The Deficit: Comparing 2010 to 2000 when we had a surplus

[Sactowndog]

So if you care about the deficit it might be useful to look at the last time we have a balanced budget (2000) and compare it with today's budget (2010). Not suprisingly both sides are playing fast and loose with the truth...

Of course you have to adjust for the growth of the economy. The common approach is to normalize the data in terms of making it all a percentage of GDP. I have looked at budget categories as a percent of GDP and compared 2000 and 2010. Remember 2000 was also a Democratic President and Republican Congress. They compromised to balance the budget.

The biggest gaps then and now in descending order are:

Revenue's: Currently are down 5.7% as a percent of GDP compared to 2000
Top marginal tax rates are at an all time low, Capital gains rates are 5% below an all time low. Hard to make a case the wealthy are overtaxed and by historical standards they are undertaxed. The Bush tax cuts should be repealed

Defense: Currently up 1.75% as a percent of GDP compared to 2000
You can't run 3 wars and maintain troops in places of all wars past. We have a constitutional mandate to defend the country but we don't have one to defend the rest of the world. Need a real discussion here what is affordable and practicable. Let other coutries pay for their own defense.

Medicare: Currently up 1.1% as a percentage of GDP compared to 2000
Well we can thank Bush for perscription drug benefits but the Ryan plan at least trys to make a real effort to control costs. Democrats are wrong for demonizing the plan and mobilizing seniors against it. With some type of benefit floor Ryan's plan is credible and should be adopted.

Unemployment compensation: Currently up .97% of GDP compared to 2000
We need a revenue nuetral restructuring of our tax code to generate jobs. My choice, eliminate corporate income taxes, raise the capital gains tax to the level of income tax, tax net capital sent overseas. This will generate tax revenue from overseas investment and provide capital for local businesses to grow.

Health: Currently up .82% of GDP compared to 2000
You can't expand access without significant cost cuts in the system. Republicans need to stop talking about repeal and modify the system to impose significant cost reductions that were left out of the original bill. Stop playing political games and help the country.

Social Security: Currently up .70% of GDP compared to 2000
No idea what to do here. Should have been taken care of long ago. Most want back the money they put in but the money was long since given to their grandparents. Have no sense of a solution.

Enough for now. I would post links to support my points but I am not yet allowed.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

A growing economy, and not higher taxes is what raises revenues

 

[Sactowndog]

A growing economy, and not higher taxes is what raises revenues

So if you compare Revenue as a percent of GDP is much lower than other years where we had recessions and when Bush passed his tax cut we immediately went from surplus to deficit. So your point of just growing the economy will fix the revenue side isn't supported by the truth.

This is supported by Simpsons comments.

 

[kaz]

The Deficit: Comparing 2010 to 2000 when we had a surplus

If we had a surplus in 2000, why did the national debt go up that year?

 

[brono921]

Revenue's: Currently are down 5.7% as a percent of GDP compared to 2000
Not surprising. GDP is down, uneployment has doubled, gas prices have doubled, revenue has no where to go but down. Unfortunately your premise of taking more money from people to solve the problem is fundamentally flawed. Doing this only exacerbates the problem. People have less to spend on basic essentials, the cost of day to day living increases, savings decrease, and unemployment rises ever further higher as the cost to businesses has to be offset by smaller overhead.
That means fewer jobs.
Nice job, chief.

Defense: Currently up 1.75% as a percent of GDP compared to 2000
Perhaps Obama should go before Congress and the UN like George Bush did before arbitrarily deciding who we go to war with?

Medicare: Currently up 1.1% as a percentage of GDP compared to 2000
Perhaps you should look at expenditures BEFORE government got into the healthcare business. I know how shocking this must seem to those who love bloated government, but anytime government gets into business, the cost shoots up astronomically.

Unemployment compensation: Currently up .97% of GDP compared to 2000
That's because benefits keep getting extended. You can thank government regulations upon regulations for this problem.

Health: Currently up .82% of GDP compared to 2000
Speaking as someone in the healthcare industry, I can readily attest that government paperwork takes more than half of a doctors time in a single work day, thus he/she sees less patients. The nightmare will only get worse when Obama takes over the industry entirely.

Social Security: Currently up .70% of GDP compared to 2000
No idea what to do here. Should have been taken care of long ago.
Bush tried. Democrats response? There isn't a problem with Social Security. Those guys are so smart, ain't they?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

foolish people think we had a surplus. We didn't, Clinton had money diverted from SS to the general fund

 

[iamwhatiseem]

There was no surplus.
For one - the gov't uses cash accounting, which is completely asinine.

