US Government borrowed $572 billion in FY06, second highest ever. (1 Viewer)

[Iriemon]

While President Bush brags that he cut the deficit "in half," what you won't read in the conservative MSM is that last year the Government borrowed $572 billion dollars, the second highest level of all time, and the forth straight year of borrowing in excess of $1/2 trillion dollars. Only 2004, when the Govt borrowed $596 billion was worse.

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

09/29/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50

Government debt has increase by $2.8 trillion dollars since President Bush took office, representing a 49% increase in the nation's debt since he took office 5 1/2 years ago.

 

[jujuman13]

Basically anything that Bush does is your fault.

The American Electoral College put him in Power, make the US elections into a TRUE Democratic system and perhaps you will get a halfway decent Government.......................

But I somehow doubt that this will occur.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

ALL Politicians are Liars
Most Politicians are Corrupt.

 

[KidRocks]

Basically anything that Bush does is your fault.

The American Electoral College put him in Power, make the US elections into a TRUE Democratic system and perhaps you will get a halfway decent Government.......................

But I somehow doubt that this will occur.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

ALL Politicians are Liars
Most Politicians are Corrupt.

Pssst, don't blame me, I voted for Kerry!

 

[danarhea]

Basically anything that Bush does is your fault.

The American Electoral College put him in Power, make the US elections into a TRUE Democratic system and perhaps you will get a halfway decent Government.......................

But I somehow doubt that this will occur.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

ALL Politicians are Liars
Most Politicians are Corrupt.

That answer only talks around the Q. In addition to the borrowing, 177 billion was raided from the Social Security Trust Fund, with a promise to pay it back. This constitutes a loan which has not been put in the ledger. This has been already documented in 2 threads.

 

[RightinNYC]

While President Bush brags that he cut the deficit "in half," what you won't read in the conservative MSM is that last year the Government borrowed $572 billion dollars, the second highest level of all time, and the forth straight year of borrowing in excess of $1/2 trillion dollars. Only 2004, when the Govt borrowed $596 billion was worse.

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

09/29/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50

Government debt has increase by $2.8 trillion dollars since President Bush took office, representing a 49% increase in the nation's debt since he took office 5 1/2 years ago.

I'm not doubting these numbers at all, but rather genuinely trying to understand something that's always confused me...

How exactly do these figures match up with the figures re: the deficit and social security.

If the deficit this year is "a paltry" $250 billion, and
If approx $177 billion has been taken from the SS fund, hidden from the on-budget deficit numbers...

That adds up to $427 billion. So where did we borrow the other $145 billion from?

 

[Iriemon]

I'm not doubting these numbers at all, but rather genuinely trying to understand something that's always confused me...

How exactly do these figures match up with the figures re: the deficit and social security.

If the deficit this year is "a paltry" $250 billion, and
If approx $177 billion has been taken from the SS fund, hidden from the on-budget deficit numbers...

That adds up to $427 billion. So where did we borrow the other $145 billion from?

That is a very good question that I raised in another thread, to which I don't know the answer. My guess is that about $50 billion is from borrowing assets from other pension trust funds that are generating surpluses, like government retirement (eg civil service, postal, and others) pensions. The rest may be "borrowed" from the Fed. I don't know, one of these days I plan to do some research into this.

 

[RightinNYC]

That is a very good question that I raised in another thread, to which I don't know the answer. My guess is that about $50 billion is from borrowing assets from other pension trust funds that are generating surpluses, like government retirement (eg civil service, postal, and others) pensions. The rest may be "borrowed" from the Fed. I don't know, one of these days I plan to do some research into this.

According to the Bureau of the Public Debt, the Debt held by the public increased from $4.601t to $4.843t between 9/30/05 and 9/30/06, which is about $242 billion. I assume that that is the figure being used to calculate the "deficit" as that's the money the gov is actually borrowing through T-bills and foreign lending.

Intragovernmental holdings increased during the same period from $3.331t to $3.663t, which is about $332 billion. So I guess that's the amount that must have come from SS, pensions, et al. (?)

