BK>BK>>BK>> JB> The debt went up every single year under
The Clinton:

BK>BK>>BK>> I said the deficit and the debt load decreased under
BK>BK>>BK>> Clinton. I

BK>BK>> JB> That is doublespeak for cooking to books and moving debt
BK>BK>> JB> further out, not retiring it.

BK>BK>> When the deficit hits zero the debt starts retiring. The latest
BK>BK>> budget figures I got from the Bush administration say it went
BK>BK>> into surplus during Clinton's last few years.

BK> JB> Yet the debt went up.  You can't explain it.  Also a

BK> Nope. Some kinda govt accounting. The debt was even expected to
BK> be paid off within a relatively few years, can't recall how
BK> many, maybe 15.

You're delusional.  Of course one could argue that if we finance the 
debt on 15 year government notes and we make the payments we could 
retire the debt in 15 years.  The problem with that fallacy is that 
during those 15 years, the government would rack up more debt.  


BK> JB> deficit hitting zero or going positive is current account
BK> JB> balance cashflow and doesn't mean debt is being retired.

BK> Yeah, it does. See below.

BK> JB> You can have cash in your pocket and chose not to pay off
BK> JB> debt.

BK> The federal budget includes debt service. So, when the deficit
BK> disappears, the debt service pays off the debt. When the bonds
BK> mature, and are due they get paid. If the longest term is 15
BK> years, then after 15 years they would all be paid off.

Right.  See above.  I already predicted this nonsense.

BK> OTOH, there is one possible explanation that hadn't occured to
BK> me before. Social security surpluses are invested in T-Bills, by
BK> law. So, no matter how low the deficit gets, the Federal govt
BK> will still have to issue T-Bills, which contribute to the debt.
BK> Now the income from those T-Bills could be used to pay off other
BK> T-Bills, which would be a net zero difference. However, during
BK> the transition I expect the total debt might continue to
BK> increase even if only because no one has delt with a continuning
BK> balanced budget before. And it turns out, not now either. So no
BK> one knew what to do or how to do it.

No, you didn't know.  You're getting warmer.  Remember that debt equals 
unpaid liabilities.  I can have positive cashflow but still increase my 
debt.  So can the government.  


BK>BK>>BK>> find govt accounting interesting, in that Bush's budget
BK>BK>>BK>> figures show the deficit wiped out under Clinton, yet the
BK>BK>>BK>> debt increasing.

BK>BK>> JB> Those weren't Bush's budget figures but don't let that stop

BK>BK>> It was from Bush's 2007 budget, in the budget history files.

BK> JB> They were the same under the Clinton.  Nobody played with

BK> Yes, they were. And they are there under Bush. I use Bush's
BK> figures because they are the most recent, and because if you
BK> call them dishonest I don't mind calling Bush dishonest. I feel
BK> no need to defend Bush, so I win either way.

Of course you do.  You hate Bush and don't understand what you are  
saying.  You've believed a lie so long you feel compelled to defend the 
liberal gospel.


BK> JB> the numbers. You are just in denial, ignorant or both.  I
BK> JB> am going with both.

BK> Obviously you can't deal with the fact that your beloved leader
BK> validates Clinton's numbers.

Not at all.  He validates that you are wrong.  The debt went up, 
regardless of what the deficit was.


Jeff


--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10