lolz true the deficit is going down if you look at the way the administration figures the deficit.

Then you add in the cost of Iraq/Afghanistan (Those supplimental budget requests don't ya know)

Interesting take, but since wars aren't budgeted for per se, I don't think they count. We're talking about the cost of running the country, not other one time occurrences.

But if it makes you feel better...

So what your telling me is this Ron

Since I only bought one Wi-i or One new camera or any of a dozen differn things that are not normally considered everyday purchases (Or budgeted for) then they shouldn't count twords my totall debt?? If I have to make an emergency repair to my car or house it shouldn't have to add to the amount of Debt I carry?? That I shouldn't have to PAY for them??

RON FOR PRESIDENT!!!!

If the Federal Government spends it and our tax money PAYS for it then why wouldn't it add to the Federal Deficit (And be counted in figures such as these)??

I'd rather have Ron for President than Jeff, especially since Ron knows the difference between a debt and a deficit.

ROFL

Tatterdemalian

Why do you think I go into debt?? (Because I run a cash Deficit of X amount)

Why do you think the national debt is so large?? (Because the government runs a cash deficit of X amount every year)

If I were to run a buisness and use these accounting principles "I don't include everything I buy on the bottom line just those I budget for" how long do you think I would be able to stay in buisness??

Saying that the budget deficit is going down and NOT including everything you spend in said budget is just using smoke and mirrors to make yourself look good (Though it's the governemnt and they have been doing it a LONG time this way)

I would surmise that if you went back and looked at the Clinton Era budget SURPLUS'S you would find the exact same thing you find here.

Jeff,

Good job at creating a very bad strawman. Seriously, go back and read what I said and you'll see the error. We were talking about the deficit. If you look, I actually specified the cost to run the country. There's a good reason for that - it's normal accounting practices.

Now, to the matter at hand. When we're talking about the costs of running the country, we're talking about the normal costs. In fact, in normal and accepted accounting practices, this would be labeled as a one-time expense. One-time expenses are accounted for differently on a balance sheet. And yes, this is legal and accepted. Now, why is this? Because you need to look at whether or not you're running a profitable enterprise without those included. After the expense is finished accruing, then you move it into normal debt that must be managed and make budgetary adjustments.

So, unless you can prove that the current administration is labelling or accounting for the deficit differently than other administrations or outside of normal accounting practices, then do that. However, since you allude to the Clinton administration doing much the same thing, I'm going to assume that you were attempting to do nothing but slur the current administration so you don't have to admit that they're doing something good.

And to answer your question about using those accounting principles, well, every major corporation uses them, so I'm going to assume you'd stand a good chance of staying in business. Assuming you had a good product, solid marketing, and efficient operations.

Ron

Would you not define a one time expense as something that only happens ONE time?? Or would you define it as something that happens every year (Multiple times a year at that)

Given the lead time that a supplimental budget request needs to go thru you have to plan well in advance how much it is your going to need so that you can ensure you have at least a shot at getting the money on time.

You apparently are looking at the operational expenses of the war in Iraq/Afghanistan as perhaps a Capital expense (Needed in big business to purchase new equipment etc etc) yet even these are budgeted for well in advance IF the company is well run (Though on occasion something bad happens and you are unable to budget for it)

You do not budget out just what you THINK your going to need for 80% of the fiscal year Minus any capital expenses that you KNOW your going to need for that year and then go to your stock holders and say "See we are under budget and on time look how well we are doing" if you did you would be IN JAIL for FRAUD.

A one off expense that your talking about is something like what NASA had to do to replace the shuttle Challanger (It's an UNFORSEEN expense)

Trust me on this the supplemental finance bill is being written at the same time as all the other funding bills PROBABLY by the same people it's just not included with them for a purley political reason.

As for the "Slur the current administration" thing?? They do that well enough on thier own they don't need my help. I was just pointing out a problem with the OPs comic strip. I was actually pointing out the Clinton thing to show it's NOT just the shrub that does it but ALL politicians.

In fact after going back and looking at it replace tax cuts with tax increase and Pelosi et all with Gingritch et all and you have the same comic strip 10 years ago.

One time expense in a governmental expense, or even a business expense, means that it occurs one time. It's not a normal operating expense. Whether or not you've got future knowledge of it may or may not be relevant. Maybe it's paying off a large debt, maybe it's an actual emergency expense, maybe it's a supplemental request due to an on-going project that's costing more than originally budgeted for.

