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

[PoliticalChic]

PC

Craig Steiner is a software engineer. Simply because he has a neat looking web page and posts a bunch of numbers does not mean he is knowledgable about the topic. If I want to know about software code for a mobile phone, I will ask a software engineer. If I want to know about how the government keeps it's books, I will ask a financial analyst or an economist. Can you find any making the same argument?

"...does not mean he is knowledgable about the topic."

To anyone who notes that the debt continues to climb, it is more than counterintuitve to claim that there could be a real surplus.

No matter his vocation, it is his argument that makes more sense than the counter. You, of course, may define a surplus into existence...but that hardly means that one exists.

Economics is not a science, although euphemistically called the 'dismal science,' as is indicated by your attempts to use same to show that the debt increases, but there is a surplus...

...for amplication:

When Albert Einstein died, he met three New Zealanders in the queue outside the Pearly Gates. To pass the time, he asked what were their IQs. The first replied 190. "Wonderful," exclaimed Einstein. "We can discuss the contribution made by Ernest Rutherford to atomic physics and my theory of general relativity".

The second answered 150. "Good," said Einstein. "I look forward to discussing the role of New Zealand's nuclear-free legislation in the quest for world peace".

The third New Zealander mumbled 50. Einstein paused, and then asked, "So what is your forecast for the budget deficit next year?" —The Economist, June 13th 1992, p. 71).

 

[Sactowndog]

Using GDP and saying that revenue as percentage of GDP is down is, at best, disingenuous. If GDP goes up 50% and revenue as a percent of GDP drops from 20% to 15% revenue actually increases. Unless you tell us what GDP actually is, or give us the actual revenue amounts in inflation adjusted dollars, your numbers mean nothing. That is why I said your posting what you did does not actually tell us anything.

Would you like to add something of substance now, or will you continue throwing around out of context numbers and percentages like they actually mean something?

First place, comparing numbers across disparate times by using GDP is very standard. I have the GDP numbers at home and would be happy to post them but you are nit picking. You are darn well smart enough to know comparing absolute numbers across the years given economic growth, population growth and inflation would be disingenuous. Instead of dealing with the issue and facts you throw up one red herring after another.

 

[Sactowndog]

...

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.

Seriously? What percent of GDP was defense pre-WWII?

You want to be the world's policeman and free of charge protector of foreign nations AND have a modern civilized domestic social policy,

you have to pay for it.

Your choices are:

1. become a third world country domestically, by eliminating modern social spending

2. stop being the world's policeman, etc.

3. collect enough revenue to pay for both.

You can't be a low tax nation on a high cost agenda, or, you go broke.

Not to mention the problem of completely eliminating Social Security. While I would be all for it personally I am realistic enough to know it isn't going to happen.

 

[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

.

Actually revenues as a percent of GDP are down about 30%.

I think this is a phrasing gap. I was talking about the pure numbers which off the top of my head but close enough in 2010 Revnue as a percent of GDP was 14.9 and in 2000 they were 20.6. So there for you have my 5.7% gap and your 30%

 

[NYcarbineer]

PC

Craig Steiner is a software engineer. Simply because he has a neat looking web page and posts a bunch of numbers does not mean he is knowledgable about the topic. If I want to know about software code for a mobile phone, I will ask a software engineer. If I want to know about how the government keeps it's books, I will ask a financial analyst or an economist. Can you find any making the same argument?

"...does not mean he is knowledgable about the topic."

To anyone who notes that the debt continues to climb, it is more than counterintuitve to claim that there could be a real surplus.

No matter his vocation, it is his argument that makes more sense than the counter. You, of course, may define a surplus into existence...but that hardly means that one exists.

Economics is not a science, although euphemistically called the 'dismal science,' as is indicated by your attempts to use same to show that the debt increases, but there is a surplus...

...for amplication:

When Albert Einstein died, he met three New Zealanders in the queue outside the Pearly Gates. To pass the time, he asked what were their IQs. The first replied 190. "Wonderful," exclaimed Einstein. "We can discuss the contribution made by Ernest Rutherford to atomic physics and my theory of general relativity".

