Republicans: Fiscal Sanity

[Trajan]

Marketable debt declined under Clinton. Increases in total national debt at the time was due to increases in noncash accruals in the trusts.


Debt outstanding held by the public fell.

.

so, if I have this right- you calculate the Public Debt by taking the previous year's public debt adding that to the total budget deficit (or subtracting the surplus), and then adding any other means of financing?

is that correct?


taken and parsed from

HowStuffWorks "Public Debt and the Economy"

Yes, that is correct.

well here we are;



Government liabilities rose $2 trillion in FY 2010: Treasury

Reuters) - The U.S. government fell deeper into the red in fiscal 2010 with net liabilities swelling more than $2 trillion as commitments on government debt and federal benefits rose, a U.S. Treasury report showed on Tuesday.

The Financial Report of the United States, which applies corporate-style accrual accounting methods to Washington, showed the government's liabilities exceeded assets by $13.473 trillion. That compared with a $11.456 trillion gap a year earlier.

Unlike the normal measurement of government intake of receipts against cash outlays, accrual accounting measures costs such as interest on the debt and federal benefits payable when they are incurred, not when funds are actually disbursed.

The report was instituted under former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, the first Treasury secretary in the George W. Bush administration, to illustrate the mounting liabilities of government entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

The government's net operating cost, or deficit, in the report grew to $2.080 trillion for the year ended September 30 from $1.253 trillion the prior year as spending and liabilities increased for social programs. Actual and anticipated revenues were roughly unchanged.

The cash budget deficit narrowed in fiscal 2010 to $1.294 trillion from $1.417 trillion in 2009. But the $858 billion tax cut extension package enacted last week is expected to keep the deficit well above the $1 trillion mark for another year.

and-
BUDGET CUT DEBATE

The latest Treasury report should fuel debate in Congress over spending cuts next year as a new Republican majority in the House of Representatives takes office.

The U.S. Senate on Tuesday approved a compromise bill to fund the government until March 4, 2011. After that, Republicans will have the chance to push through dramatic budget cuts.

"Today, we must balance our efforts to accelerate economic recovery and job growth in the near term with continued efforts to address the challenges posed by the long-term deficit outlook," Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said in a letter accompanying the report. "The administration's top priority remains restoring good jobs to American workers and accelerating the pace of economic recovery."

Among key differences between the operating deficit and the cash deficit were sharp increases in costs accrued for veterans' compensation, government and military employee benefits and anticipated losses at mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The biggest increase in net liabilities in fiscal 2010 stemmed from a $1.477 trillion increase in federal debt repayment and interest obligations, largely to finance programs to stabilize the economy and pull it out of recession.

more at-

Government liabilities rose $2 trillion in FY 2010: Treasury | Reuters

"The administration's top priority remains restoring good jobs to American workers and accelerating the pace of economic recovery."

well, lets here it timmy...what are your your ideas?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The proof that this is nonsense is to simply look at the government's own national debt summary- which I provided earlier.

Over the Clinton presidency there was a 41% increase in the national debt.

The national debt summary includes accruals to the trusts, which are noncash charges and do not measure the inflows and outflows of cash into the Treasury. Those liabilities can be created, and eliminated, with a stroke of a pen.

Over Clinton's two terms, national debt rose, but the government ran surpluses in the last years of the 1990s and paid down debt. You can see all this in the budget documents, of which I linked the 2000 budget above.

Shackles found the following which should be dispositive as to the sham idea that Clinton ran surpluses...

"The government can have a surplus even if it has trillions in debt, but it cannot have a surplus if that debt increased every year. This article is about surplus/deficit, not the debt. However, it analyzes the debt to prove there wasn't a surplus under Clinton.

While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it's curious to see Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.

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. Yes, the deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.

Understanding what happened requires understanding two concepts of what makes up the national debt. The national debt is made up of public debt and intragovernmental holdings. The public debt is debt held by the public, normally including things such as treasury bills, savings bonds, and other instruments the public can purchase from the government. Intragovernmental holdings, on the other hand, is when the government borrows money from itself--mostly borrowing money from social security.

When it is claimed that Clinton paid down the national debt, that is patently false--as can be seen, the national debt went up every single year. What Clinton did do was pay down the public debt--

But he paid down the public debt by borrowing far more money in the form of intragovernmental holdings (mostly Social Security).Update 3/31/2009: The following quote from an article at CBS confirms my explanation of the Myth of the Clinton Surplus, and the entire article essentially substantiates what I wrote.