As for using one-time expenses, yes, that actually happens quite frequently. In fact, I was actually reading a financial statement in the last week that said the exact same thing I'm saying and the same thing the administration's saying. In essence, we're under budget and able to reduce the debt that we knew about when we put the budget together. Additional one-time expenses have been incurred that we need to address, however, we are doing exactly what we said we would the last time we gave a budget.

These are good and normally accepted accounting principles.

Maybe a better analogy would be someone's personal finances, but viewed appropriately. Amber and I actually spend less money than we make. This allows us to save money. Emergencies have certainly come up that have caused us to save less money than we'd like, so our budget isn't where we'd like it to be. That being said, our normal daily expenses are well within line. Since emergencies aren't the norm, there's no need to make real adjustments once we've paid for said emergencies.

On top of that, we've got debt. Normal debt, mind you, but we've got debt. We may or may not actually be ahead and have true net worth (depends on the equity of our condo and our investments), but we're able to manage that debt. According to accepted accounting principles, we may have had deficits in a given month, however, our overall deficit is in fact shrinking. Our debt, however, is still large (but shrinking as well). If I went out tomorrow and purchased a new car, we'd now have a $25K deficit for the purchase I've made (Nissan Xterra Off-Road). However, I don't have to pay that off this month or this year. I just need to be able to pay it off in the agreed upon time.

This isn't much different than the war. We're paying for our current expenses to run the country, managing and reducing the current debt. Yes, more debt is coming about, but that doesn't have to be paid this year. It has to be accounted for in the next budget.

Basic accounting here.

And FYI, referring to the President as "shrub" only diminishes any argument you've made. Especially when you refer to Clinton by name.

Ron

"In essence, we're under budget and able to reduce the debt that we knew about when we put the budget together"

Thats the kicker right there. "We knew about when we put the budget together" These supplimental requests are being put together at the same time and probably by the same people as the normal approprations bills. These are OPERATING expenses that are known about well in advance of requesting the money and should have just been rolled into the defense appropriations bill (But that would show the budget in a MUCH worse light than what is wanted)

If a company goes to it's stock holders/board with a budget proposal that puts them UNDER budget or shows the bottom line as being VERY rosy WHILE AT THE SAME TIME putting together a supplimental request (That they KNEW they were going to need when the budget cycle started for an ongoing operation To Explan:

BP goes to it's share holders with a budget that shows them making 1 billion dollars this year but then discovers that it will need 975 Million a year for the next 10 years to repair the alaskan pipeline. It's FINE not including that expense in the FIRST year (The year you discovered you were going to need it) but if you continue to not include this expense in your budget because it makes your company look more attractive then your commiting Fruad and you get put into jail for that (As has been happening more and more of late.)

"maybe it's a supplemental request due to an on-going project that's costing more than originally budgeted for."

Defense contractors have been put in jail/accrued massive fines for doing this as well (This is a VERY poor buisness practice if it happens over and over and over again. It means your not budgeting/managing your projects correctly.)

Supplimental requests are just that Suplimental. The requests the administration has been forwarding to congress are for the operational expenses for the wars (Not we budgedted 400 million for the war in Iraq and it turns out due to more things getting blown up we need 450 million this year but we didn't include ANYTHING for the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan this is what we will need)they did not go into the fiscal year expecting to spend nothing on the wars.

"Yes, more debt is coming about, but that doesn't have to be paid this year. It has to be accounted for in the next budget."

Thing here is it's Not being accounted for in the next budget (which is why the deficit keeps getting larger and larger)and if you decided to go out and buy another car in 6 months then another 4 months after that then another next year just rolling the costs of the cars into each other how long would you stay out of bankruptcy??

As far as the calling W shrub diminishing my argument then I guess you would consider saying the Iraqi war was not well planned as being unpatriotic and not supportive of our troops (As is the administrations stance)or better yet supporting terrorists. I could call George W Bush a turnip and this would not diminish the logic of what I have been saying.

The point is that this is an accepted accounting practice. Nothing you've said diminishes that. The prior supplemental requests should be included in the current budget. The others couldn't be because they aren't finalized when the budget is. They're supplimental as they aren't a normal operating expense. Once they're finalized, they get managed just like any other expense. Whether or not you think it should be different is completely irrelevant to the fact that these are perfectly acceptable accounting practices.