The second answered 150. "Good," said Einstein. "I look forward to discussing the role of New Zealand's nuclear-free legislation in the quest for world peace".

The third New Zealander mumbled 50. Einstein paused, and then asked, "So what is your forecast for the budget deficit next year?" —The Economist, June 13th 1992, p. 71).

There were on-budget surpluses in 1999 and 2000.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist01z1.xls

 

[Toro]

"...does not mean he is knowledgable about the topic."

To anyone who notes that the debt continues to climb, it is more than counterintuitve to claim that there could be a real surplus.

No matter his vocation, it is his argument that makes more sense than the counter. You, of course, may define a surplus into existence...but that hardly means that one exists.

Economics is not a science, although euphemistically called the 'dismal science,' as is indicated by your attempts to use same to show that the debt increases, but there is a surplus...

I understand how an individual who is not trained in financial analysis nor understands government accounting would think it is counterintuitive that a rise in total gross government debt would imply a deficit. But bear with me.

I asked you the question earlier about what happens to the gross nontradable liabilities of the Treasury when there is a surge in employment and payroll tax receipts? Do you think such liabilities would go up or down? Intuitively, one would think they would fall, right? After all, a rise in receipts should mean a fall in liabilities. In fact, it is just the opposite. Gross nontradable liabilities rise when there is a surge in payroll tax receipts.

Think of a mutual fund company that runs your 401k. Let's say you contribute $1000 a month to your 401k. At the end of the year, because you're such a good worker, you get a $10,000 bonus. Being the smart and responsible woman that you are, you put $5000 of your bonus into your 401k. The cash is sent to your mutual fund company and the mutual fund now owes you an extra $5000 on top of the $12,000 you socked away during the year. So for the year, the mutual fund owes you $17,000 (plus whatever your investments gained or lost, which for simplicity's sake, we'll assume is $0 for the year).

Now STOP!

At this point, is the mutual fund better or worse off? After all, it now owes you $17,000? After all, the gross debt of the mutual fund company has risen because it owes you another $17,000. So it must be worse off, right?

This is where you stop in your analysis of the government debt. It is incomplete.

Of course, the answer to the above question is "no." A mutual fund contracts with a management company, which invests your money. The mutual fund company has a liability with you but the $17,000 it has invested with the management company is an asset. Net net, they balance out. The mutual fund company owes you $17,000 but has a $17,000 asset with the management company. So its gross debt rises by $17,000 but its net worth does not change.

It is the same with the government. When SS receipts rise, the gross liabilities of the Treasury rises because it owes you the money (plus interest) it has received from you in payroll taxes. But that doesn't mean the Treasury is worse off because it has an asset in the social security trust. Net net, there is no change in the balance to the Treasury. The Treasury is credited with the amount taken through payroll taxes but those funds are debited to the social security trusts. They offset. That's what you are seeing when total debt rises. It doesn't take into account changes on the other side of the balance sheet, and has no bearing on cash inflows and outflows through the Treasury. Cash inflows exceeded cash expenses in the last part of the 90s. That is the definition of a surplus.

I get that this is a confusing and counterintuitive issue. And I expect someone who is dug too deep in the argument and confused like QW to pipe in that "Government accounting is not the same!" In this case, there is no difference in how the accounting offsets assets and liabilities.

 

[code1211]

<snip>

FYI, if Microsoft ran their books the way the government does (using cash accounting principles) you might have a valid comparison here. Since they don't, you are a bit off in asserting that my insistence that the deficit going up is proof that we did not have a surplus.

I mean no offense and I defer to your expertise.

Regardless, though, of anything else including the existance or non-existance of an acounting priciples surplus, if the debt does not decrease, it does not decrease and that is what we need to be striving to have happen.

We are probably talking about two different things due to my limited understanding of accounting practices and, as I said, I will defer to your greater expertise.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"...does not mean he is knowledgable about the topic."

To anyone who notes that the debt continues to climb, it is more than counterintuitve to claim that there could be a real surplus.

