On Mon, 28 Mar 05 14:54:36 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:

>In article >,
> "C. E. White" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>>
>>> In article >,
>>> DTJ > wrote:
>>> >On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 19:42:15 -0500, "Vendicar Decarian" >
>>> >wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>"DTJ" > wrote in message
>>> >>> You liberals sure like to throw around make believe terms about
>>> >>> government.
>>> >>
>>> >>By now it's well known how Bush turned the $127 billion surplus he
>>> >>inherited in 2001 into a historic $413 billion deficit by 2004. It's
>>> >
>>> >Hey retard, there was no surplus. Your "lockbox" for SS was a fraud,
>>> >and your favorite Ken Lay supporter, slick willy klinton, used all the
>>> >SS money to make it appear, to low life incompetent fools like
>>> >yourself, that he had a surplus.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> 1. SS has a surplus, a trust fund, that is invested in gov't bonds.
>>> 2. For 2 years under Clinton, the gov't had a surplus, not counting SS.
>>
>>Item 2 is not true.
>>They did include the SS revenue when
>>declaring a surplus.
>
>The last 2 years under Clinton, there was a surplus even w/o counting the
>SS surplus. If you look at the data, you see those 2 years, revenues
>exceeded expenditures and the debt held by the public declined.

But not the debt held by the Government.
>
>
>>As for "1" while technically true, the
>>money is spent and the "investment" is little more than a
>>bookkeeping fiction.
>>
>
>No, the money is no more fiction than when you buy a savings bond.

No, when I buy a Savings Bond, the money is real; I know, I paid it.
However, when I want to redeem it, the scale is far lower than when
the SS Bonds will come due; the Government can cover it. The
Government can't cover those bonds used to replace the funds in the SS
account.
You can, I'm certain, cover a $100 check. Can you cover a $1,000,000
check? I doubt it. Same principle.
>
>>
>>Ed

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"