And again, your examples fail as you're strawmanning again. You've attempted to concoct an example that disproves the accounting practices when it doesn't fall into them. The key difference between your BP example is that the true expense wasn't defined at the time the other budget was finalized. Additional requests outside of that scope of $975MM may or may not be included - depends on the timing. The defense contractors who were in trouble would likely not have followed these guidelines, so that's a failed example as well.

Just because you know you're going to have an additional cost come up doesn't mean it's included in the normal operations budget. It's included when it's defined as well as possible and the capital authorization request (or supplemental budget request) is submitted. The CEO/CFO would let the stakeholders know that this was coming, but that it wasn't defined.

And on the car example, I wouldn't be in bankruptcy until I couldn't service the incremental debt that I keep accruing. Until that happens or can accurately be predicted that it will happen (or that the servicing of said debt will be seriously detrimental to normal operating expenses and budgets), it's not a big deal.

You are correct in that it could indicate poor management, but it doesn't necessarily prove poor management. Other factors must be present to prove poor management.

Again, this is accounting 101. Whether or not you like it is irrelevant.

Last point: the shrub comment tends to get you dismissed as a crank and/or not taken seriously. It can cause people to not even bother to look at your argument at all. If you've got the logic (which you don't here) to show wrong-doing, ineptness, etc., use that. Don't stoop to being insulting.

"I could call George W Bush a turnip and this would not diminish the logic of what I have been saying."

Except there *is* no logic in what you are saying, and you're still using the terms "debt" and "deficit" interchangably.

Still, this is the most entertainment I've had since I apparently slew the Dragon thread.

*Golf claps in agreement*

Ron

How about doing me the courtesy of actually READING and UNDERSTANDING what it is I am saying

The supplimental budget requests are being written concurently with the actuall appropriations bill. WHAT PART OF THAT DON'T YOU SEEM TO UNDERSTAND??

They KNOW they need the money WHEN they create the budget they CHOSE not to include it in the normal budgeting process to ensure a more rosey picture is presented than what would otherwise be the case.

Everything you have said has just been a misdirection and it's not on point.

Again I will say this for the slow

THE SUPPLIMENTAL and NORMAL Appropriations bills are being written AT THE SAME TIME probably by the SAME PEOPLE. The ONLY reason it's even called a suplimental appropriation is because they refuse to include it into the normal appropriations bill (For Political reasons)

If you submit your budget without including everything you KNOW that your going to need in it (Even though you have all the figures you need to be able to do so) and then go say "See my budget look how well I am doing" it doesn't pass the giggle test (Though it does apparently pass yours)

Your concentrating on what IS acceptable acounting practices but are focused in on one point the "One time expense" but what you are choosing to ignore is these are NOT one time expenses nore are they supplimental in the manner that they were unforseen or uncalculated at the time the defense appropriations bill was written. (Which is why the congress is talking about this being the last time this will be allowed to happen but even that isn't going to be true.) Again these bills are being written at the SAME time as the other bills they just are called something else so they don't have to be included in the budget outlook.

Do you REALLY think that all the prior supplimental appropriations bills for the last year was included in this years budget??

This shall be all I have to say simply because it's pointless to debate this when the ideolouge gap between us is so large (IE To me Bush is the worst thing to happen to the country in a LONG LONG time but to you he is the saviour of mankind)

How about doing me the courtesy of actually READING and UNDERSTANDING what it is I am saying Oddly enough, I've read and understood everything you've said. What you've failed to do, completely, I might add, is understand good accounting principles. If you'd say I see where they're following the principles, but I'm worried that we're accruing a debt that we can't service or something like that, this would be a different conversation. But since you keep arguing that the principles are incorrect, when they're clearly not, you keep getting the same response: This is accounting 101. Good accounting principles. Whether or not you like them is irrelevant.

The supplimental budget requests are being written concurently with the actuall appropriations bill. WHAT PART OF THAT DON'T YOU SEEM TO UNDERSTAND?? I understand every bit of it. Now, to prove that good accounting practices aren't being followed, you've got to prove the following:
1 - that the supplemental bill was completely finished prior to the final overall budget request
AND
2 - that the supplemental bill is a current and on-going normal part of the budget and an expense of running the country and should be included in it.

So far, you've not done either. You've said they are, but offered no proof. I've demonstrated what good accounting practices are and how they can be applied here. I've also stated that one-time expenses aren't considered part of normal operating expenses, and the difference between a deficit and a debt. You've demonstrated that you haven't grasped these concepts because you've offered no proof to support your claims.

