Well, call it what you will, but the numbers straight out of the non partisan CBO had surplus from 1998 through 2001.
1998: $69,270,000,000
1999: $125,610,000,000
2000: $236,241,000,000
2001: $128,236,000,000
.
SS may not be the true definition of the classic ponzi scheme (which actually got named after the guy who 1st worked the massive scam by duping many New England residents into investing in a postage stamp speculation scheme back around 1920), but don't kid yourself, SS will go belly up in the next few decades. It's simply a matter of math.

Also, Social Security is not an unfunded liability, or a Ponzi scheme. Up until a fews years from now, it will have brought in more revenue each year than it has payed out. If Congress did not rob the fund over the years and replace it with I.O.U.'s, there would have been trillions of dollars to draw from when payments exceeded revenues. Basically, they spent the surplus. The problem isn't with the program itself.

The "surplus" under Clinton was accounting hocus pocus.

Russ & Paul are jumping on the budget wagon early. I am disappointed with Paul voting for TARP, and Russ voting for stimulus. It is only one vote out of many issues in D.C. but an important vote that the majority of people advised against. But they didn't listen. Why will they listen to us now?

The far left loves to condemn the evil "corporationism", but the reality is they LOVE corporations. The caveat being: AS LONG AS THEY CONTROL and RUN THEM! Of course when they (the governmnet) runs them, they bankrupt them, and society ends up falling apart from the economic melt down which ensues.
.
gwawcat: Yes; Brazil is one of the many examples one can site to the folly of governmnet spending pulling you out of economic down turn. Since someone had to put a link to Paul Krugman, who I believe is a total economic moron, I must put the link to an economist from the other side of the equation; in Lawrence Reed.
.
http://economics.gmu.edu/wew/articles/09...
.
It's a bit of reading, but if you have time on a rainy or snowy day to do some reading, it's a great essay on the total myths of the Great Depression.

Every thing Kiowamohican wrote is right on the $$$. I said from the start, spending didn't work in Brazil in the 80's, or Japan's stimulus in the 90's. Brazil went broke when not only did they put in the constitution free health care, but also free college education for every citizen. As hyperinflation hit Brazil's economy, the government debated for years of what caused it and how to fix the ecomony. Brazil finally fix the problem, and got the ecomony back on track.

"The problem with term limits is that lobbyists don't have them."
.
It needs to be repeated. It is time to end corporatism. Corporations are not people, and as such should not have the same rights granted to people.

* balanced budget amendment, I meant to say.
.
Government spending also never got us out of the Great depression. I would argue that it was governmnet spending that got us INTO the Great depression when we idiotically entered into WWI, and went into massive public debt. That whole leveraging scheme took a good 10 years to collapse, and many administrations unfairly took the blame for what was really bad policies past administrations (something that always seems to happen in almost every Presidency). Much the same will happen when SS collapses. Some poor President is going to be crucified when that goes belly up under his/her watch. When the reality is, it's the fault of many past administrations, and congress's.

We actually had a surplus in the 90's under Clinton, and a very conservative congress. It's to bad they never passed a balanced budget, once the budget went into surplus.
.
The Keynesian theory is not all bad. The multiplier concept, and other concepts it entails are simply unsound theory that simply don't work in practice. Government spending can indeed KICK START a down economy. That is the whole idea behind stimulus. It's just a means to get GROWTH going, which is how an economy thrives. The basic problem with the current stimulus is that is doing next to nothing to spur any SUSTAINED growth in the economy, and once the stimulus is removed the economy will just go back to the bad state it was in, and all you will have to show for it, is a larger public debt.

Actually, Keynesian economics says we should have a SURPLUS in the good times, and a DEFICIT in the bad times. Deficit spending has gotten us out of every recession, and the Great Depression. Unfortunately, Congress likes to spend in the good times too. We haven't had a surplus budget since the 60's. Don't blame the economist for that.

Krugman is just an ideological moron that writes for a newspaper that is loosing readers by the second, and is going bankrupt. Perhaps he should use his economic wisardry to save the NY Times from certain collapse!
.
He was the same guy clammering over and over how out of control the deficit was under Bush, and Reagan. Now that he gets his own ideological guy in office, the deficit is no big deal what so ever, and in fact we are not spending enough, LOL. That claim is, of course, utter NONSENSE, that is based off a Keynesian economic theory (the Keynesian multiplier) that has been totally discredited over and over throughout history.
.
The "real" deficit is actually FAR larger then the $11+ TRILLION that it currently is (and growing by the second). As when you figure in all the unfunded liabilities (SS, Medicare, Medicade) which are all huge Ponzi schemes that are all on the verge of going broke, the real number is well over $100 trillion in debt. A leveraging scheme that is far bigger then the CDO's that brought the world credit markets to their knees last year.
.
The US dollar has all ready been sinking like a stone vs all major foreign currencies the last decade as we borrow and print $$$. When SS, Medicare, and Medicade all have to be bailed out, the US credit rating will fall from AAA status and won't take long before it's of total junk status, much the same way California now is after tax and spend politicians have wrecked their economy.

The problem with term limits is that lobbyists don't have them.

Voters should have a choice. In the spirit of fair competition, I suggest the formation of the CATL party (C)onstitutional (A)mendment for (T)erm (L)imitations. I think it's important the CATL party have a voice in America. They should be heard.

(A)nybody (B)ut (T)he (I)ncumbent

Join the ABTI party.

Bounce 'em out! You know they gotta go.... Do you have the guts?

Well said bobb

Ryan,Feingold are so out of touch with average citizens that it would be funny if not so serious.Their photo-ops,glad handing public is so worn thin with their constieutents.
If either believe the just concluded elections(New Jersey,Virginia) were a vote against President Obama they are delusional.Those local elections (as Wi. will be) were about jobs,economy,taxes.No matter what party is in now (Dems,Reps,Ind.,Conservative)Will be voted out 2010 the likes of which have never been seen in American Political History.We the people are tired of empty promises from these career politicans.The days of them catering to lobbyiest,special interest groups,own agendas are over.They were elected to represent US,once proud,working,taxpayers.When they should face us,they turn their back(s) on us.
Pass legislation(in a matter of days,1000's of unread pages)to bail out the entities that created this economic nightmare,and leave Wisconsinites to fend for themselves.
For them to be leaders,where have they led?
If either is reelected,then we deserve the kick in the ass they mete out daily to us.ESPECIALLY these two,who know Rock County's unemployment situtation ,yet will not even look into basic rental,electrical assistance for those who need it most,UNEMPLOYED.
Get out from behind your cocktail,steak dinners and walk,talk with your constieutents instead of looking the other way.

The DEFICIT? We're in the largest economic crisis since the Great Depression and the worry here is ... the DEFICIT?
.
Paul Krugman believes that the stimulus was not large enough.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/02/opinio...
.
Krugman noted months ago that the countries that got out of the Depression more quickly were the ones that resorted to larger stimulus spending sooner.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07...
.
Now he's worried that the "conventional wisdom" is trending toward deficits as a "concern" of Wall Street, when the evidence is exactly the opposite. The political winds have nothing to do with what the economy actually needs. (I would add here that the "conventional wisdom" has been carefully nurtured by those whose agenda involves putting pressure on Obama to do exactly the wrong thing.)
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11...
.
Deficit spending, the numbers show, could be much larger than it is and still not be a grave concern. This is not a defense of structural deficit spending, but an economy in the dumps is the exact wrong time to talk about reining in spending. You will make aggregate demand plunge and push more people into joblessness.