[gagagaridze]

Ok.

Let's all take time out of our lives to discuss the blog post of some no-name hyperpartisan whackjob from the internet.

He's got an animated GIF of the American flag, but he's so patriotic he left his country to go live in Mexico for 10 years.

[Meerenuch]

For what it's worth, I did read it for 30 seconds until I discovered the man doesn't know the definition of a fiscal surplus in terms of budgets and his entire argument is predicated on that misunderstanding and semantics.

[geaveheadeNox]

When the government collects payroll taxes, gives the money to the "social security trust fund" and uses the money to buy treasuries, the government is no more or less indebted than it already was. So no, it wasn't a real surplus (if by surplus you mean reducing the government's debt burden) unless the government decided it wanted to default on the debts held by itself.

[engacenus]

When did Ozzy become a hack? I mean other than the 8 year olds voting stuff.

[NofFoomiTot]

When did Ozzy become a hack? I mean other than the 8 year olds voting stuff.

I raised a question. Do you have an opinion on it or are you just a brainless idiot who'd rather make personal insults then think for a moment? If so I'd be happy to add you to my ignore list.

[Garry Hovard]

I raised a question. Do you have an opinion on it or are you just a brainless idiot who'd rather make personal insults then think for a moment? If so I'd be happy to add you to my ignore list.

Don't BS. You did not just raise a question. You posted a troll then followed up with an obvious piece of political hackery. That you think you shouldn't be insulted for it is laughable.

[conurgenceDen]

Not completely correct. It's how the US government account works, regardless of party.

[advabHixavoip]

This pertains to all administrations and congresses, not just the Clinton years, in which, by the way, what little spending austerity that existed then was mainly forced by republicans.

When the Republican Congress gained a Republican President the austerity suddenly vanished. How mysterious.

[Lyikmcmb]

This man says the official accounting is wrong. You respond "but it's how the accounting is done officially." That doesn't prove him wrong. He knows he's at odds with the official accounting. That's the entire point of the article.

Here's what proves him right, and the official accounting wrong.

You do not understand what I'm saying.

I don't care that you nor him are at odds with the accounting. Every business accounts differently, despite GAAP. Governments are no different.

The issue with the article is it's a partisan article for a non-partisan issue. Which is why he's not completely correct and why he's a tool.

[Effopsytupt]

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.

[Rounteetepehryn]

It's not about whether the rules were different. It is about what happened in reality.

Nope. It's about trying to make democrats look bad for a systemic problem with the US government.

[shihoodiacarf]

How about another myth? That Obama is a BIG, HUGE spender.

389210_426237087396889_348991775121421_1381560_1634087639_n.jpg

[Quality4Qty]

How about another myth? That Obama is a BIG, HUGE spender.

389210_426237087396889_348991775121421_1381560_1634087639_n.jpg

I guess you didn't get the memo.

[RenyBontes]

If prices went up around 50% under Carter, then he really only increased spending at a rate of ~2.6% a year. And Reagan at only ~2.7% a year. That graphic is very manipulative.

[DoctorTDent]

I guess you didn't get the memo.

You shouldn't be linked to hyper-partisan right wing hacks like the Washington Post.

[Galsteinbok]

So CBO, OMB, and Marketwatch are unreliable sources?

No. Well, maybe Marketwatch is, I'm not familiar with them.

[Aceroassert]

To quote my quote of Peggy Noonan in the other thread:

It became apparent some weeks ago when the president talked on the stump—where else?—about an essay by a fellow who said spending growth is actually lower than that of previous presidents. This was startling to a lot of people, who looked into it and found the man had left out most spending from 2009, the first year of Mr. Obama's presidency. People sneered: The president was deliberately using a misleading argument to paint a false picture! But you know, why would he go out there waving an article that could immediately be debunked? Maybe because he thought it was true. That's more alarming, isn't it, the idea that he knows so little about the effects of his own economic program that he thinks he really is a low spender.