In cash accounting, you can borrow $5000 to pay a $4000 debt - and claim you are $1000 ahead.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So if you care about the deficit it might be useful to look at the last time we have a balanced budget (2000) and compare it with today's budget (2010). Not suprisingly both sides are playing fast and loose with the truth...

Of course you have to adjust for the growth of the economy. The common approach is to normalize the data in terms of making it all a percentage of GDP. I have looked at budget categories as a percent of GDP and compared 2000 and 2010. Remember 2000 was also a Democratic President and Republican Congress. They compromised to balance the budget.

The biggest gaps then and now in descending order are:

Revenue's: Currently are down 5.7% as a percent of GDP compared to 2000
Top marginal tax rates are at an all time low, Capital gains rates are 5% below an all time low. Hard to make a case the wealthy are overtaxed and by historical standards they are undertaxed. The Bush tax cuts should be repealed

Defense: Currently up 1.75% as a percent of GDP compared to 2000
You can't run 3 wars and maintain troops in places of all wars past. We have a constitutional mandate to defend the country but we don't have one to defend the rest of the world. Need a real discussion here what is affordable and practicable. Let other coutries pay for their own defense.

Medicare: Currently up 1.1% as a percentage of GDP compared to 2000
Well we can thank Bush for perscription drug benefits but the Ryan plan at least trys to make a real effort to control costs. Democrats are wrong for demonizing the plan and mobilizing seniors against it. With some type of benefit floor Ryan's plan is credible and should be adopted.

Unemployment compensation: Currently up .97% of GDP compared to 2000
We need a revenue nuetral restructuring of our tax code to generate jobs. My choice, eliminate corporate income taxes, raise the capital gains tax to the level of income tax, tax net capital sent overseas. This will generate tax revenue from overseas investment and provide capital for local businesses to grow.

Health: Currently up .82% of GDP compared to 2000
You can't expand access without significant cost cuts in the system. Republicans need to stop talking about repeal and modify the system to impose significant cost reductions that were left out of the original bill. Stop playing political games and help the country.

Social Security: Currently up .70% of GDP compared to 2000
No idea what to do here. Should have been taken care of long ago. Most want back the money they put in but the money was long since given to their grandparents. Have no sense of a solution.

Enough for now. I would post links to support my points but I am not yet allowed.

Another doggie on the board! Welcome!

Sadly, there was no surplus....as other boardies have pointed out.

Here:

1. Would you like to see the actual national debt figures?
1993 4,351,044
1994 4,643,307
1995 4,920,586
1996 5,181,465
1997 5,369,206
1998 5,478,189
1999 5,605,523
2000 5,628,700

Historical Tables | The White House (table 7.1)

The table 7.1 will also show that he inherited a $4 trillion debt.

That means the debt increased 41% under Clinton.And no wars or military build up to blame it on!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Deficit: Comparing 2010 to 2000 when we had a surplus

If we had a surplus in 2000, why did the national debt go up that year?

Actual one year of the national debt going up does not take away from what they call a surplus, but if the national debt goes up year AFTER YEAR THEN THERE IS NO SURPLUS.

 

[Toronado3800]

So if you care about the deficit it might be useful to look at the last time we have a balanced budget (2000) and compare it with today's budget (2010). Not suprisingly both sides are playing fast and loose with the truth...

Of course you have to adjust for the growth of the economy. The common approach is to normalize the data in terms of making it all a percentage of GDP. I have looked at budget categories as a percent of GDP and compared 2000 and 2010. Remember 2000 was also a Democratic President and Republican Congress. They compromised to balance the budget.

The biggest gaps then and now in descending order are:

Revenue's: Currently are down 5.7% as a percent of GDP compared to 2000
Top marginal tax rates are at an all time low, Capital gains rates are 5% below an all time low. Hard to make a case the wealthy are overtaxed and by historical standards they are undertaxed. The Bush tax cuts should be repealed

Defense: Currently up 1.75% as a percent of GDP compared to 2000
You can't run 3 wars and maintain troops in places of all wars past. We have a constitutional mandate to defend the country but we don't have one to defend the rest of the world. Need a real discussion here what is affordable and practicable. Let other coutries pay for their own defense.

Medicare: Currently up 1.1% as a percentage of GDP compared to 2000
Well we can thank Bush for perscription drug benefits but the Ryan plan at least trys to make a real effort to control costs. Democrats are wrong for demonizing the plan and mobilizing seniors against it. With some type of benefit floor Ryan's plan is credible and should be adopted.