"Over the past 25 years, the government has gotten used to the fact that Social Security is providing free money to make the rest of the deficit look smaller," said Andrew Biggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute."

Read the whole article at
The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

Thanks again, Biggy!

 

[finebead]

Shackles found the following which should be dispositive as to the sham idea that Clinton ran surpluses...

"The government can have a surplus even if it has trillions in debt, but it cannot have a surplus if that debt increased every year. This article is about surplus/deficit, not the debt. However, it analyzes the debt to prove there wasn't a surplus under Clinton.

While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it's curious to see Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.

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. Yes, the deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.

Understanding what happened requires understanding two concepts of what makes up the national debt. The national debt is made up of public debt and intragovernmental holdings. The public debt is debt held by the public, normally including things such as treasury bills, savings bonds, and other instruments the public can purchase from the government. Intragovernmental holdings, on the other hand, is when the government borrows money from itself--mostly borrowing money from social security.

When it is claimed that Clinton paid down the national debt, that is patently false--as can be seen, the national debt went up every single year. What Clinton did do was pay down the public debt--

But he paid down the public debt by borrowing far more money in the form of intragovernmental holdings (mostly Social Security).Update 3/31/2009: The following quote from an article at CBS confirms my explanation of the Myth of the Clinton Surplus, and the entire article essentially substantiates what I wrote.

"Over the past 25 years, the government has gotten used to the fact that Social Security is providing free money to make the rest of the deficit look smaller," said Andrew Biggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute."

Read the whole article at
The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

Thanks again, Biggy!

I agree with PC post. But it you want to count the deficit this way, which is not the way it is normally reported, then you have to do the same for the repubs. (By the way, Clinton's final year performance was the lowest deficit since Kennedy, 40 years).

Bush deficits, annual rise in the total national debt:
...420,772,553,397..............9/30/2002
...554,995,097,146..............9/30/2003
...595,821,633,587..............9/30/2004
...553,656,965,393..............9/30/2005
...574,264,237,492..............9/30/2006
...500,679,473,047..............9/30/2007
1,017,071,524,650..............9/30/3008

Clinton looks like a saint compared to Bush. The dollar lost half its value vs. the Euro under Bush, which is part of the rise in energy prices that helped induce the great recession (it was a bad problem, but the housing problem gets all the press because it was so much worse).

In recent years, the repubs and can't use "fiscal" and "sanity" in the same sentence.

And how'd those tax cuts work out in 2001 and 2003? Just vastly increased the deficit, helped crater the dollar leading to high energy price inflation. I did make good money on a small gold position I took in 2003, sold last year.

Bush was not dealing with a major financial crisis that Clinton handed him, the nations finances were in good order. Bush turned that into a financial near meltdown, running huge deficits, and then handed that to his successor. Bush was the worst president in my lifetime.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Shackles found the following which should be dispositive as to the sham idea that Clinton ran surpluses...

"The government can have a surplus even if it has trillions in debt, but it cannot have a surplus if that debt increased every year. This article is about surplus/deficit, not the debt. However, it analyzes the debt to prove there wasn't a surplus under Clinton.

While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it's curious to see Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.

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. Yes, the deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.

Understanding what happened requires understanding two concepts of what makes up the national debt. The national debt is made up of public debt and intragovernmental holdings. The public debt is debt held by the public, normally including things such as treasury bills, savings bonds, and other instruments the public can purchase from the government. Intragovernmental holdings, on the other hand, is when the government borrows money from itself--mostly borrowing money from social security.

When it is claimed that Clinton paid down the national debt, that is patently false--as can be seen, the national debt went up every single year. What Clinton did do was pay down the public debt--

But he paid down the public debt by borrowing far more money in the form of intragovernmental holdings (mostly Social Security).Update 3/31/2009: The following quote from an article at CBS confirms my explanation of the Myth of the Clinton Surplus, and the entire article essentially substantiates what I wrote.

"Over the past 25 years, the government has gotten used to the fact that Social Security is providing free money to make the rest of the deficit look smaller," said Andrew Biggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute."

Read the whole article at
The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

Thanks again, Biggy!

I agree with PC post. But it you want to count the deficit this way, which is not the way it is normally reported, then you have to do the same for the repubs. (By the way, Clinton's final year performance was the lowest deficit since Kennedy, 40 years).

