all previous attempts have proven

[skate]

to be right on the $.

oh, this is gonna hurt...

hold on now...

the fed gov. ran a surplus in dec.06, $44 Billion, a record for the month.

the fed gov paid a net interest of $16.04 Billion for the same month.

as just to be clear, you heard this from 'the Skate', almost the exact numbers (oh yeh, the skate:lol: ) is having a marvellous time.:cool:

and another 'just in caser', that gives Me a profit of $28 billion for the month.
not including, the pay increases everyone is receiving.

tank you very much:p

[BIG RED]

Guess who is red flag'in me now :confused:

[PlanB]

Accepting that there is a surplus, What accounts for it?

[PlanB]

to be right on the $.

oh, this is gonna hurt...

hold on now...

the fed gov. ran a surplus in dec.06, $44 Billion, a record for the month.

the fed gov paid a net interest of $16.04 Billion for the same month.

as just to be clear, you heard this from 'the Skate', almost the exact numbers (oh yeh, the skate:lol: ) is having a marvellous time.:cool:

and another 'just in caser', that gives Me a profit of $28 billion for the month.
not including, the pay increases everyone is receiving.

tank you very much:p

I see that my question of what accounted for that "SURPLUS" ala Skate was a show stopper, but just in case there's too much optimism, here's a slighltly different number from our Treasury dept: http://fms.treas.gov/mts/mts1206.pdf

Just go to page 2 & the summary to see that for DEC 2006, we show a deficit of 44,525 (In Millions). ummm, Skate I would recheck the meaning of a minus sign.

[skate]

UOTE=PlanB]I see that my question of what accounted for that "SURPLUS" ala Skate was a show stopper, but just in case there's too much optimism, here's a slighltly different number from our Treasury dept: http://fms.treas.gov/mts/mts1206.pdf

Just go to page 2 & the summary to see that for DEC 2006, we show a deficit of 44,525 (In Millions). ummm, Skate I would recheck the meaning of a minus sign.[/QUOTE]



GO FROM HERE !!!

PlanB;

i will say this, you do grain (gain) my respect, you DO pay attention, and that is rare for this and many other sites. it gets tire-ing.

all kidding aside, thanks. and Paaalease do not take the following as a refute-al.

i've posted from your add-on treas.gov....
http://fms.treas.gov/mts/mts1206.pdf
http://fms.treas.gov/mts/mts1206.pdf


oh well, i wanted to post your report. you'll have to see for yourself. please go to your post and read that when (-) minus that equals a plus.
look. its Your report. maybe that is part of the overall problem. ie, why people have such a problem with the f... figures.

if you go to the bottom of Your report 'table #1' for Dec. note, under
Receipts= 259,965
outlays= 215,430
which equals a plus 44,535
that 44,535 is the surplus i gave you, thank you once more !!!

hey , that is a very good report you gave to me.
look at the bottom of table #1 again. we find (projection, must be) again

Receipts (total)= 573,524
outlays=======653,925

which would put Our (USA) Deficit at a much lower amount than anyone except 'the Skate', mind you, could imagine.

Please, keep in mind, deficit is good, debt is good. a little control, fine and dandy.

[skate]

Guess who is red flag'in me now :confused:

hey , just a little more info. paaaalease!
i'd like to help, but where do i go from here,. should i find some Quotes?

[betchatoo]

If debt is so good, why were the republicans so dead set against it when Clinton was President?

[Show Me the Wire]

Depends what the debt is used for.

[skate]

If debt is so good, why were the republicans so dead set against it when Clinton was President?

betchatoo;

good point.
i'm not sure i recall anyone "dead set against it".
maybe, Ross, but that was a horse of another color.

MY point would be that They (whomever, Media, dems, rep) use these figures to influence the voters.
which in turn would enable, whomever, to divert attention. it gives people a point to raLLY behind.

in my mind, what is important is , for people to stop and listen, by listen, im saying to think out the sitution, instead of just accepting whatever is said on the TV news etc.

it is very simple for anyone to see "debt is good" for the economy. forget about Dems , Rep.

im sure we can agree, nothing is 100%, all the time.
fundamentally, debt is the only way to advance.

id be happy to explain.

[skate]

Depends what the debt is used for.

exactly.

but even, (im not saying "just tose about 'any' debt") if we spend on things not considered to be useful, it can still be good for the econmy.

my pointis, keep the money flowing.
that does not say "go out and buy your son a Martini", but rather, build a road, hospital, plant a tree, a sewer, etc.

even if you do not need it now, keep the money moving.

[PlanB]

Skate you are right re DEC 2006, a surplus. But, that chart shows very serious deficits, and a large deficit for FY2006. That's why my question to you was, What accounted for the Dec figure? As you know, month-2-month figs can be very misleading, with just a few days reporting outlays/receipts. BUT, the entire 2006 figs are VERY disturbing. PS: I like your new posts that at least recognize that HOW one spends money matters, not just the churning effect of money circulating in the economy. There is HUGE sums of money around, needing investments, but that brings me back to a previous question: Do you think that there is ever a time when MONEY, in our USA economy, could retreat from our markets? Lost forever?

[PlanB]

If debt is so good, why were the republicans so dead set against it when Clinton was President?

The republicans wanted to shut down OUR GOVERNMENT. Imagine, the simple brains, with no financial background, not caring if they harmed our citizens, just for some mistaken belief that gov't does no good. Yet, these know-nothings don't mind our gov't invading other countries, ruining many many USA citizens' families & lives ------- that's where their mind-set is. PS: RUBIN did the right thing, as history showed, but NOWADAYS I agree that the Dems should not be fiscally prudent, buliding-up a surplus. Why? Because you can now see what the Republicans did with that surplus. Squandered it on what has to be a TWO TRILLION DOLLAR WAR. Now, republicans might say that 2 TRILL is nothing really, but what do you think?

[Secretariat]

...you can now see what the Republicans did with that surplus. Squandered it on what has to be a TWO TRILLION DOLLAR WAR. Now, republicans might say that 2 TRILL is nothing really, but what do you think?

Thank you for some sanity on the posts in this thread.

[skate]

Skate you are right re DEC 2006, a surplus. But, that chart shows very serious deficits, and a large deficit for FY2006. That's why my question to you was, What accounted for the Dec figure? As you know, month-2-month figs can be very misleading, with just a few days reporting outlays/receipts. BUT, the entire 2006 figs are VERY disturbing. PS: I like your new posts that at least recognize that HOW one spends money matters, not just the churning effect of money circulating in the economy. There is HUGE sums of money around, needing investments, but that brings me back to a previous question: Do you think that there is ever a time when MONEY, in our USA economy, could retreat from our markets? Lost forever?

as you know, 'lots of stuff here', but im glad to see your response.
i was intending to answer your "WHY", but when you were oofff track (just like sec) i tried to answer 'first things first'.

and, of coarse, gees, of coarse it maters "HOW" we spend, but sometimes, one must consider 'understanding'. that is to say, at times i take for granted that SOMEf..ing BODY understands Something about which we are talking. woo!
"lots of stuff', and Nobody has all answers to economics, because it is living, moving and changing. this makes for an easy situation for others to throw cold water on my (others) 'debt is good' theory.

i say all of the above, to give myself room to simplify 'what is important. ie, n ot spelling, but points.

back to your Why question. and back to your fluctuation within 2006 figures.

reports are otherwise, but my simple answer, as to Why, is oil. oil comes down and people have more to spend on airlines etc.
also, oil, is a very simple answer to fluctuation in 2006. it is (not to me/George) a surprise that the economy has remained so strong, with oil going as highas it did, but that is past (my opinion), due to shorting in oils.
now they are going to try to catch the Fall of oils.
that is the reason why the feds do not drop interest rates. the economy stands to run too fast, with oil dropping like a rock. in turn, people will continue to spend. house market seems to have turned already.
people were crying Doomsday, just before the election, now look.
hey , if oil came down before the election, people would be saying Uncle brought it down, man, what a pity, to have to live with such logic

[skate]

The republicans wanted to shut down OUR GOVERNMENT. Imagine, the simple brains, with no financial background, not caring if they harmed our citizens, just for some mistaken belief that gov't does no good. Yet, these know-nothings don't mind our gov't invading other countries, ruining many many USA citizens' families & lives ------- that's where their mind-set is. PS: RUBIN did the right thing, as history showed, but NOWADAYS I agree that the Dems should not be fiscally prudent, buliding-up a surplus. Why? Because you can now see what the Republicans did with that surplus. Squandered it on what has to be a TWO TRILLION DOLLAR WAR. Now, republicans might say that 2 TRILL is nothing really, but what do you think?

what would you like for me to add, ludicrous, childish, ill-informed, manipulative.
look, i wouldn't try to answer the above.

you come accross with 'Blather'.

complexities are built into economics, but simple is also present.
Uncle George was given a Recession, a phony economy (dot-coms), and a motivated enemy of terror.

after uncle george saw the light, market up 25% (which is enough to have secured the Social Security problem he was given), jobs up (what ? 6 million plus), GDP (record highs) still climbing.
many of the phony business people of the 90s are in Jail. many more yet to be...

get real, get in the realm of being coherent, so as i may answer whatever it is you want .
some try to answer by giving quotes from some poor miserable cretin of an economist, yet they only use particular Quotes, from specific econmist and they disregard others.

Markowitz, he is the most efficient economist 'of all living economist' on the mater of RISK, his quote, "no additional expected return can be gained without increasing the risk (war, debt, exploration).

[JustRalph]

Thank you for some sanity on the posts in this thread.

Get a room...............!

come on Planb? One man's squander is another man's training mission.