Unemployment compensation: Currently up .97% of GDP compared to 2000
We need a revenue nuetral restructuring of our tax code to generate jobs. My choice, eliminate corporate income taxes, raise the capital gains tax to the level of income tax, tax net capital sent overseas. This will generate tax revenue from overseas investment and provide capital for local businesses to grow.

Health: Currently up .82% of GDP compared to 2000
You can't expand access without significant cost cuts in the system. Republicans need to stop talking about repeal and modify the system to impose significant cost reductions that were left out of the original bill. Stop playing political games and help the country.

Social Security: Currently up .70% of GDP compared to 2000
No idea what to do here. Should have been taken care of long ago. Most want back the money they put in but the money was long since given to their grandparents. Have no sense of a solution.

Enough for now. I would post links to support my points but I am not yet allowed.

Another doggie on the board! Welcome!

Sadly, there was no surplus....as other boardies have pointed out.

Here:

1. Would you like to see the actual national debt figures?
1993 4,351,044
1994 4,643,307
1995 4,920,586
1996 5,181,465
1997 5,369,206
1998 5,478,189
1999 5,605,523
2000 5,628,700

Historical Tables | The White House (table 7.1)

The table 7.1 will also show that he inherited a $4 trillion debt.

That means the debt increased 41% under Clinton.And no wars or military build up to blame it on!

Thank you for providing the numbers for Clinton.

Man won an election against a war hero president due to a bad economy and did wonders to the yearly deficit during his reign.

Perhaps because he was too tired from after hours activities, none the less a post wwii economic wonder.

United States Debt Deficit History - Charts

Anything else shows a certain half empty glass or perhaps paid bias.

 

[code1211]

A growing economy, and not higher taxes is what raises revenues

So if you compare Revenue as a percent of GDP is much lower than other years where we had recessions and when Bush passed his tax cut we immediately went from surplus to deficit. So your point of just growing the economy will fix the revenue side isn't supported by the truth.

This is supported by Simpsons comments.

There never was a suplus. 2000 came close, but did not balance.

The deficits began to grow again from that point forward and increased in 2001 under the last of Clinton's budgets and did so again in 2002 and again in 2003. The Bush tax cuts took effect in 2003.

 

[skookerasbil]

The new k00k has been on here for all of 5 mintues and is already getting pwned.........

I love this forum.............

 

[xsited1]

...

Revenue's: Currently are down 5.7% as a percent of GDP compared to 2000
Top marginal tax rates are at an all time low, Capital gains rates are 5% below an all time low. Hard to make a case the wealthy are overtaxed and by historical standards they are undertaxed. The Bush tax cuts should be repealed

...

Americans are already overtaxed. They have been for a long time. Go back to pre-WWII levels and you'll see that historically, we are overtaxed.

Keep the Bush tax cuts. Cut spending instead. Problem solved.

 

[Toro]

The Deficit: Comparing 2010 to 2000 when we had a surplus

If we had a surplus in 2000, why did the national debt go up that year?

A surplus is the difference between revenues and expenditures. We had a surplus in 1998, 1999 and 2000.

The gross national debt rose because of increases in liabilities in the SS and Medicare and Medicaid trusts. However, that is intra-government debt. If you net out the credits to the Treasury with debits to the trusts, United States federal government debt fell.

 

[Toro]

So if you care about the deficit it might be useful to look at the last time we have a balanced budget (2000) and compare it with today's budget (2010). Not suprisingly both sides are playing fast and loose with the truth...

Of course you have to adjust for the growth of the economy. The common approach is to normalize the data in terms of making it all a percentage of GDP. I have looked at budget categories as a percent of GDP and compared 2000 and 2010. Remember 2000 was also a Democratic President and Republican Congress. They compromised to balance the budget.

The biggest gaps then and now in descending order are:

Revenue's: Currently are down 5.7% as a percent of GDP compared to 2000
Top marginal tax rates are at an all time low, Capital gains rates are 5% below an all time low. Hard to make a case the wealthy are overtaxed and by historical standards they are undertaxed. The Bush tax cuts should be repealed

Defense: Currently up 1.75% as a percent of GDP compared to 2000
You can't run 3 wars and maintain troops in places of all wars past. We have a constitutional mandate to defend the country but we don't have one to defend the rest of the world. Need a real discussion here what is affordable and practicable. Let other coutries pay for their own defense.