Bush deficits, annual rise in the total national debt:
...420,772,553,397..............9/30/2002
...554,995,097,146..............9/30/2003
...595,821,633,587..............9/30/2004
...553,656,965,393..............9/30/2005
...574,264,237,492..............9/30/2006
...500,679,473,047..............9/30/2007
1,017,071,524,650..............9/30/3008

Clinton looks like a saint compared to Bush. The dollar lost half its value vs. the Euro under Bush, which is part of the rise in energy prices that helped induce the great recession (it was a bad problem, but the housing problem gets all the press because it was so much worse).

In recent years, the repubs and can't use "fiscal" and "sanity" in the same sentence.

And how'd those tax cuts work out in 2001 and 2003? Just vastly increased the deficit, helped crater the dollar leading to high energy price inflation. I did make good money on a small gold position I took in 2003, sold last year.

Bush was not dealing with a major financial crisis that Clinton handed him, the nations finances were in good order. Bush turned that into a financial near meltdown, running huge deficits, and then handed that to his successor. Bush was the worst president in my lifetime.

Absolutely!

Repubs...especially progressive Republicans like GWB are sorely resonsible for irresponsibe spending.

Eisenhower tried.

 

[Trajan]

Absolutely!

Repubs...especially progressive Republicans like GWB are sorely resonsible for irresponsibe spending.

Eisenhower tried.

you should put that in your sig. PC, cause no matter how many times you say it...well, you know.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Absolutely!

Repubs...especially progressive Republicans like GWB are sorely resonsible for irresponsibe spending.

Eisenhower tried.

you should put that in your sig. PC, cause no matter how many times you say it...well, you know.

Some folks must think that I post in support of Repubs, but that is only in relation to the fact that Dems are far worse poltically and, usually, fiscally.

My support is for conservative values.

 

[Toro]

Shackles found the following which should be dispositive as to the sham idea that Clinton ran surpluses...

"The government can have a surplus even if it has trillions in debt, but it cannot have a surplus if that debt increased every year. This article is about surplus/deficit, not the debt. However, it analyzes the debt to prove there wasn't a surplus under Clinton.

While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it's curious to see Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.

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. Yes, the deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.

Understanding what happened requires understanding two concepts of what makes up the national debt. The national debt is made up of public debt and intragovernmental holdings. The public debt is debt held by the public, normally including things such as treasury bills, savings bonds, and other instruments the public can purchase from the government. Intragovernmental holdings, on the other hand, is when the government borrows money from itself--mostly borrowing money from social security.

When it is claimed that Clinton paid down the national debt, that is patently false--as can be seen, the national debt went up every single year. What Clinton did do was pay down the public debt--

But he paid down the public debt by borrowing far more money in the form of intragovernmental holdings (mostly Social Security).Update 3/31/2009: The following quote from an article at CBS confirms my explanation of the Myth of the Clinton Surplus, and the entire article essentially substantiates what I wrote.

"Over the past 25 years, the government has gotten used to the fact that Social Security is providing free money to make the rest of the deficit look smaller," said Andrew Biggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute."

Read the whole article at
The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

Thanks again, Biggy!

The author does not understand the budgetary balance.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...administration-was-a-myth-10.html#post3119201

 

[uscitizen]

Republicans: Fiscal Sanity

this really should be in the humor forum.

 

[Trajan]

No, Clinton did not take any money out.

Think of it this way.

Let's say you are 40 years old and you promise to put your 70 year old mother in a nursing home when she is 80, or 10 years from now. Poof! You have created a liability for yourself - the amount that you will have to pay in the future for your mother's nursing home in 10 years. Let's say the going rate for a nice home is $2000 a month and you expect her to live to be 90. Your liability is $240,000 for your mother's future nursing home. Now, you haven't actually borrowed anything but your liability has risen. You have essentially created a debt that you owe in the future. To remind yourself, you write an IOU to yourself to pay for it some time down the road. Now, if you made $50,000 a year and spent $40,000 a year, then you've saved $10,000. But your liabilities (debt) has gone up because you've made this promise. That is how you can be in surplus and have your debt rise. This is essentially what happened under Clinton and in his final budgets.

the above is from your earlier link/post, so how do we reduce the liabilities? what was the surplus used for? to pay down debt.in real dollars -retiring debt.? were we building in MORE liabilities as we went?

and I have to tell you thats a whacky way to do things, so in effect we don't know how much, truly, we are in trouble really, till we are.....in trouble?