No matter his vocation, it is his argument that makes more sense than the counter. You, of course, may define a surplus into existence...but that hardly means that one exists.

Economics is not a science, although euphemistically called the 'dismal science,' as is indicated by your attempts to use same to show that the debt increases, but there is a surplus...

I understand how an individual who is not trained in financial analysis nor understands government accounting would think it is counterintuitive that a rise in total gross government debt would imply a deficit. But bear with me.

I asked you the question earlier about what happens to the gross nontradable liabilities of the Treasury when there is a surge in employment and payroll tax receipts? Do you think such liabilities would go up or down? Intuitively, one would think they would fall, right? After all, a rise in receipts should mean a fall in liabilities. In fact, it is just the opposite. Gross nontradable liabilities rise when there is a surge in payroll tax receipts.

Think of a mutual fund company that runs your 401k. Let's say you contribute $1000 a month to your 401k. At the end of the year, because you're such a good worker, you get a $10,000 bonus. Being the smart and responsible woman that you are, you put $5000 of your bonus into your 401k. The cash is sent to your mutual fund company and the mutual fund now owes you an extra $5000 on top of the $12,000 you socked away during the year. So for the year, the mutual fund owes you $17,000 (plus whatever your investments gained or lost, which for simplicity's sake, we'll assume is $0 for the year).

Now STOP!

At this point, is the mutual fund better or worse off? After all, it now owes you $17,000? After all, the gross debt of the mutual fund company has risen because it owes you another $17,000. So it must be worse off, right?

This is where you stop in your analysis of the government debt. It is incomplete.

Of course, the answer to the above question is "no." A mutual fund contracts with a management company, which invests your money. The mutual fund company has a liability with you but the $17,000 it has invested with the management company is an asset. Net net, they balance out. The mutual fund company owes you $17,000 but has a $17,000 asset with the management company. So its gross debt rises by $17,000 but its net worth does not change.

It is the same with the government. When SS receipts rise, the gross liabilities of the Treasury rises because it owes you the money (plus interest) it has received from you in payroll taxes. But that doesn't mean the Treasury is worse off because it has an asset in the social security trust. Net net, there is no change in the balance to the Treasury. The Treasury is credited with the amount taken through payroll taxes but those funds are debited to the social security trusts. They offset. That's what you are seeing when total debt rises. It doesn't take into account changes on the other side of the balance sheet, and has no bearing on cash inflows and outflows through the Treasury. Cash inflows exceeded cash expenses in the last part of the 90s. That is the definition of a surplus.

I get that this is a confusing and counterintuitive issue. And I expect someone who is dug too deep in the argument and confused like QW to pipe in that "Government accounting is not the same!" In this case, there is no difference in how the accounting offsets assets and liabilities.

Did the national debt go down or up during the Clinton years?

 

[Toro]

Did the national debt go down or up during the Clinton years?

It is irrelevant whether or not the national debt went up as it pertains to whether or not there was a surplus. A surplus is when receipts exceed expenses.

Tradable debt fell.
Net debt fell.
Gross debt rose.

The net balance of the United States financial condition improved at the end of the 90s.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC

Craig Steiner is a software engineer. Simply because he has a neat looking web page and posts a bunch of numbers does not mean he is knowledgable about the topic. If I want to know about software code for a mobile phone, I will ask a software engineer. If I want to know about how the government keeps it's books, I will ask a financial analyst or an economist. Can you find any making the same argument?

"...does not mean he is knowledgable about the topic."

To anyone who notes that the debt continues to climb, it is more than counterintuitve to claim that there could be a real surplus.

No matter his vocation, it is his argument that makes more sense than the counter. You, of course, may define a surplus into existence...but that hardly means that one exists.

Economics is not a science, although euphemistically called the 'dismal science,' as is indicated by your attempts to use same to show that the debt increases, but there is a surplus...

...for amplication:

When Albert Einstein died, he met three New Zealanders in the queue outside the Pearly Gates. To pass the time, he asked what were their IQs. The first replied 190. "Wonderful," exclaimed Einstein. "We can discuss the contribution made by Ernest Rutherford to atomic physics and my theory of general relativity".