Medicare: Currently up 1.1% as a percentage of GDP compared to 2000
Well we can thank Bush for perscription drug benefits but the Ryan plan at least trys to make a real effort to control costs. Democrats are wrong for demonizing the plan and mobilizing seniors against it. With some type of benefit floor Ryan's plan is credible and should be adopted.

Unemployment compensation: Currently up .97% of GDP compared to 2000
We need a revenue nuetral restructuring of our tax code to generate jobs. My choice, eliminate corporate income taxes, raise the capital gains tax to the level of income tax, tax net capital sent overseas. This will generate tax revenue from overseas investment and provide capital for local businesses to grow.

Health: Currently up .82% of GDP compared to 2000
You can't expand access without significant cost cuts in the system. Republicans need to stop talking about repeal and modify the system to impose significant cost reductions that were left out of the original bill. Stop playing political games and help the country.

Social Security: Currently up .70% of GDP compared to 2000
No idea what to do here. Should have been taken care of long ago. Most want back the money they put in but the money was long since given to their grandparents. Have no sense of a solution.

Enough for now. I would post links to support my points but I am not yet allowed.

Another doggie on the board! Welcome!

Sadly, there was no surplus....as other boardies have pointed out.

Here:

1. Would you like to see the actual national debt figures?
1993 4,351,044
1994 4,643,307
1995 4,920,586
1996 5,181,465
1997 5,369,206
1998 5,478,189
1999 5,605,523
2000 5,628,700

Historical Tables | The White House (table 7.1)

The table 7.1 will also show that he inherited a $4 trillion debt.

That means the debt increased 41% under Clinton.And no wars or military build up to blame it on!

Again, this is misleading.

Finance 101:

An increase in gross debt does not imply deficits.

The net debt - which nets out total debt with government assets - fell. Any financial analyst knows this is a positive, not a negative.

The rise in total gross national debt was because of an increase in payroll tax receipts, which creates a credit to the US Treasury but is a debit in the government trusts. The increase in debt to the US Treasury is offset by an increase in assets to the trusts. It nets to zero, all else being equal.

Government accounting for the national debt is explained here.

 

[Sactowndog]

Not surprising. GDP is down, uneployment has doubled, gas prices have doubled, revenue has no where to go but down. Unfortunately your premise of taking more money from people to solve the problem is fundamentally flawed. Doing this only exacerbates the problem. People have less to spend on basic essentials, the cost of day to day living increases, savings decrease, and unemployment rises ever further higher as the cost to businesses has to be offset by smaller overhead.
That means fewer jobs.
Nice job, chief.

Marginal tax rates are near historical lows (can't post the link yet)

Capital gains taxes are 5% below historical lows
Same situation

Tax revenues stand significantly below any previous post WW2 recession. If your point were true than revenue per GDP should be equal but it isn't close. At 14% of GDP it was 3.5% below any other recession. Lastly when Clinton and the Republican house raised taxes last time it did not result in any job loss.

Lastly if you are raising taxes on those making over a million your point of spending less does not hold.

 

[Sactowndog]

1. Would you like to see the actual national debt figures?
1993 4,351,044
1994 4,643,307
1995 4,920,586
1996 5,181,465
1997 5,369,206
1998 5,478,189
1999 5,605,523
2000 5,628,700


The table 7.1 will also show that he inherited a $4 trillion debt.
[/QUOTE]

Seems like you are leaving out an important column which is the held by Federal Government accounts column. The same document shows that yeah as being a surplus which I am sure you knew.

The point is not to argue about government accounting. The point is 2000 paints a fairly realistic map of what must be done to get back on track. At least for those few of us who are not ideological extemists.

 

[code1211]

The Deficit: Comparing 2010 to 2000 when we had a surplus

If we had a surplus in 2000, why did the national debt go up that year?

A surplus is the difference between revenues and expenditures. We had a surplus in 1998, 1999 and 2000.

The gross national debt rose because of increases in liabilities in the SS and Medicare and Medicaid trusts. However, that is intra-government debt. If you net out the credits to the Treasury with debits to the trusts, United States federal government debt fell.

When i used to have budgetary responsibilities, I knew that i could make any defined period look good or at least better if the period from which I robbed did not matter. For that reason, I am very suspiscious of accounting tricks and adjustments.

For the purposes of reality, if the debt went up, there was no surplus. If the debt went down there was a surplus. The debt has not decreased in recent memory.