 

[Iriemon]

According to the Bureau of the Public Debt, the Debt held by the public increased from $4.601t to $4.843t between 9/30/05 and 9/30/06, which is about $242 billion. I assume that that is the figure being used to calculate the "deficit" as that's the money the gov is actually borrowing through T-bills and foreign lending.

Intragovernmental holdings increased during the same period from $3.331t to $3.663t, which is about $332 billion. So I guess that's the amount that must have come from SS, pensions, et al. (?)

I saw that too; it is the et al part I don't know about.

 

[Iriemon]

This site suggest what is probably the answer -- it breaks down intra-govt debt between the SS trust fund and all other Govt trust funds, and shows that the amount borrowed from all other Govt trusts exceeds the amount from SS. These other funds are probably the main source of the $145 billion we can't account for between Govt operating deficits and the surplus of the SS taxes and the total amount borrowed.

http://zfacts.com/p/461.html


Borrowed by the General Fund – $ 8,552,226,816,757*

Saved by the Social Security Trust + $ 1,995,911,261,817
Saved by other Gov. Trust Funds + $ 3,537,859,669,944

Debt Held by the Public (net debt) – $ 5,014,367,146,812

 

[Deegan]

The whole thing makes my head hurt, but I do know this, I don't worry about this country, as much as I worry about the rest of the world. If the strongest economy know to man is in debt up to their eyeballs, then what does that say about the state the rest of the world is in?

 

[Hoot]

That is a very good question that I raised in another thread, to which I don't know the answer. My guess is that about $50 billion is from borrowing assets from other pension trust funds that are generating surpluses, like government retirement (eg civil service, postal, and others) pensions. The rest may be "borrowed" from the Fed. I don't know, one of these days I plan to do some research into this.

Not that this really matters, but I believe the federal gov does not fund postal service retirement..only the portion where the employee had some military duty is covered. Our taxes no longer go to operating the P.O.

 

[ProudAmerican]

While President Bush brags that he cut the deficit "in half," what you won't read in the conservative MSM is that last year the Government borrowed $572 billion dollars, the second highest level of all time, and the forth straight year of borrowing in excess of $1/2 trillion dollars. Only 2004, when the Govt borrowed $596 billion was worse.

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

09/29/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50

Government debt has increase by $2.8 trillion dollars since President Bush took office, representing a 49% increase in the nation's debt since he took office 5 1/2 years ago.

if you are going to post what was borrowed, dont you think its only fair to post what it was spent on?

give us a break down of where the money went.

 

[Iriemon]

Iriemon:

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

09/29/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50

Government debt has increase by $2.8 trillion dollars since President Bush took office, representing a 49% increase in the nation's debt since he took office 5 1/2 years ago.

if you are going to post what was borrowed, dont you think its only fair to post what it was spent on?

give us a break down of where the money went.

you can find a summary breakdown at

http://cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf

and a more detailed breakdown at:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/sheets/27_1.xls

 

[ProudAmerican]

good lord.

a quick glance through that budget and it pisses me off even more that you want the government to raise my taxes.

:roll:

 

[Iriemon]

good lord.

a quick glance through that budget and it pisses me off even more that you want the government to raise my taxes.

:roll:

So? Pass the buck. Like you said, why should we pay for what *our* government spends when we can stick it to the next generation and let them have to deal with it.

 

[ProudAmerican]

So? Pass the buck. Like you said, why should we pay for what *our* government spends when we can stick it to the next generation and let them have to deal with it.

yeah, lets give em more money so that list can increase again next year.

:roll:

 

[ProudAmerican]

Irie,

lets you and I both stop for a second......take a deep breath, and seriously look at this issue without trying to hit one another with a snappy comeback.

Do you not honestly see what you suggest as perpetuating the cycle?

If we give in, and allow taxes to be raised......IMO, that list would definately grow. its human nature for crying out loud. you WILL SPEND it if its there. and IMO thats whether the government is run by a (D) or an (R).

so taxes go up, the list grows by, oh a few hundred million. for whatever, social programs, military spending, highway construction.....whatever.

so 4 years go by, and the budget is ballanced.

someone runs for president on "lower taxes" and they win, and taxes are lowered.

now we can no longer pay for that LONGER LIST that was made back when re raised taxes the last time.

so a few years go by, liberals scream that the deficit is too high and we MUST RAISE TAXES to fix it. so we do,

the list again grows, simply because IT CAN.

oh my.......we dont have the funds again to cover the list so we must RAISE TAXES.

its a vicious cycle, and perpetuating it simply isnt the answer IMO.

if we do not DEMAND that the government learn to live within its means, we are destined to repeat history.

this country was formed because of high taxes.