They KNOW they need the money WHEN they create the budget they CHOSE not to include it in the normal budgeting process to ensure a more rosey picture is presented than what would otherwise be the case. Again, proof? And aside from the proof, I've also clearly stated that knowing you need money and knowing how much money you need are two different things. Until you've got the second part clearly defined, it can't be included in the budget - especially not a budget of normal operating expenses.

Everything you have said has just been a misdirection and it's not on point. I've been answering your points. The specific points you've made. If I'm misdirecting, it's in response to your misdirection. The fact is that I've laid out the good accounting principles and shown how they can apply here. You've clearly not offered any proof that they don't aside from saying that you really want them to.

Again I will say this for the slow Again with the insults. Is your argument that weak that you need to stoop this low?

THE SUPPLIMENTAL and NORMAL Appropriations bills are being written AT THE SAME TIME probably by the SAME PEOPLE. The ONLY reason it's even called a suplimental appropriation is because they refuse to include it into the normal appropriations bill (For Political reasons) A couple of key assumptions undermine your argument:
1 - that the supplemental request was/will be finalized by the time the budget is, and that it's approval will also be completed prior to operating expenses budget being approved.
2 - that this should be included in the normal operating expenses budget
3 - that incurring debt is the same as running a deficit.

The last point is central to your argument. You're attempting to demonstrate that the entire debt for the supplemental bill should be included in the budget. The simple fact is that it shouldn't. At best, the maintenance of that debt could be included - and that might still have a shrinking deficit if the surplus generated elsewhere is enough to cover said maintenance.

If you submit your budget without including everything you KNOW that your going to need in it (Even though you have all the figures you need to be able to do so) and then go say "See my budget look how well I am doing" it doesn't pass the giggle test (Though it does apparently pass yours) Nice strawman. I've actually already addressed this. More than once, I do believe. And that's not what I said. I spoke directly to the timing. And on top of that, I've laid out even more clear reasoning in the section just above this.

Your concentrating on what IS acceptable acounting practices but are focused in on one point the "One time expense" but what you are choosing to ignore is these are NOT one time expenses nore are they supplimental in the manner that they were unforseen or uncalculated at the time the defense appropriations bill was written. (Which is why the congress is talking about this being the last time this will be allowed to happen but even that isn't going to be true.) Again these bills are being written at the SAME time as the other bills they just are called something else so they don't have to be included in the budget outlook. Wars and emergencies are, in fact, one-time expenses. Whether or not there are additional requests for money as the originally budgeted for situations change (or don't change) doesn't change the nature that each supplemental request is a one-time expense of incurred debt. From there, the maintenance of that debt is included in future budgets. Again, you've confused debt and deficit. One-time, supplemental, and planned long-term debt aren't accrued during one specific budget, unless they can be incurred and paid off during that budget period.

Debt: total amount you owe.
Deficit: when your total income doesn't equal the maintenance of all your expenses.

You can increase your debt hugely but still not run into a deficit. Or, alternatively, due to other circumstances (cost-cutting measures, increases in income, etc.) you can incur an increasing amount of debt, but still have the overall shortfall of managing said deficit fall.

Do you REALLY think that all the prior supplimental appropriations bills for the last year was included in this years budget?? Prove that it hasn't been, or that good accounting practices haven't been followed. Until then I'll assume that they have been.

This shall be all I have to say simply because it's pointless to debate this when the ideolouge gap between us is so large (IE To me Bush is the worst thing to happen to the country in a LONG LONG time but to you he is the saviour of mankind) Two points to address here:
1 - So, since you've clearly not demonstrated your points, been reduced to insults and rehashing arguments, and not understood good accounting principles, you're giving up?
2 - Show me where I've said that Bush is the savior. In fact, show where I've actually defended the reasoning behind the bills and budget, supplemental or otherwise. In fact, show me where I've done anything other than demonstrate that good accounting principles easily explain how you can have a shrinking deficit and increasing debt.

The simple fact here is that you've lost this point. Badly, in fact.

Tat and Scott,

Glad that I can help with everyone's amusement. I do try so hard...

Not only is suplemental funding not included in the Federal budget, neither is Social Security obligations. The budget deficit that the CBO put out for FY 2006 was 248 billion dollars. In reality the budget deficit was 435 billion dollars. Because every penny of the social security and postal service surpluses, 185 billion dollars and 2 billion dollars respectively was used for other government requirements. Can we chalk that up as Bush's "FUZZY" math?