From: reed@rd08.wg2.waii.com (Michael Reed)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Clinton has won...watch your pocket!
Date: 23 Nov 92 18:52:25 GMT
Reply-To: reed@rd08.wg2.waii.com
Distribution: tx
Organization: Western Geophysical Research & Development

In article <1992Nov20.140537.16000@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
|> In <1649@airgun.wg.waii.com> reed@rd08.wg2.waii.com (Michael Reed) writes:
|> 
|> >In article <1992Nov15.140420.13884@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
|> >|> 
|> >|> And let's not mention the jiggery-pokery by which the Republican
|> >|> Executive has made its own deficits look smaller by folding in the
|> >|> SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS.  Yes, indeed, it's sure run much better with
|> >|> Republicans making those decisions.  NOT!
|> >|> 
|> 
|> >Fred you must subscribe to Joseph Goebell's view that if you tell a big
|> >enough lie often enough, people will believe.  As I and several others
|> >have posted previously:
|> 
|> Pity that you didn't learn any manners while you were getting that
|> 'Dr' that you seem so proud of.
|> 
	
When you continually ignore the facts, even after several people tell
you you are wrong, I have to be rude to get your attention.  As far as
my title, I AM proud of my accomplishments.  E-mail me if you are
interested in my educational background; unlike you I won't boast
about my degrees to support my arguments, I provide sources.  

|> >THE SOCIAL SECURITY SURPLUS IS NOT SUBTRACTRED FROM THE BUDGET DEFICIT.
|> 
|> >It is a federal law that it can not be.  If you do not believe me, please
|> >show me a federal budget where it is "folded in."  My budget in the
|> >World Almanac, 1991 edition, page 102 shows a revenue entry:
|> 
|> >Undistributed offsetting receipts: -89,155 (millions of dollars)
|> 
|> Yes, but now take a look at the word 'offsetting'.  What do you think
|> the generally reported deficit is?  We count SS outlays in with the
|> budgetary outlays these days, and we count the inflow as generally
|> being part and parcel fo general tax revenues, although it is most
|> assuredly accounted separately.  
|> 

That's where you are wrong.  The "generally reported" deficit is not
expenditures minus general tax revenues.  It is expenditures minus
general tax revenues minus the undistributed offsetting receipts.

This $300 billion deficit for the last fiscal year would only be $200
billion if the SS surplus were included.  It is not.  The "generally
reported" defict does not include the Social Securit surplus.

|> And the SS 'surplus' is largely used to buy T-bills and such -- in
|> other words, it's used to subsidize the Federal debt and reduce
|> outside borrowing -- and it is that outside borrowing that is the
|> generally reported 'deficit' figure, not the one you get when you
|> extract the Social Security budget from the rest.
|> 

It is true that the Social Security surplus is invested in T-Bills,
thus financing the Federal debt.  But, the "outside borrowing" is not
the "generally reported" deficit figure.  The media almost always uses
the government reported figure which subtracts the SS surplus from the
revenues BEFORE computation of the deficit.  See it goes like this:

	Revenues: $r+$s
	SS Surplus: $s
	-----------
	Net Revenues $r

	Expenditures: $x

	Deficit:  $x-$r

> One is left wondering just what you are a 'Dr' of -- certainly not
|> logic OR economics.
|> 

Surely, one need not be a PhD to understand the above arithmetic.

To be a scientist, like I am, one needs to learn to put aside
preconceived biases and research the facts without emotion.  You are
convinced that somehow, the generally reported deficit figure includes
the SS surplus.  You offer no sources, no proof, only an emotional
assertion.  

I will give you some advice Fred.  If you really want to attack my
logic or economics knowledge, prove me wrong.  That's what scientists
do.  They don't make fun of one another qualifications, they simply
provide evidence to refute an incorrect hypothesis.  So dig up a
source where the "generally reported" deficit figure includes the
approximate $100 billion Social Security surplus.

-- 
The above are my own opinions and mine alone.

*****************************************************************************
Dr. Michael Reed,
Western Geophysical, Research and Development Group
reed@rd08.wg2.waii.com
(713) 964-6322                     FAX: (713) 964-6372
*****************************************************************************