I guess we will eventually come to a point where people like myself just wont take it anymore.

 

[Iriemon]

Irie,

lets you and I both stop for a second......take a deep breath, and seriously look at this issue without trying to hit one another with a snappy comeback.

Do you not honestly see what you suggest as perpetuating the cycle?

If we give in, and allow taxes to be raised......IMO, that list would definately grow. its human nature for crying out loud. you WILL SPEND it if its there. and IMO thats whether the government is run by a (D) or an (R).

so taxes go up, the list grows by, oh a few hundred million. for whatever, social programs, military spending, highway construction.....whatever.

so 4 years go by, and the budget is ballanced.

someone runs for president on "lower taxes" and they win, and taxes are lowered.

now we can no longer pay for that LONGER LIST that was made back when re raised taxes the last time.

so a few years go by, liberals scream that the deficit is too high and we MUST RAISE TAXES to fix it. so we do,

the list again grows, simply because IT CAN.

oh my.......we dont have the funds again to cover the list so we must RAISE TAXES.

its a vicious cycle, and perpetuating it simply isnt the answer IMO.

if we do not DEMAND that the government learn to live within its means, we are destined to repeat history.

this country was formed because of high taxes.

I guess we will eventually come to a point where people like myself just wont take it anymore.

I disagree with your underlying premise, on several grounds.

The first is your assertion that increasing taxes leads to more government spending, and decreasing taxes leads to less government spending. That is not supported by historical data. Taxes were raised and spending did not dramatically increase in the 90s. No major new spending programs were added. To the contrary, spending barely kept up with inflation in the 90s. Taxes were slashed by the Bush administration right out of the box, yet the second thing the Republicans did was pass the Drug Company Profit Enhancement act boondoggle, and spending during this Republican administration has grown more than twice as fast as it did under Clinton.

The opposite effect seems to play -- when taxes are lower, people seem to care less about what the government spends. I wonder how much less support for the Iraq war there would be if the Govt raised taxes to pay for it rather than borrowing the cost. OTOH, when taxes are higher, people want to know why and will more closely look at what is being spent.

By keeping taxes low, and borrowing heavily, Republicans take away the incentive for reducing spending, because most folks of the pass the buck generation either don't understand or don't care how much the Govt is borrowing.

The second is the proposition that by not increasing taxes, that will somehow force the government to cut spending. If the 80s and 00s have taught us anything, is that it doesn "force" the Govt to cut spending, it just borrows more and more and more.

Your proposition is that we should let the Govt keep borrowing until it gets around to cutting spending, if it ever does. That is a recipe that has put the country another $3 trillion in debt and guarantees a government that is limited and burdened with debt in the future. IMO that is the wrong thing to do to for America's future and the next generation of Americans.

The vicious cycle that is being perpetrated is more and more debt that will burden this country for decades.

So I have a suggestion, let's raise taxes enough to cover spending, pay for what our government spends, stop expecting future generations to pay for what we spend and borrow, and then when the government gets around to cutting spending, and pays down the debt so it's not obligated to pay $200 billion a year interest, we can have a real tax cuts and not these fake ones that are just deferring taxes to the next generation.

Yeah, taxes are no fun, I don't like paying them, and hopefully the Govt will cut spending, but that would be the stand up and honorable thing to do.

And if you just can't take a moderate tax increase now, you're really going to have problems in 10-15 years when taxes go up into the 50% range to pay for the boomers' retirement. Because guess what, the boomers are never going to vote to eliminate their retirement benefits, at least in any meaningful way.

 

[ProudAmerican]

The first is your assertion that increasing taxes leads to more government spending, and decreasing taxes leads to less government spending. That is not supported by historical data. Taxes were raised and spending did not dramatically increase in the 90s. No major new spending programs were added.

show me the total budget from the year Clinton took office and the total budget from the year he left office.

forgive me if I dont take your word for it.

