounging for a living would get one.
If "everyone" is replaced by automation do you think anyone would be able to continue their lifestyle?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Ho, boy.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
JO, SIX ... The reason why there won't be droids for everyone is because the economics doesn't work.
You both are prime examples of why that is so: Low skilled repetitive labor is the first to be automated. So, what does that do to low-skilled labor? (Truck unloaders, Amazon shippers, McDonald's hamburger flippers)? They'll be automated out of jobs.
Tell me - COULD you afford a droid on no job?
Of course not.
Extend that thinking to everyone who could be automated out of a job (which is basically everyone) and then tell me: How can everyone who is automated out of a job afford their own droid? I think you have a "George Jetson" view of modern/future life. In reality, I think it's going to be much tougher for everyone, assuming that most of us even survive.
Around 1890, the Director of the Patent Office wrote the President a letter, explaining that the Patenet Office was a waste of time, it had o use, everything that could be invented by Man was already invented. This before automobiles, electric lamps, flying machines, computers, etc.
At one point, it was hoped
In the early 1970's, one Billy Gates proclaimed that somebody would need to be a moron to ever need more than 1 MB to complete any programming of a computer.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
SIX, it would have to be EXTREMELY cheap ... free... to expect that homeless people who're scrounging for a living would get one.
If "everyone" is replaced by automation do you think anyone would be able to continue their lifestyle?
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .
The computers that people walk around with in their pockets and purses that cost them a few hundred bucks is literally thousands of times more powerful than the desktop computer with a 50 lb monitor I had in high school that cost $2,000 in 90's money.
In the late 90s, I was the first of my friends to have a cell phone. It was $60 bucks a month for 250 minutes (no nights, no weekends, no text, no data). Fast forward to 2019 and millions of people have "free" Obama phones. Both the phones themselves and the monthly line and internet charges.
I'd argue that nobody needs a cell phone, simply based off the fact that we made it so long without them. I'd also get a lot of arguments about that too.
Just sayin'.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just to voice an opinion here: replace 'automation' with 'Chinese labor'.
In the most extreme result, you get more people here who are unemployed. If they're to survive, SOMEbody has to pay for their shelter, food and water, clothing ... and yes, 'free' phones (which aren't actually free, just not paid for by the people who have them).
So here's an example of a spike in unemployment starting in 2007, not caused in this case by labor export or automation, but by the financial meltdown.
And what happens when people aren't working? They stop being able to pay for things like - well, food - for example.
If unemployment = hunger, why do you think it also doesn't = being unable to afford home robots?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Besides, while technology does indeed march on, there've been many visionsof the future that never came topass. Flying cars, for example. When I said that people had "George Jestson" views of the future, that's exactly what they have:
"Meet George Jeston" ... who flies to work in his flying car and gets worn out pushing buttons all day long.
"His boy Elroy" The prototypical boy of the '50s, innocently getting into trouble
"Daughter Judy" A teenage girl whose sole purpose is life is spending lots of money on clothes
"Jane, his wife" The hausfrau of the 50s who has a droid to help her with the "housework" and who complains that she has so much to do!
The 1950s nuclear family with flying cars who live in houses that look like the Seattle Space needle .... hmmm... somehow, I don't think the future is going to look like that!
I really REALLY think you ought to read the first half of "Young Rissa" by FM Busby.
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME