When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

Very Clintonian phrasing. Did the loans in question constitute a "Pay out"?

And notice that the ratio in 1932 was 33%, so Hoover must have been a goddamned genius!

Nothing Clintonian about it. Pretty basic accounting.

Accounting methods that would land the Boardmembers of a publically traded corporation in jail.

Not at all. It's basic accounting. Surplus vs deficit is basic accounting. One can increase debt at the same time they have a surplus (profit). Ford did it. Apple does it. I am sure a number of other companies have done the same thing. The only difference is the Feds did it by borrowing from the Feds rather than from a bank.

That's exactly the part that is illegal for publically traded companies to which I was referring..

Is it any wonder why the Dems can't come up with a decent plan for job growth. They think a business can run like the govt. They don't realize that businesses can't just make money when they fall short, they have to weigh out the prospect of raising prices, worker hours and improvements to the business. Govt routinely robs Peter to pay Paul and it is we the tax payers who pay the ultimate price.

Oh bull ****. It is not illegal for one part of a publicly traded company to loan money to another division. How do you think US companies keep money overseas to avoid US taxes?

So what? Lots of things that the US government could do would be illegal for corporations. These things include the ownership of tanks and bazookas, declaring war on countries, sentencing criminals to death or prison, condemning blighted property, and many more. Corporate law is distinct from the constitutional and administrative laws governing the US government, precisely because corporations are not governments and the US government is not a corporation. Do you think this should be different? If so, why? If not, so what if the federal government can legally do things that a corporation couldn't?

Businesses do not run like the government. That is the argument from the right.

Businesses can fire employees. Governments can't make citizens leave the country and stop using resources. The government running a surplus isn't robbing Peter to pay Paul. It is simply the government running a surplus.

And private companies can't print their own money.

I'm still waiting on your response Rabel. Examples of my lying? Since it has been a few days, you must know you are full of ****.

My govt emails? Sorry buddy but Ihaven't worked for the govt since I got out of the reserves in 09. Secret govt info? You are a joke.

One of the things corporations can do that government cant is vote thanks to the Supreme Court. Vote republican and get three more Judges that dont know their ass from a hole in the ground.

In the (Federal Gov't. ) case at hand the "other division" from which the money is borrowed is a pension fund that, for any public company, would be required to meet actuarial standards, and the obligation to it would have to be shown on the company's balance sheet. That is why such an action would be a criminal offense for any fiduciary of a public company, as I correctly indicated.

This statement of obligation very definately not the case in the event you described above with our Federal government, and to which I voiced the comparative objection.

You are either stupid or deliberately deceptive. Which is it? (I suspect both)

Considering Social Security was not set up as a pension fund, your argument is moot.

Or perhaps you are arguing that it is illegal for companies to invest in T-bills in their pension funds.

Good point, thanks!

My point related to the original proposition that started this digression, and that was whether the Federal debt or deficit grew or shrank in a given period. There are terms of art here which political advocates of all stripes use regularly to serve their interests at the moment. Parados employed a common device to assert that the Government enjoyed a real surplus in a period in which it's total indebitness actually grew. That was deliberately deceptive on his part, and in keeping with his frequent use of self-serving, but unstated definitions or distinctions that serve his purpose at the moment.

My statement referred to this deception by noting that the same thing done by a publically traded corporation could land its fiducairies in jail. That statement is true (as most of you have acknowledged), and my point was that by the accounting standards that govern our private finances or those of any company we may form, the government's debt actually grew. It is true the government has unique powers to print money, abrogate contracts; violate the actuarial standards it imposes on people and corporations. But it is also true that most of the basic economic principles that apply to individuals and companies apply just as well to governments, and history is filled with the bad outcomes that have resulted from ignoring them. Greece is providing us one now.

It is also true that government has powers and abilities to delay or reduce the consequences of these outcomes that private individuals or groups don't have - provided there are entities willing to lend them resources or continue to value their currencies and obligations. However, as history shows, these too have their limits and eventuially the same misdeeds yield the same results as beset individuals and companies.

Yes, because he decided not to be "popular" but realistic about the US economy and he went for what was best for the country in the long run.

And this is why I said that only brainwashed fanatics can't understand economy because they believe in fairy tale stories and live in a fake wealthy.

You are the head of a family, and rather than working hard you decided to trick the wealthy status in your house by using credit cards like crazy. Instead of balancing the budget, every year you acquire a greater debt.

You enjoy trading for a new car every year, huge flat TVs in your house, traveling around the world, etc.

Suddenly the banks demand for greater payments of your debt, and here is when you must wake up from the fake good wealthy of yours.

The US presidential administrations have followed the tendency to become popular at the cost of more debt instead of making the sacrifice of more taxes, and doing similar measurements to balance the budget and these administrations have abused the limit of debt to the point that huge budgets are always in increase "automatically" every fiscal year by all the government agencies without exception.

To make it worst, the Federal Bank has printed trillions of dollars without back up with gold or silver, in other words, there is a great percent of dollars circulating around the globe which are nothing but monopoly game money.

China knows about it, and with Russia are rejecting the use of dollars when trading between themselves. They will escalate the rejection of dollars to international trade and it is possible that many countries will follow them.

Why do you think this administration suddenly stop the embargo against Cuba and a ferry will connect the USA with the small island very soon?

The answer is that this administration is desperately looking for places where to send the rejected dollars from China and Russia. Those dollars can't come back to the US because they will create an immense inflation.

The US is increasing the illegal immigration tolerance because now is not the time to make more enemies around, otherwise these other countries will also reject the dollar.

The US is falling in its own trap, because is not a free country anymore, it has a huge debt and we can see that will go into wars rather than paying the debt.

This shouldn't be a problem if the production in the USA is strong, but sadly several companies have flee to other countries.

We have a huge debt because corrupt politicians caused it.

The recent military practices in Ukraine close to the Russian border are made to provoke a war, because an excuse must be made to attack Russia. But Russia is still standing cool, because China and Russia know that their plan will work.

And Hillary is not the right person for the next years when inflation will eventually reach the US. She has demonstrated to become deluded when she is under pressure.

The fantasy is to believe that with her the Clinton's years will come back, but the members of the Bill Clinton administration are old, dead, and even not interested, because the past is the past, and what it comes next is not pretty.

We will need a president with a "sane mind" and Hillary can't qualify for that.

Okay, if that was your point, then the resolution is easy: Yes, the federal deficit shrank during the presidency of President Clinton, whether you include Social Security or not. The choice of accounting method influences what level the deficit started from and when it vanished. But it doesn't influence the fact that the federal deficit shrank under Clinton.

Come to think about it, the accounting method also doesn't influence that the federal budget deficit soared under G.W. Bush. We were both on A2K when it happened, and I did not hear you complain about it at the time. Evidently then, you like budget deficits just fine when Republicans run them.

Sorry, georgeob1, but you don't get to redefine surplus for your political purposes. It's you that is being deceptive.

1. There was a surplus.
2. The government debt increased because the trust funds were borrowed from.

The final result is there was a surplus. Public held debt decreased.