Taxes were slashed by the Bush administration right out of the box, yet the second thing the Republicans did was pass the Drug Company Profit Enhancement act boondoggle, and spending during this Republican administration has grown more than twice as fast as it did under Clinton.

tell us what else they had to spend money on "right out of the box" irie.

The opposite effect seems to play -- when taxes are lower, people seem to care less about what the government spends. I wonder how much less support for the Iraq war there would be if the Govt raised taxes to pay for it rather than borrowing the cost. OTOH, when taxes are higher, people want to know why and will more closely look at what is being spent.

I bet you would be very surprised. if the government told us they had to raise taxes tomorrow......and EVERY DIME OF THAT INCREASE would go to fight the war on terror......the only people bitching would be hard core liberals that claim to support the troops but really dont.

By keeping taxes low, and borrowing heavily, Republicans take away the incentive for reducing spending, because most folks of the pass the buck generation either don't understand or don't care how much the Govt is borrowing.

they clearly took away the incentive alright. you dont even want to do it.

The second is the proposition that by not increasing taxes, that will somehow force the government to cut spending. If the 80s and 00s have taught us anything, is that it doesn "force" the Govt to cut spending, it just borrows more and more and more.

your argument is flawed because you want to give in. if we dont give in, and dont allow our taxes to be raised yet again......eventually the government will have no choice but to stop borrowing.

why should they stop borrowing when they know they can raise taxes to cover it? perpetuate the cycle.

Your proposition is that we should let the Govt keep borrowing until it gets around to cutting spending, if it ever does. That is a recipe that has put the country another $3 trillion in debt and guarantees a government that is limited and burdened with debt in the future. IMO that is the wrong thing to do to for America's future and the next generation of Americans.

my proposition is that we stop perpetuating the cycle. we force the government to live within its means the same way you and I have to do.

I borrowed for years. I lived outside my means for years. I had NO ONE I could go to to bail me out.

just under 24 months ago I figured out I had no choice but to live BELOW MY MEANS so I could PAY OFF THE MONEY I HAD BORROWED.

Just under 2 years later, my budget is balanced, and I did it without raising anyones taxes (or in my case, borrowing from yet another source to pay of the debt)

I dont know why you cant understand that by allowing them to raise taxes, you are allowing them to KEEP BORROWING. you bitch about them borrowing, and then condone it.

The vicious cycle that is being perpetrated is more and more debt that will burden this country for decades.

debt burdened me for a decade. for 10 years I lived beyond my means. I spent more than I earned.
when I finally realized I had to make a change or I would end up in bankruptcy......I didnt call my neighbor and demand he give me more money to bail myself out. I simply got on a budget, lived it and breathed it......and paid off 40,000 in credit card debt in under two years.

IT CAN BE DONE, BUT THE PEOPE MUST DEMAND IT. GIVING THE GOVERNMENT THE OUT OF TAKING MORE MONEY ISNT THE ANSWER.

So I have a suggestion, let's raise taxes enough to cover spending, pay for what our government spends, stop expecting future generations to pay for what we spend and borrow, and then when the government gets around to cutting spending, and pays down the debt so it's not obligated to pay $200 billion a year interest, we can have a real tax cuts and not these fake ones that are just deferring taxes to the next generation.

I have a better idea.....

lets force the government to slash that huge budget you posted. lets force them to make do with the ABSOLUTELY HUGE AMMOUNT they already receive in taxes. lets make them live within their means, like I had to do.

Yeah, taxes are no fun, I don't like paying them, and hopefully the Govt will cut spending, but that would be the stand up and honorable thing to do.

Taxes are required. I have no problem at all paying my taxes. its the patriotic, American thing to do. however, if I allow you to make policy, its very likely that one day I will be paying 65% of my income in taxes. maybe even 70%. thats not patriotic, thats robery.

And if you just can't take a moderate tax increase now, you're really going to have problems in 10-15 years when taxes go up into the 50% range to pay for the boomers' retirement. Because guess what, the boomers are never going to vote to eliminate their retirement benefits, at least in any meaningful way.

I will be fully retired 15 years from now. that whole death tax thing you hate is going to set me for the rest of my life.

