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

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Sactowndog, Jul 4, 2011.

  1. Sactowndog
    Offline

    Sactowndog Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2011
    Messages:
    723
    Thanks Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +59
    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 The Bush tax cuts should be repealed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.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  2. CrusaderFrank
    Online

    CrusaderFrank Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2009
    Messages:
    81,170
    Thanks Received:
    14,903
    Trophy Points:
    2,210
    Ratings:
    +36,905
    A growing economy, and not higher taxes is what raises revenues
     
  3. Sactowndog
    Offline

    Sactowndog Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2011
    Messages:
    723
    Thanks Received:
    59
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +59
    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.
     
  4. kaz
    Offline

    kaz Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2010
    Messages:
    42,727
    Thanks Received:
    4,343
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Independence Hall
    Ratings:
    +13,959
    If we had a surplus in 2000, why did the national debt go up that year?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. brono921
    Offline

    brono921 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2011
    Messages:
    91
    Thanks Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Ratings:
    +10
    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?
     
  6. bigrebnc1775
    Offline

    bigrebnc1775 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2010
    Messages:
    64,004
    Thanks Received:
    3,798
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Location:
    Kannapolis, N.C.
    Ratings:
    +4,830
    foolish people think we had a surplus. We didn't, Clinton had money diverted from SS to the general fund
     
  7. iamwhatiseem
    Offline

    iamwhatiseem Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    14,818
    Thanks Received:
    3,114
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +6,098
    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.
     
  8. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,686
    Thanks Received:
    15,594
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,827
    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! Thank You! x 2
  9. bigrebnc1775
    Offline

    bigrebnc1775 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2010
    Messages:
    64,004
    Thanks Received:
    3,798
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Location:
    Kannapolis, N.C.
    Ratings:
    +4,830
    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.
     
  10. Toronado3800
    Offline

    Toronado3800 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Messages:
    3,572
    Thanks Received:
    274
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +355
    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.
     

Share This Page