The second answered 150. "Good," said Einstein. "I look forward to discussing the role of New Zealand's nuclear-free legislation in the quest for world peace".

The third New Zealander mumbled 50. Einstein paused, and then asked, "So what is your forecast for the budget deficit next year?" —The Economist, June 13th 1992, p. 71).

There were on-budget surpluses in 1999 and 2000.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist01z1.xls

Could you point to it, here, not in some totally isolated category?

From post # 58:

Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury (see note about this link below) website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:

Fiscal
Year Year
Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion


As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"...does not mean he is knowledgable about the topic."

To anyone who notes that the debt continues to climb, it is more than counterintuitve to claim that there could be a real surplus.

No matter his vocation, it is his argument that makes more sense than the counter. You, of course, may define a surplus into existence...but that hardly means that one exists.

Economics is not a science, although euphemistically called the 'dismal science,' as is indicated by your attempts to use same to show that the debt increases, but there is a surplus...

I understand how an individual who is not trained in financial analysis nor understands government accounting would think it is counterintuitive that a rise in total gross government debt would imply a deficit. But bear with me.

I asked you the question earlier about what happens to the gross nontradable liabilities of the Treasury when there is a surge in employment and payroll tax receipts? Do you think such liabilities would go up or down? Intuitively, one would think they would fall, right? After all, a rise in receipts should mean a fall in liabilities. In fact, it is just the opposite. Gross nontradable liabilities rise when there is a surge in payroll tax receipts.

Think of a mutual fund company that runs your 401k. Let's say you contribute $1000 a month to your 401k. At the end of the year, because you're such a good worker, you get a $10,000 bonus. Being the smart and responsible woman that you are, you put $5000 of your bonus into your 401k. The cash is sent to your mutual fund company and the mutual fund now owes you an extra $5000 on top of the $12,000 you socked away during the year. So for the year, the mutual fund owes you $17,000 (plus whatever your investments gained or lost, which for simplicity's sake, we'll assume is $0 for the year).

Now STOP!

At this point, is the mutual fund better or worse off? After all, it now owes you $17,000? After all, the gross debt of the mutual fund company has risen because it owes you another $17,000. So it must be worse off, right?

This is where you stop in your analysis of the government debt. It is incomplete.

Of course, the answer to the above question is "no." A mutual fund contracts with a management company, which invests your money. The mutual fund company has a liability with you but the $17,000 it has invested with the management company is an asset. Net net, they balance out. The mutual fund company owes you $17,000 but has a $17,000 asset with the management company. So its gross debt rises by $17,000 but its net worth does not change.

It is the same with the government. When SS receipts rise, the gross liabilities of the Treasury rises because it owes you the money (plus interest) it has received from you in payroll taxes. But that doesn't mean the Treasury is worse off because it has an asset in the social security trust. Net net, there is no change in the balance to the Treasury. The Treasury is credited with the amount taken through payroll taxes but those funds are debited to the social security trusts. They offset. That's what you are seeing when total debt rises. It doesn't take into account changes on the other side of the balance sheet, and has no bearing on cash inflows and outflows through the Treasury. Cash inflows exceeded cash expenses in the last part of the 90s. That is the definition of a surplus.

I get that this is a confusing and counterintuitive issue. And I expect someone who is dug too deep in the argument and confused like QW to pipe in that "Government accounting is not the same!" In this case, there is no difference in how the accounting offsets assets and liabilities.

Did the national debt go down or up during the Clinton years?

Down, according to the CBO, in 98, 99, 00, 01

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

 

[PoliticalChic]

I understand how an individual who is not trained in financial analysis nor understands government accounting would think it is counterintuitive that a rise in total gross government debt would imply a deficit. But bear with me.