 

[danarhea]

According to the Bureau of the Public Debt, the Debt held by the public increased from $4.601t to $4.843t between 9/30/05 and 9/30/06, which is about $242 billion. I assume that that is the figure being used to calculate the "deficit" as that's the money the gov is actually borrowing through T-bills and foreign lending.

Intragovernmental holdings increased during the same period from $3.331t to $3.663t, which is about $332 billion. So I guess that's the amount that must have come from SS, pensions, et al. (?)

Not taken into account in those figures is $177 billion which was "borrowed" from the Social Security Trust Fund. Add that to the $242 billion, and you arrive at the actual number, which is $419 billion.

 

[Iriemon]

show me the total budget from the year Clinton took office and the total budget from the year he left office.

forgive me if I dont take your word for it.

Year - total outlays - % increase from previous year

1993 1,409.50 2.01%
1994 1,461.90 3.72%
1995 1,515.80 3.69%
1996 1,560.50 2.95%
1997 1,601.30 2.61%
1998 1,652.60 3.20%
1999 1,701.90 2.98%
2000 1,788.80 5.11%
2001 1,863.80 4.19%
2002 2,011.00 7.90%
2003 2,157.60 7.29%
2004 2,292.20 6.24%
2005 2,472.20 7.85%
2006 2,656.00 7.43%

Source: CBO.gov

tell us what else they had to spend money on "right out of the box" irie.

I don't know. What?

I bet you would be very surprised. if the government told us they had to raise taxes tomorrow......and EVERY DIME OF THAT INCREASE would go to fight the war on terror......the only people bitching would be hard core liberals that claim to support the troops but really dont.

You think? There has been a death of Republicans here clamoring for a tax increase to pay for the war.

your argument is flawed because you want to give in. if we dont give in, and dont allow our taxes to be raised yet again......eventually the government will have no choice but to stop borrowing.

When? When its debt is so high it risks defaulting on its obligation because no one well lend the govt more money at reasonable interest rates? Or when the interest expense reaches a trillion a year?

Great strategy.

why should they stop borrowing when they know they can raise taxes to cover it? perpetuate the cycle.

Exactly

my proposition is that we stop perpetuating the cycle. we force the government to live within its means the same way you and I have to do.

I still haven't heard your explanation for what the plan is in the meantime.

I borrowed for years. I lived outside my means for years. I had NO ONE I could go to to bail me out.

Yeah, wouldn't it be great to be the Govt.

just under 24 months ago I figured out I had no choice but to live BELOW MY MEANS so I could PAY OFF THE MONEY I HAD BORROWED.

Just under 2 years later, my budget is balanced, and I did it without raising anyones taxes (or in my case, borrowing from yet another source to pay of the debt)

You could have made more money too.

I dont know why you cant understand that by allowing them to raise taxes, you are allowing them to KEEP BORROWING. .

I don't know why you can't understand that it will KEEP BORROWING anyway, as long as its revenues are insufficient.

you bitch about them borrowing, and then condone it.

I condone borrowing? I'm not the one who is proposing the Govt continues borrowing until some mythical day the baby boomers vote to slash their retirement benefits. That's your plan.

My plan is to stop borrowing now, I don't care how they do it. Whatever it takes.

But you won't say that, will you.

debt burdened me for a decade. for 10 years I lived beyond my means. I spent more than I earned. when I finally realized I had to make a change or I would end up in bankruptcy......I didnt call my neighbor and demand he give me more money to bail myself out. I simply got on a budget, lived it and breathed it......and paid off 40,000 in credit card debt in under two years.

You didn't make more money over those 10 years?

IT CAN BE DONE, BUT THE PEOPE MUST DEMAND IT. GIVING THE GOVERNMENT THE OUT OF TAKING MORE MONEY ISNT THE ANSWER.

No, raising revenues cuts the deficits too. That is what happened in the 90s.

Taxes are required. I have no problem at all paying my taxes. its the patriotic, American thing to do. however, if I allow you to make policy, its very likely that one day I will be paying 65% of my income in taxes. maybe even 70%. thats not patriotic, thats robery.

We did just fine with a 39% rate.

I will be fully retired 15 years from now. that whole death tax thing you hate is going to set me for the rest of my life.

Good for you. I'll keep that in mind while I contemplate paying higher taxes so you can get money you didn't work for tax free.

 

[Iriemon]

I have a better idea.....

How about this: Let's have a constitutional amendment or at least a law that mandates that the government can spend no more than its revenues, kind of like the Graham-Rudman thing in the 90s. If fact, the Govt should be forced to run a surplus of $100 billion a year until the debt gets to 33% of GDP, like it was in 1980.

That will require the Govt to cut spending, raise taxes, or both, to stop borrowing.

Are you with me on that? Or are you against a balanced budget proposal because the Govt might raise taxes and you'd rather have it keep borrowing?

 

[ProudAmerican]

Year - total outlays - % increase from previous year

spending clearly increased.....even though taxes were raised.

I don't know. What?

lol. of course you know what.

You think? There has been a death of Republicans here clamoring for a tax increase to pay for the war.

yes I think.

When? When its debt is so high it risks defaulting on its obligation because no one well lend the govt more money at reasonable interest rates? Or when the interest expense reaches a trillion a year?

I dont know when. It took me a decade to figure it out.

I still haven't heard your explanation for what the plan is in the meantime.

it isnt to give more of my money to them to waste.

Yeah, wouldn't it be great to be the Govt.

using your logic all I had to do was pick up the phone and call....er.....YOU. clearly you would have bailed me out.

You could have made more money too.

oh I did. I took on a second job and EARNED IT. but no one GAVE ME ANYTHING.

I don't know why you can't understand that it will KEEP BORROWING anyway, as long as its revenues are insufficient.

borrowing from whom?

I condone borrowing?

yep. from US. you see, I know you dont realize this, but its NOT THE GOVERNMENTS MONEY. they are BORROWING IT FROM US.

My plan is to stop borrowing now, I don't care how they do it. Whatever it takes.

no, your plan is to simply give them a DIFFERENT SOURCE to borrow from.

But you won't say that, will you.

absolutely. they should stop borrowing FROM ALL SOURCES whatever it takes.

You didn't make more money over those 10 years?

yep. I took on odd jobs. I EARNED IT. no one GAVE IT TO ME.

No, raising revenues cuts the deficits too. That is what happened in the 90s.

its happening now too. theres a thread on the topic you may have seen.

We did just fine with a 39% rate.

so what. you are demanding it be raised everytime the government overspends.

Good for you. I'll keep that in mind while I contemplate paying higher taxes so you can get money you didn't work for tax free.

while you are at it, contemplate the welfare state living for free so we both have to pay higher taxes.

tell ya what, as soon as the we eliminate the welfare state, I will pay my fair share of death taxes.

 

[ProudAmerican]

How about this: Let's have a constitutional amendment or at least a law that mandates that the government can spend no more than its revenues, kind of like the Graham-Rudman thing in the 90s. If fact, the Govt should be forced to run a surplus of $100 billion a year until the debt gets to 33% of GDP, like it was in 1980.

That will require the Govt to cut spending, raise taxes, or both, to stop borrowing.

Are you with me on that? Or are you against a balanced budget proposal because the Govt might raise taxes and you'd rather have it keep borrowing?

as long as the spending cuts are equal accross the board......if military spending is cut 20%, then I want to see welfare cut 20%.

if you agree to that, you have a deal.

 

[Iriemon]

Originally Posted by Iriemon
How about this: Let's have a constitutional amendment or at least a law that mandates that the government can spend no more than its revenues, kind of like the Graham-Rudman thing in the 90s. If fact, the Govt should be forced to run a surplus of $100 billion a year until the debt gets to 33% of GDP, like it was in 1980.

That will require the Govt to cut spending, raise taxes, or both, to stop borrowing.

Are you with me on that? Or are you against a balanced budget proposal because the Govt might raise taxes and you'd rather have it keep borrowing?

as long as the spending cuts are equal accross the board......if military spending is cut 20%, then I want to see welfare cut 20%.

if you agree to that, you have a deal.

That wasn't what I proposed at all. What I proposed a balanced budget law. I thought you might agree with that, since you claim you are against more debt.

But I can see now you would be against forcing the Govt to spend within its revenues as well.