I guess if you ignore the fact that a bipartisan commission
recommended it, and Congress passed it, and the increases

doesn't change
the fact that it put more money into the pot for the government
to spend.

To spend on Social Security. You still aren't getting this
simple fact.

To spend on other things at that time, with a promise it would
be there 20 or 30 or 40 years in the future.

It will make no positive difference at all, and will likely do
great harm. Too bad it's so far into the future. If it was so
necessary, so good, why not make it effective immediately? Why
wait 20 years?


BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
* Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)

...

Somehow the idea that moving increases up from 2030 to current
years doesn't increase government revenue to be spent now is a
bit absurd.

Your attempt to twist the facts is what is "absurd." The
law did not jump the 1984 tax rate up to the 2030 rate. It
slightly accelerated Carter's tax increases. Specifically,
the 1985 rate increase got moved up to 1984, the
already-passed increases for 1985-87 remained the same,
part of the already-passed 1990 increase got moved up to
1988, and the already-passed increases from 1990 to 2030
remained the same.

IOW, you dispute details you did not give the first time around,
but you ignore the original point.

Look at your story. Look at the facts. Do you see the
vast difference? Anyone else would.

Do you see where you ever gave a link to your sources? No one
would.

So, as far as the increased tax rates, leaving out the
other provisions of the law, taxpayers paid a little more
(and the SS trust fund got a little more) in 1984 than
would have been the case if the changes had not passed. In

And all of what the trust fund got was available and spent on
other functions.

1985, 86, and 87, they payed THE SAME RATE as they would

The increases were already scheduled to take place.
Taxpayers paid a little more in 1988 and 89 than they would

Yet you still don't give your source.

Is that simple enough for you to understand YET?

What do you mean "yet"? When you give facts we can argue them.
Adding them later is your way of spinning the debate. Above all,
not giving your sources is your way of giving alleged facts that
are hard to check.

BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
* Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)

An exactly balanced budget would have exactly the effect of
paying off only mature bonds.

An "exactly balanced" budget would be able to pay off
mature bonds by issuing new ones, thus keeping the debt the

Since paying off maturing bonds are part of the govt fiscal
policy, no further change than exacly balancing spending and
revenue is necessary to pay off the debt by the time the current
bonds all mature.

Paying off matured bonds without issuing new bonds to
replace them would require running a surplus, not a
balance. At an exact balance, the total indebtedness would
remain the same. Less aggregate indebtedness would mean a
surplus. All of which has nothing to do with Greenspan's
point about the disruption that would come from buying
NON-mature bonds back prematurely.

As I went into once before, the budget is not what we are really
talking about, that's just a convenient term. What we are
talking about is actual spending. Since maturing bonds are paid
off, whether by tax money or borrowed money, your point is
lacking accuracy.

If we pay off the mature bonds out of revenue, then that
requires balance, not surplus. When we borrow to pay off bonds,
that gives us a deficit. If we pay off a portion of the mature
bonds out of revenue, and borrow to pay off a portion, the
result is a lower deficit. A surplus means we can pay off bonds
that haven't matured.

Paying off some mature bonds from revenue rather than borrowing
reduces the debt at a slower rate that paying them all out of
revenue, but it does reduce the debt.

Any way you look at it, to pay off all mature bonds out of
revenue all you have to do is have a balance between revenue and
spending. Paying bonds is spending. Borrowing only to pay off
mature bonds will not increase the debt, if the interest has
been paid also. Borrowing to pay current expenses does increase
the debt.

All of which you argued ignored the original point, in which I
pointed out that any bond payment plan that incurs more cost for
paying early than waiting for maturity is illogical. At least
from the borrower's point of view it's illogical. The lender can
reasonably expect to charge a bit more for paying early, but not
more than the total cost of waiting to maturity. That kind of
penalty would be absurd from the borrower's point of view.


BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
* Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)

That is why, if one looks up budget data, they don't just
find "wish list" data. They also find out what actually
happened. From Obama's 2014 Budget: "Historical Tables,
Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2014
provides data on budget receipts, outlays, surpluses or
deficits, Federal debt, and Federal employment over an
extended time period, generally from 1940 or earlier to
2014 or 2018."

Yep. The * Historical Tables* report the results.

You stopped too soon. It reports the actual budget receipts, the actual budget outlays, and the actual resulting surplus or deficit. Not just the budget REQUEST.


--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
* Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)

None of this relates, however, to your belief that going
into debt counts as "income" while paying that debt down or
off is "spending."

First, I did not say income, I said revenue. Second, look at the
records. The trust funds are counted in the revenue columns.

The revenue that people pay in through the payroll tax IS
REVENUE! What is it that you still need help with here?

Perhaps the fact that you used the word "income" above, yet I
used revenue consistently.

You persist in your completely absurd belief that going into debt is income and that paying off debt is spending. Your first response is to pretend that you do not know what two simple English words MEAN. Your second was to ask an irrelevant question. I answered the irrelevant question. Revenue is "counted" as revenue because revenue IS revenue. Yes, your question really WAS that dumb.

Then explain why the social security trust funds are counted as
revenue and debt.

Jeff already did. I already did. That is why your response is so funny.


--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
* Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)

But now you have been taught that the tax increase was only
a part of that supposed "165 billion." I even explained
exactly what years saw a tax increase from the 1983 law,
and what years saw NO increase over the 1977 Carter tax
increases that were already slated to go into effect. If
you had just paid attention, you would have learned
something.

Now you are playing a word game, pretending a tax increase today
doesn't count if it was already schedualed for 5 years from now.

If you had actually read what I said, and if you had even a low level of understanding of the English language, you would realize I said the opposite. Did you not read it, or did you not understand? There is no third option other than your complete dishonesty.

I pointed out to you weeks ago which three years actually saw a tax increase due to the 1983 law. You have yet to show any sign that you read it, let alone understood it, let alone being able to honestly admit it.


--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
* Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)