I asked you the question earlier about what happens to the gross nontradable liabilities of the Treasury when there is a surge in employment and payroll tax receipts? Do you think such liabilities would go up or down? Intuitively, one would think they would fall, right? After all, a rise in receipts should mean a fall in liabilities. In fact, it is just the opposite. Gross nontradable liabilities rise when there is a surge in payroll tax receipts.

Think of a mutual fund company that runs your 401k. Let's say you contribute $1000 a month to your 401k. At the end of the year, because you're such a good worker, you get a $10,000 bonus. Being the smart and responsible woman that you are, you put $5000 of your bonus into your 401k. The cash is sent to your mutual fund company and the mutual fund now owes you an extra $5000 on top of the $12,000 you socked away during the year. So for the year, the mutual fund owes you $17,000 (plus whatever your investments gained or lost, which for simplicity's sake, we'll assume is $0 for the year).

Now STOP!

At this point, is the mutual fund better or worse off? After all, it now owes you $17,000? After all, the gross debt of the mutual fund company has risen because it owes you another $17,000. So it must be worse off, right?

This is where you stop in your analysis of the government debt. It is incomplete.

Of course, the answer to the above question is "no." A mutual fund contracts with a management company, which invests your money. The mutual fund company has a liability with you but the $17,000 it has invested with the management company is an asset. Net net, they balance out. The mutual fund company owes you $17,000 but has a $17,000 asset with the management company. So its gross debt rises by $17,000 but its net worth does not change.

It is the same with the government. When SS receipts rise, the gross liabilities of the Treasury rises because it owes you the money (plus interest) it has received from you in payroll taxes. But that doesn't mean the Treasury is worse off because it has an asset in the social security trust. Net net, there is no change in the balance to the Treasury. The Treasury is credited with the amount taken through payroll taxes but those funds are debited to the social security trusts. They offset. That's what you are seeing when total debt rises. It doesn't take into account changes on the other side of the balance sheet, and has no bearing on cash inflows and outflows through the Treasury. Cash inflows exceeded cash expenses in the last part of the 90s. That is the definition of a surplus.

I get that this is a confusing and counterintuitive issue. And I expect someone who is dug too deep in the argument and confused like QW to pipe in that "Government accounting is not the same!" In this case, there is no difference in how the accounting offsets assets and liabilities.

Did the national debt go down or up during the Clinton years?

Down, according to the CBO, in 98, 99, 00, 01

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

Now, aren't you the dunce who screams "Liar! Liar!" is one slips up and makes a mistake?

Oh, yes...that would be you.

Well, that would entitle me to call you a "Liar! Liar!" - if I were so inclined. Why???

1. Your link does not in any column list national debt.

2. So...are you prepared to take your own medicine? Are you a liar...or simply wrong?


waiting.....



3. OK, Ok....due to your condition, I'll cut you some slack, and explain it to you:

There are, actually, two kinds of government debt, public debt, which we owe to bondholders and other investors, and intragovernmental debt, which is debt the government owes to itself. National debt is actually the total of the two.

Now, take a peek at the last column....yes, the one labeled "Debt Held By The Public."

See, that is also known as 'public debt.'

See "Debt Held By The Public." is actually 'public debt.'
And vice-versa!

Hey...did you just slap yourself on the forehead??

OK...See? It is not the national debt.

Get it?

Now, wipe that egg off your face......

I just love when your karma just bites you in the butt....don't you?

Folks like you are like the toy Slinky....not good for much, but they bring a smile to your face when you push 'em down the stairs.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Did the national debt go down or up during the Clinton years?

It is irrelevant whether or not the national debt went up as it pertains to whether or not there was a surplus. A surplus is when receipts exceed expenses.

Tradable debt fell.
Net debt fell.
Gross debt rose.

The net balance of the United States financial condition improved at the end of the 90s.

Did the national debt go down or up during the Clinton years?

 

[Toro]

Did the national debt go down or up during the Clinton years?

It is irrelevant whether or not the national debt went up as it pertains to whether or not there was a surplus. A surplus is when receipts exceed expenses.

Tradable debt fell.
Net debt fell.
Gross debt rose.

The net balance of the United States financial condition improved at the end of the 90s.

