Conquer Club

Ray Rider wrote:So a classmate of mine is working on an applied research project involving urban design/city planning and the economic feasibility of various plans. When looking up city records on revenue/deficits, he found that the city is claiming it has run a tax-supported surplus every year since 2008 although the city's debt ($2 billion in 2008) has been increasing by roughly $200 million every year. How do those two claims reconcile, or what does that term ("tax supported deficit/surplus") even mean?

Ray Rider wrote:So a classmate of mine is working on an applied research project involving urban design/city planning and the economic feasibility of various plans. When looking up city records on revenue/deficits, he found that the city is claiming it has run a tax-supported surplus every year since 2008 although the city's debt ($2 billion in 2008) has been increasing by roughly $200 million every year. How do those two claims reconcile, or what does that term ("tax supported deficit/surplus") even mean?

Phatscotty wrote:

Ray Rider wrote:So a classmate of mine is working on an applied research project involving urban design/city planning and the economic feasibility of various plans. When looking up city records on revenue/deficits, he found that the city is claiming it has run a tax-supported surplus every year since 2008 although the city's debt ($2 billion in 2008) has been increasing by roughly $200 million every year. How do those two claims reconcile, or what does that term ("tax supported deficit/surplus") even mean?

another redefinition and recreation of words and terminology meant to hide the truth

get used to it. In a time when words can be redefined based on need and want, no words can have any real meaning or definition. Definitions are subjective...it depends who is defining.

I talk to this socialist friend of mine on facebook all the time, and whenever I challenge her with a question, she starts using language just like what you describe, mostly because she already knows the implication beforehand and is willingly trying to distort the truth to justify her load of bullshit/not take responsibility/ignore the results.

Another angle is crooked book-keeping. In my state, we pay taxes for "roads", but when it comes time to build the roads, we borrow that money through bonding. It's an explanation to form an excuse about why the money that is supposed to be there never is, or is if only "on paper"

Probably the same way Social Security is somehow in surplus

ooge wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:

Ray Rider wrote:So a classmate of mine is working on an applied research project involving urban design/city planning and the economic feasibility of various plans. When looking up city records on revenue/deficits, he found that the city is claiming it has run a tax-supported surplus every year since 2008 although the city's debt ($2 billion in 2008) has been increasing by roughly $200 million every year. How do those two claims reconcile, or what does that term ("tax supported deficit/surplus") even mean?

another redefinition and recreation of words and terminology meant to hide the truth

get used to it. In a time when words can be redefined based on need and want, no words can have any real meaning or definition. Definitions are subjective...it depends who is defining.

I talk to this socialist friend of mine on facebook all the time, and whenever I challenge her with a question, she starts using language just like what you describe, mostly because she already knows the implication beforehand and is willingly trying to distort the truth to justify her load of bullshit/not take responsibility/ignore the results.

Another angle is crooked book-keeping. In my state, we pay taxes for "roads", but when it comes time to build the roads, we borrow that money through bonding. It's an explanation to form an excuse about why the money that is supposed to be there never is, or is if only "on paper"

Probably the same way Social Security is somehow in surplus

most of the US debt is debt we owe ourselves.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Social security USED to have a surplus USED TO be protected. Then Ronald Reagan had the "brilliant" idea to use it to balance the budget, with the idea that it would be no problem to pay it back...

BigBallinStalin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Social security USED to have a surplus USED TO be protected. Then Ronald Reagan had the "brilliant" idea to use it to balance the budget, with the idea that it would be no problem to pay it back...

So, did Ronald Reagan issue an executive order to make that happen?

If so, how did the Supreme Court react to that?

If not, then what? Was it Congress which approved of it?

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Social security USED to have a surplus USED TO be protected. Then Ronald Reagan had the "brilliant" idea to use it to balance the budget, with the idea that it would be no problem to pay it back...

So, did Ronald Reagan issue an executive order to make that happen?

If so, how did the Supreme Court react to that?

If not, then what? Was it Congress which approved of it?

Study history...

It puts your economic theories in context. .

BigBallinStalin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Social security USED to have a surplus USED TO be protected. Then Ronald Reagan had the "brilliant" idea to use it to balance the budget, with the idea that it would be no problem to pay it back...

So, did Ronald Reagan issue an executive order to make that happen?

If so, how did the Supreme Court react to that?

If not, then what? Was it Congress which approved of it?

Study history...

It puts your economic theories in context. .

Oh, so you don't know. Then we can discard your claims.

Your post reminds me of those who say, "it's all President X's fault," yet they forget the role of Congress, the Judicial System, and public opinion/the electorate. Some do this because it's easy to cast all blame on one person--it doesn't require much thought nor defense (e.g. your response).

PLAYER57832 wrote:Social security USED to have a surplus USED TO be protected. Then Ronald Reagan had the "brilliant" idea to use it to balance the budget, with the idea that it would be no problem to pay it back... never mind that if he had trouble balancing when the economy was on the verge of one of the the biggest economic booms in history (thanks to tech and Alaskan oil), it would be even harder in the future.

That has been the typical answer for a few decades now.. pass on any costs to the future and pretend everything is "just fine" or at least "getting better" -- and pretend that they were not taking from the average folks in the future to fill the pockets of a few right then.

Ray Rider wrote:So a classmate of mine is working on an applied research project involving urban design/city planning and the economic feasibility of various plans. When looking up city records on revenue/deficits, he found that the city is claiming it has run a tax-supported surplus every year since 2008 although the city's debt ($2 billion in 2008) has been increasing by roughly $200 million every year. How do those two claims reconcile, or what does that term ("tax supported deficit/surplus") even mean?

ooge wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Social security USED to have a surplus USED TO be protected. Then Ronald Reagan had the "brilliant" idea to use it to balance the budget, with the idea that it would be no problem to pay it back... never mind that if he had trouble balancing when the economy was on the verge of one of the the biggest economic booms in history (thanks to tech and Alaskan oil), it would be even harder in the future.

That has been the typical answer for a few decades now.. pass on any costs to the future and pretend everything is "just fine" or at least "getting better" -- and pretend that they were not taking from the average folks in the future to fill the pockets of a few right then.