07/22/2009

09/30/2008
11,634,723,000,000.00

10,024,724,896,912.49

09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86


09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25

 

[Toro]

When i used to have budgetary responsibilities, I knew that i could make any defined period look good or at least better if the period from which I robbed did not matter. For that reason, I am very suspiscious of accounting tricks and adjustments.

For the purposes of reality, if the debt went up, there was no surplus. If the debt went down there was a surplus. The debt has not decreased in recent memory.

07/22/2009

09/30/2008
11,634,723,000,000.00

10,024,724,896,912.49

09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86


09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25

This is poor financial analysis. You are only looking at one side of the balance sheet and extrapolating cash flows from changes on that line of the balance sheet. That is wrong. It's not an accounting trick nor an adjustment. It's simple Finance 101.

Your argument is that increases in long-term debt equates to negative cash flow, i.e. a deficit. Let's apply your logic to a corporation.

Here is Microsoft's long-term debt.

Q3 2011, $11.9 billion
2010, $4.9 billion
2009, $3.7 billion
2008, $0

MSFT Balance Sheet | Microsoft Corporation Stock - Yahoo! Finance

Look at that. Every year, Microsoft's gross long-term debt rose. By your logic, Microsoft had negative cash flow of $3.7 billion in 2009, $1.2 billion in 2010, and $7 billion in the first three quarters of this year. Right?

Wrong.

Cash flow generated by operations less cash generated by investing activities is all internally generated capital generated by a company, including investment activities. Let's look at all of Microsoft's internally generated cash.

Q3 2011, +$1.5 billion
2010, +$10.7 billion
2009, +$3.3 billion
2008, +17.2 billion

MSFT Cash Flow | Microsoft Corporation Stock - Yahoo! Finance

As you can see, Microsoft generated cash flow, even though it's gross long-term debt rose, i.e it ran a surplus even while its debt went up.

A surplus is when revenues exceed expenses. A deficit is when expenses exceed revenues. Nothing more. The only people who make the argument that there were no surpluses at the end of the Clinton era are conservatives and/or Republicans with little to no understanding of how government accounting works. You don't hear it from conservative economists or financial experts. Why? Because they know its wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So if you care about the deficit it might be useful to look at the last time we have a balanced budget (2000) and compare it with today's budget (2010). Not suprisingly both sides are playing fast and loose with the truth...

Of course you have to adjust for the growth of the economy. The common approach is to normalize the data in terms of making it all a percentage of GDP. I have looked at budget categories as a percent of GDP and compared 2000 and 2010. Remember 2000 was also a Democratic President and Republican Congress. They compromised to balance the budget.

The biggest gaps then and now in descending order are:

Revenue's: Currently are down 5.7% as a percent of GDP compared to 2000
Top marginal tax rates are at an all time low, Capital gains rates are 5% below an all time low. Hard to make a case the wealthy are overtaxed and by historical standards they are undertaxed. The Bush tax cuts should be repealed

Defense: Currently up 1.75% as a percent of GDP compared to 2000
You can't run 3 wars and maintain troops in places of all wars past. We have a constitutional mandate to defend the country but we don't have one to defend the rest of the world. Need a real discussion here what is affordable and practicable. Let other coutries pay for their own defense.

Medicare: Currently up 1.1% as a percentage of GDP compared to 2000
Well we can thank Bush for perscription drug benefits but the Ryan plan at least trys to make a real effort to control costs. Democrats are wrong for demonizing the plan and mobilizing seniors against it. With some type of benefit floor Ryan's plan is credible and should be adopted.

Unemployment compensation: Currently up .97% of GDP compared to 2000
We need a revenue nuetral restructuring of our tax code to generate jobs. My choice, eliminate corporate income taxes, raise the capital gains tax to the level of income tax, tax net capital sent overseas. This will generate tax revenue from overseas investment and provide capital for local businesses to grow.

Health: Currently up .82% of GDP compared to 2000
You can't expand access without significant cost cuts in the system. Republicans need to stop talking about repeal and modify the system to impose significant cost reductions that were left out of the original bill. Stop playing political games and help the country.

Social Security: Currently up .70% of GDP compared to 2000
No idea what to do here. Should have been taken care of long ago. Most want back the money they put in but the money was long since given to their grandparents. Have no sense of a solution.

Enough for now. I would post links to support my points but I am not yet allowed.

There was not a surplus in 2000. There has not been a surplus in the US budget since Eisenhower.

I also love how you compare everything to GDP in the assumption that it proves things are so much worse now than they were then.