Did the national debt go down or up during the Clinton years?

[youtube]xGGwY6rPDmw[/youtube]

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Using GDP and saying that revenue as percentage of GDP is down is, at best, disingenuous. If GDP goes up 50% and revenue as a percent of GDP drops from 20% to 15% revenue actually increases. Unless you tell us what GDP actually is, or give us the actual revenue amounts in inflation adjusted dollars, your numbers mean nothing. That is why I said your posting what you did does not actually tell us anything.

Would you like to add something of substance now, or will you continue throwing around out of context numbers and percentages like they actually mean something?

First place, comparing numbers across disparate times by using GDP is very standard. I have the GDP numbers at home and would be happy to post them but you are nit picking. You are darn well smart enough to know comparing absolute numbers across the years given economic growth, population growth and inflation would be disingenuous. Instead of dealing with the issue and facts you throw up one red herring after another.

Using Grossly Distorted Picture is a standard practice among politicians, accountants use real numbers.

Economist Debates: GDP

 

[Toro]

accountants use real numbers.

Still waiting for those accountants telling us there were no surpluses in the 90s.

 

[PoliticalChic]

It is irrelevant whether or not the national debt went up as it pertains to whether or not there was a surplus. A surplus is when receipts exceed expenses.

Tradable debt fell.
Net debt fell.
Gross debt rose.

The net balance of the United States financial condition improved at the end of the 90s.

Did the national debt go down or up during the Clinton years?

[youtube]xGGwY6rPDmw[/youtube]

Proves my point, Toro....if it were not the dispositive of our quarrel, you would not hesitate to answer.

I'll answer for you. It went up.

Let's see that white flag.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I mean no offense and I defer to your expertise.

Regardless, though, of anything else including the existance or non-existance of an acounting priciples surplus, if the debt does not decrease, it does not decrease and that is what we need to be striving to have happen.

We are probably talking about two different things due to my limited understanding of accounting practices and, as I said, I will defer to your greater expertise.

First, let me establish that my expertise in accounting amounts to doing books for a few businesses, and taking some advanced courses in college. In other words, I am basically a trumped up bookkeeper. Feel free to argue with me and question me, I will not take offense.

There are two basic accounting methods, cash basis and accrual basis. Both methods are perfectly valid, and legal. There are legal restrictions on businesses that would prevent any business the size of the US government from using cash based accounting.

Under Clinton's budget he counted bond sales to the SS trust fund as revenue. This is perfectly legitimate under cash accounting, but it did increase the real money the government owed through intragovernmental debt. (Money the government borrows from itself.) This debt allowed the White House, and Congress, to argue in collusion that they balanced the budget and reduced the deficit, and, as Wry pointed out, public debt actually decreased during the Clinton administration.

The actual debt, however, increased every single year. That tells me that they did not actually have a surplus, and I am far from the only person that sees it that way.

Like you, I think the real number that matters is the actual debt, including the money the government owes itself. After all, the SS trust fund is supposed to be our money, and letting the government use it to claim they are balancing the budget only causes trouble in the future.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Did the national debt go down or up during the Clinton years?

It is irrelevant whether or not the national debt went up as it pertains to whether or not there was a surplus. A surplus is when receipts exceed expenses.

Tradable debt fell.
Net debt fell.
Gross debt rose.

The net balance of the United States financial condition improved at the end of the 90s.

Why is the government owing itself more money better than the government owing money to someone else? The way I see it that money the government borrows from itself is owed to us anyway, unless you think the SS trust fund is actually the governments money.

 

[Toro]

Did the national debt go down or up during the Clinton years?

[youtube]xGGwY6rPDmw[/youtube]

Proves my point, Toro....if it were not the dispositive of our quarrel, you would not hesitate to answer.

I'll answer for you. It went up.

Let's see that white flag.

Look out the window PC. See how the horizon is flat? The world is flat, isn't it? How can you argue that that the world is not flat? Can't you see it that its flat?

That the national debt went up is irrelevant to whether or not there was a surplus. You are confusing the two.