Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (532056)	11/24/2009 9:33:24 AM
From: RetiredNow	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574309

I don't believe you've taught anything in accounting and finance. You are only showing your own ignorance when you claim that surpluses must by definition reduce debt. That is patently false. Surpluses can be used for all sorts of things, like tax cuts, instead of paying down the debt. As such, although debt is a good indicator of whether there were surpluses or not, it is NOT the final arbiter. The actual revenues minus outlays are the final arbiter of whether there were surpluses. So, I'm going to end this debate right now. The absolute FACT is that there WERE surpluses during the Clinton years. Please refer to the Congressional Budget Offices tally of revenues minus outlays: cbo.gov cbo.gov cbo.gov cbo.gov Actuals in Fiscal Years: FY'98: 1,721-1,652 = $69B surplus FY'99: 1,827-1,705 = $123B surplus FY'00: 2,025-1788 = $237B surplus FY'01: 1,991-1,864 = $127B surplus So it turns out that it is you who doesn't know a damn thing about accounting.