 

[Toro]

the above is from your earlier link/post, so how do we reduce the liabilities? what was the surplus used for? to pay down debt.in real dollars -retiring debt.? were we building in MORE liabilities as we went?

and I have to tell you thats a whacky way to do things, so in effect we don't know how much, truly, we are in trouble really, till we are.....in trouble?

That's an example.

The best way to lower the liabilities is simply to change the law. The SS trusts are not like regular liabilities. You can eliminate liabilities just by raising the age of receipt, or by limiting the amount one can get based on income.

 

[Trajan]

the above is from your earlier link/post, so how do we reduce the liabilities? what was the surplus used for? to pay down debt.in real dollars -retiring debt.? were we building in MORE liabilities as we went?

and I have to tell you thats a whacky way to do things, so in effect we don't know how much, truly, we are in trouble really, till we are.....in trouble?

That's an example.

The best way to lower the liabilities is simply to change the law. The SS trusts are not like regular liabilities. You can eliminate liabilities just by raising the age of receipt, or by limiting the amount one can get based on income.

do you sppt. the portion I bolded?

 

[uscitizen]

I support reducing or removing SS payments to persons based on their income.
A person making 100k per year does not need SS.
And it is Insurance btw not a retirement account.

I also support no upperlimit of income for SS withholdings.

 

[Toro]

the above is from your earlier link/post, so how do we reduce the liabilities? what was the surplus used for? to pay down debt.in real dollars -retiring debt.? were we building in MORE liabilities as we went?

and I have to tell you thats a whacky way to do things, so in effect we don't know how much, truly, we are in trouble really, till we are.....in trouble?

That's an example.

The best way to lower the liabilities is simply to change the law. The SS trusts are not like regular liabilities. You can eliminate liabilities just by raising the age of receipt, or by limiting the amount one can get based on income.

do you sppt. the portion I bolded?

I'm not sure because SS is supposed to be a pension fund, and you are supposed to get out of a pension fund what you put in.

But I do support raising the retirement age.

 

[Trajan]

That's an example.

The best way to lower the liabilities is simply to change the law. The SS trusts are not like regular liabilities. You can eliminate liabilities just by raising the age of receipt, or by limiting the amount one can get based on income.

do you sppt. the portion I bolded?

I'm not sure because SS is supposed to be a pension fund, and you are supposed to get out of a pension fund what you put in.

But I do support raising the retirement age.

I agree. I am in the low 50's, if they told me its 68 and out, I would not have a big heartache wiht that.

I am sure; No. whether I "earn"( bad word really when you are retired) so lets say if I have disposable assets that make my life comfortable, so what? I paid into the SSI system for decades.

Isn't it enough I paid taxes or will pay taxes on retirement holdings which I denied myself use of while I was working to make myself comfortable then , planning for later, , like a responsible citizen, then the gov. whom could have let me keep and invest the money myself btw, say hey, you planned to well, you're TOO comfortable, you don't have an SSI account anymore.....sorry that does not wash with me at all. .

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Shackles found the following which should be dispositive as to the sham idea that Clinton ran surpluses...

"The government can have a surplus even if it has trillions in debt, but it cannot have a surplus if that debt increased every year. This article is about surplus/deficit, not the debt. However, it analyzes the debt to prove there wasn't a surplus under Clinton.

While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it's curious to see Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.

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. Yes, the deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.

Understanding what happened requires understanding two concepts of what makes up the national debt. The national debt is made up of public debt and intragovernmental holdings. The public debt is debt held by the public, normally including things such as treasury bills, savings bonds, and other instruments the public can purchase from the government. Intragovernmental holdings, on the other hand, is when the government borrows money from itself--mostly borrowing money from social security.

When it is claimed that Clinton paid down the national debt, that is patently false--as can be seen, the national debt went up every single year. What Clinton did do was pay down the public debt--

But he paid down the public debt by borrowing far more money in the form of intragovernmental holdings (mostly Social Security).Update 3/31/2009: The following quote from an article at CBS confirms my explanation of the Myth of the Clinton Surplus, and the entire article essentially substantiates what I wrote.

"Over the past 25 years, the government has gotten used to the fact that Social Security is providing free money to make the rest of the deficit look smaller," said Andrew Biggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute."

Read the whole article at
The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

Thanks again, Biggy!