As one of my idols often says.......

"Getting ready for the coming race wars"

God Bless Early.........and his family.........

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3a/Squidbilles.gif

[PlanB]

To Skate ... I'll delay responding to your Markowitz post, because economists now act like psychologists, who venture way above their heads, and really know nothing about history, or art, or politics, but they write of it anyway, much like that recent popular book on economics, a book I bought but whose title is forgettable. (Do I detect another book raffle?) .......But back to your idea that OIL (gasoline prices) saved 12/06 data. Maybe. I really don't know, but of course, in the USA economy, oil prices matter big time. Which is why I think we should get in place a MINIMUM barrell price of say $45. No matter what else happens, Saudi Arabia pumps themselves dry to out produce Iran, who I think will never stop pumping--- but we MUST go alternative fuels now. Why wait for China to (a) have a GDP > USA or (b) use so much gasoline/oil to drive their very growing auto market. Ergo, I really don't care that the Swedes pay $10/gallon; here in the USA, we need choices.

[skate]

Planb;

ya, the Marhowitz Q was due to your pal Secism. he answers my points of view by saying that because 5/6 economist say something at ONE time, that they are in consideration of all the points at issue all the time.


ex. would be, a trade deficit , during a recession is not good, but it may be good during a n expansion. so it depends on when and to what degree the questions are asked.


well, on china and oil, china has a long way to go and there situation in regards to Trade Surluses which should cause bubbles in stocks along with bigger inflation problems. they have a long way to go to catch the USA, about 10 times off our GDP and about 20 times from our market value.

oil., we might see it reach back down to 35/40 $. and that gives the alternate fuels a problem. i think, when Iraq sets things straight, they'll bring enough oil on the market, to keep things stable.

[PlanB]

Planb;


oil., we might see it reach back down to 35/40 $. and that gives the alternate fuels a problem. i think, when Iraq sets things straight, they'll bring enough oil on the market, to keep things stable.

But is that where we want to GO or BE? I say, who cares about Iraq, totally? I want out. Then, tackle the OPEC cartel directly. Make oil a min of ~$45 -- thereby insuring that alternatives have a market chance. YES, subsidize NOW or be under China's thumb later. PS: If I even see a 'made in China' tag, I drop the item on the store's floor. Then wash my hands.

[skate]

WELL, I THINK $45 is most likely not high enough, maybe $60, but we are under that now. and you may be correct. consider how far and how fast, the world has come in just 100 years, to me, that says, nobody really knows.

but yah sure, be independent, sounds great and it aint gonna happen, so!
China, just aint all that bad. the cheap products stink, but...thats what is happening. you want me to fight that? impossible.

the more that china keeps up with 'the jones' the more they will fit into "we need each other" concept.

i really see nothing wrong.

aside with the fact that people Here have issues

[chickenhead]

you'll need at least $4 gasoline in todays dollars, probably more. So your floor realistically needs to be above the ceiling we have seen. Which makes sense; if it was economically viable @$45 pb (or $60), it would happen on its own, but it's not, so it won't. Come to think of it, are the Euros driving anything other than petrol, even with their outrageous prices?

I don't think people in this country will ever say ok to a $2 a gallon tax hike on petrol, though they will probably happily sign up for a $2 a gallon subsidy on something clean. Never mind that we pay the same either way. We're pretty weird.

[skate]

you'll need at least $4 gasoline in todays dollars, probably more. So your floor realistically needs to be above the ceiling we have seen. Which makes sense; if it was economically viable @$45 pb (or $60), it would happen on its own, but it's not, so it won't. Come to think of it, are the Euros driving anything other than petrol, even with their outrageous prices?

I don't think people in this country will ever say ok to a $2 a gallon tax hike on petrol, though they will probably happily sign up for a $2 a gallon subsidy on something clean. Never mind that we pay the same either way. We're pretty weird.

this is pretty much in line with "pretty weird".

Energy security act, goes on next weeks agenda, to promote energy independence.
the boys and girls (polosis-lopes) are wanting to tax big oil (domestic) and then use that money for 'subsidize ethanol', solar, etc.
so i guess that would open up the doors again for our OPEC friends to sell us more oil.
and we'll be back to "Not Drilling in the Gulf".

Uncle George should be happy with that.

so far, venture capital for alternative energy 04/06 is about 63 Billion.

back in 98/99, oil was around $10 a barrel with taxes up till $35 per barrel. over $35, no royalties.
so, also, the dems want royalties, just like Chaves.

now isn't that Social of them Polosi-lopes?

oh oh yeh, i forgot, they are wanting a balanced budget.

[PlanB]

Skate, why do you mention BUDGET when the DEMS are (1) LARGELY still not in power & (2) COUNTERING a prez in power for 6 years, where the noun Budget was never said. So what gives? You're just trying to sound clever? Don't sell our country out just to be liked.