Posted on 01/15/2005 6:53:08 AM PST by babylontoday
Kinda depends on how you figure it. Somebody help me with my math here. Would anybody disagree that the amount of annual increase in our overall DEBT should be the measure of our overall DEFICIT (this would also include SS, interest, etc.)? On that premise, according to the numbers from the Tresury link here: http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm The current debt is: 7,601,173,485,023 debt 1-13-05 7,379,052,696,330 minus debt on fiscal close on 9-30-04 =221,120,788,693 over 3-1/2 months = 63,463,082,483 per month, times 12 months =761,556,989,796 linear projection for funding shortfall this fiscal year. This would appear to be roughly consistent with acceleration of the already near vertical line on the crude homemade graph that I developed from the same Treasury site and scanned to my home page. http://www.babylontoday.com/index.htm#debt_chart
Now... 7,379,052,696,330 The debt for end fiscal 9-30-04 6,783,231,062,743 minus the debt fiscal end 03 = 595,821,633,587 increase in debt 03-04 which I am calling the overall deficit (perhaps wrongly, please correct me if you believe otherwise)
Doesn't it appear as though the fiscal 05 DEFICIT COULD BE PROJECTED TO BE OVER 25% HIGHER than the deficit of fiscal year ended 9-30-04? Perhaps the deficit will decelerate the rest of the year. And if only frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their butts when they jumped. We are already down 221 billion and the whole 03-04 deficit was 595 billion. I am completely open to correction but it seems typical Wall Street shill Larry Kudlow and administration manipulated OMB.
Check daily debt here (nifty find!): http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/~www/opdpen.cgi From Sept 30, 03 to Jan 13, 04 there was a 208,612,275,865 deficit Compared to 221 billion from Sept 30, 04 to Jan 13, 05 You figure it out for yourself. Maybe I made a mistake.
The only reason for a citizen to worry over the deficit is if you have enough money to pay it down. Otherwise, who cares? It sure aint my problem,,,LOL
Govt. accounting is CASH accounting as opposed to GAP accouting or generally accepted accounting principles.
For example, when the US made the Louisiana purchase, the deficit went up. When you buy bullets for the military, the deficit goes up. When you shoot the bullets, the deficit remains the same. When you buy oil for the strategic reserve, the deficit goes up, when you sell the oil, the deficit goes down.
And on a cash accounting basis, tax collection for the social security trust fund reduce the deficit, and payments for the boomers will not increase the deficit until the payments are actually made under the current CASH accounting system.
FYI, if we sold alaska back to the russians for 8 million, we would not show a profit or loss, but would reduce the deficit by 8 million.
CASH accounting for the govt. does not have much meaning.
The difference in the deficit number, results in the difference between cash accounting and actuarial accounting.
My chart merely points out the continuous nature of our indebtedness. Sadly our personal, corporate, and public debts, let alone future obligations perhaps overwhelms the "equity" that we hold. http://www.babylontoday.com/deficit_2005.htm
whoops wrong link http://www.babylontoday.com/index.htm#debt_chart
And this is Bush's and the Republican's fault, I assume?
Further, I haven't noticed much constructive government purchase, like Alaska for per your example, lately. I have noticed 321 billion in interest for 04, and so far in fiscal 05 another 120 billion in interest, that could hardly be considered equity any more than the bullet example you used, or any other depreciating military assets for that matter, let alone welfare payments, SS payments, tsunami payments, etc.
Assets we do have, like the Panama Canal lease for example, we don't sell, we simply walk away and let those like communist Chinese (via Hutchison Whampoa) take over and profit.
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdint.htm
My theory is that it is the result of the pander-fest that FDR and the Democrats started. Although, I wish the Republicans would reign in these "entitlement" programs
Don't forget Johnson's "Great Society"
Hmmm.....Webster: "deficit - A shortage in amount, esp. money." Doesn't seem to say anything about a loss.
Now it occurs to me that the shortage that we suffer (of "money")from year to year ad nauseum, demonstrated by the debt chart link would indicate an annual deficit, that is shortage of money, from year to year.
http://www.babylontoday.com/index.htm#debt_chart
Also, I wonder what nifty investment assets, do you suppose, we were able to accumulate as a result of all of this evermore productive spending?
Merriam Webster:
"debt- 2 something owed : obligation"
Merriam Webster:
"deficit- 2 a : an excess of expenditure over revenue b : a loss in business operations"
Let me put it like this: If a business owes 10 dollars in debt to an electrical company, and its losses (losses in part due to expenditure over revenue) during that certain time period are 60 dollars, does it have a loss of 70 dollars?
Actually, let's suppose the business owes 10 dollars in debt overall to all the things it may owe money to at the time. As previously asked, does this mean the business has a loss of 70 dollars?
I don't understand this pointless post. I have been consistently refering to the DIFFERENCE, DIFFERENCE, DIF...., as in, ADDED TO THE DEBT, in the amount of debt FROM YEAR TO YEAR. Additional debt resulting from deficit spending.
YOUR webster : an excess of expenditure over revenue b : a loss in business operations"
But I do understand.....
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20040508/bob9.asp
http://find.slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2108284&
Answer - there was no fiscal year while Bill Clinton was President where the national debt decreased.
Rush was saying on his program the other day that the deficit was down by $11 Billion. He did say you won't hear this on the MSM. That was $11 Billion for just the quarter. If that continues, the yearly decrease in the deficit should be $33 Billion, and that would be a sign the tax cuts are working. The "Vast Left Wing Conspiracy" will never be able to report or admit this.
Yes, Hillary, take that! The "VAST LEFT WING CONSPIRACY"!!!
But how can you say the deficit is growing if you add debt into the equation?
Look, all I know is that even though I'm not a fan of Bush's spending, I'll trust a Wall Street man rather than an angry lib.
If reduced deficits under Clinton were a result of policy then we could all be confident that increasing the confiscation of investment capital from the private sector through elevated income taxation, and squandering it via government, is the road to prosperity. Clinton was the recipient of the greatest asset mania in the history of mankind. 1/3 of the revenue coming into the treasury was in the form of capital gains from sales of vacuuous companies like pets.com and others inflated as much as 100 times their current value. Also many assets were divested, and expenditures made, as a result of the uncertainty of Y2K. Wouldn't have mattered who was in office. The amount of increase in the debt WAS significantly reduced (I would suggest through reduced deficits) as a result of these factors, as evidenced here:
http://www.babylontoday.com/index.htm#debt_chart
Wall Street shills like Larry Kudlow are perhaps the last people I would trust. But I believe the information came from the OMB which for some time seems to produce numbers that are administration friendly, no matter who is in office. They also change methods of accounting and sometimes seem to leave factors out that they had included in prior reports. That's why I have a hard time believing anything except the concrete increase in our nation's debt from year to year. The links on this page allow you to configure day to day increases in our debt for any dates.
http://www.babylontoday.com/deficit_2005.htm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.