DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Effopsytupt** · 06-02-2012, 12:20 AM

This doesn't entitle you to count bonds as an asset without counting them as a corresponding liability for someone else. Reduced to absurdity, you could issue an arbitrarily large number of bonds directly to social security, and claim to have covered the social security trust fund for centuries without increasing the debt at all.

I'm sure I don't need to tell you about the absurdity of some corporate accounting. I'm not arguing if it's right or wrong, because I don't care on many levels:
1) It's a US government problem, and your government has far bigger fish to fry than navel-gazing and whining about what's a surplus and what isn't
2) The topic is utterly boring to anyone with a shred of humanity
3) Who the **** cares?
4) His animated GIF is so hideous I cannot stomach the article

I thought the issue was that he was "misunderstanding" something, or that he had a doofus-looking animated .gif. What was he "misunderstanding?" And if he isn't misunderstanding anything, why does it matter that he's partisan? As my post clearly stated, I read for only 30 seconds before I quit reading. On the surface, he seemed like a hyper-partisan douchebag who didn't understand the standards of accounting the US government uses and its definitions. It turns out he's just a hyper-partisan douchebag who does understand the standards of accounting the US government uses and its definitions, but chooses to make it a partisan article because he is a hyper-partisan douchebag with an awful animated GIF.

06-02-2012, 12:20 AM	#10
Effopsytupt Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 448 Senior Member	This doesn't entitle you to count bonds as an asset without counting them as a corresponding liability for someone else. Reduced to absurdity, you could issue an arbitrarily large number of bonds directly to social security, and claim to have covered the social security trust fund for centuries without increasing the debt at all. I'm sure I don't need to tell you about the absurdity of some corporate accounting. I'm not arguing if it's right or wrong, because I don't care on many levels: 1) It's a US government problem, and your government has far bigger fish to fry than navel-gazing and whining about what's a surplus and what isn't 2) The topic is utterly boring to anyone with a shred of humanity 3) Who the **** cares? 4) His animated GIF is so hideous I cannot stomach the article I thought the issue was that he was "misunderstanding" something, or that he had a doofus-looking animated .gif. What was he "misunderstanding?" And if he isn't misunderstanding anything, why does it matter that he's partisan? As my post clearly stated, I read for only 30 seconds before I quit reading. On the surface, he seemed like a hyper-partisan douchebag who didn't understand the standards of accounting the US government uses and its definitions. It turns out he's just a hyper-partisan douchebag who does understand the standards of accounting the US government uses and its definitions, but chooses to make it a partisan article because he is a hyper-partisan douchebag with an awful animated GIF.
	Quote