The author does not understand the budgetary balance.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...administration-was-a-myth-10.html#post3119201

See the link below, it may help explain to you the difference between the terms: Public Debt, Intragovernmental Holdings, and Total Public Debt Outstanding, and how it can be applied to bring out the "illusion" of surplus. Included is a link to the Federal Government Treasury, which can give you a detailed history [by year] of what PoliticalChic is talking about.
LOVE THAT DEBT – DETAILING THE CLINTON SURPLUS MYTH Roman Around

 

[Toro]

The author does not understand the budgetary balance.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...administration-was-a-myth-10.html#post3119201

See the link below, it may help explain to you the difference between the terms: Public Debt, Intragovernmental Holdings, and Total Public Debt Outstanding, and how it can be applied to bring out the "illusion" of surplus. Included is a link to the Federal Government Treasury, which can give you a detailed history [by year] of what PoliticalChic is talking about.
LOVE THAT DEBT – DETAILING THE CLINTON SURPLUS MYTH Roman Around

I would suggest you read the link in my post, given that I directly address the argument in the link to which you refer.

I would also suggest you read this link, this link, this link, and this link.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The national debt summary includes accruals to the trusts, which are noncash charges and do not measure the inflows and outflows of cash into the Treasury. Those liabilities can be created, and eliminated, with a stroke of a pen.

Over Clinton's two terms, national debt rose, but the government ran surpluses in the last years of the 1990s and paid down debt. You can see all this in the budget documents, of which I linked the 2000 budget above.

That's really groovy other than the fact it is based on fictitious accounting.

So how much debt did Reagan rack up, under 'non-fiction' accounting? Could you provide us that number please?

In current dollars too.

I guess that number is not forthcoming.

Back to my other question that no conservative here will answer:

If you don't believe Clinton balanced the budget, did Clinton come closer to balancing the budget than any other president in the last 30 years?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The author does not understand the budgetary balance.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...administration-was-a-myth-10.html#post3119201

See the link below, it may help explain to you the difference between the terms: Public Debt, Intragovernmental Holdings, and Total Public Debt Outstanding, and how it can be applied to bring out the "illusion" of surplus. Included is a link to the Federal Government Treasury, which can give you a detailed history [by year] of what PoliticalChic is talking about.
LOVE THAT DEBT – DETAILING THE CLINTON SURPLUS MYTH Roman Around

I would suggest you read the link in my post, given that I directly address the argument in the link to which you refer.

I would also suggest you read this link, this link, this link, and this link.

I've already done so, in researching the subject, and found social security to be only one piece of the overall government treasury. Concentrating on your own IRA account for example, doesn't exclude your obligations to overall liabilities when boasting a case about an owner's positive equity. The Federal Government Treasury is the best factual evidence on this subject. The link breaks down and explains the Federal Debt process, beyond looking at JUST simply Social Security, to include the overall Treasury. Links to other blogs are not creditable factual sources.

If it helps you, you can refer to this link about United States public debt:
Here is a listing of the Public Debt for prior fiscal years under President Bill Clinton:
09/29/1995 .... $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1996 .... $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/30/1997 .... $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1998 .... $5,526,194,008,897.62
09/30/1999 .... $5,656,270,901,615.43

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_U.S._public_debt



When you travel down to the bottom of this link, you'll note an INCREASE in the Debt ceiling that had to be made:
April 6, 1993 .. $4,370,000,000,000
Aug 10, 1993 .. $4,900,000,000,000
Mar 29, 1996 .. $5,500,000,000,000
Aug 5, 1997 .... $5,950,000,000,000
June 11, 2002 . $6,400,000,000,000 (under President George W Bush, the same gradual increase in the debt ceiling is shown to have be made)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

 

[Toro]

See the link below, it may help explain to you the difference between the terms: Public Debt, Intragovernmental Holdings, and Total Public Debt Outstanding, and how it can be applied to bring out the "illusion" of surplus. Included is a link to the Federal Government Treasury, which can give you a detailed history [by year] of what PoliticalChic is talking about.
LOVE THAT DEBT – DETAILING THE CLINTON SURPLUS MYTH Roman Around

I would suggest you read the link in my post, given that I directly address the argument in the link to which you refer.

I would also suggest you read this link, this link, this link, and this link.

I've already done so, in researching the subject, and found social security to be only one piece of the overall government treasury. Concentrating on your own IRA account for example, doesn't exclude your obligations to overall liabilities when boasting a case about an owner's positive equity. The Federal Government Treasury , breaks this down and explains the overall debt process, looking beyond JUST simply Social Security to the overall treasury. Links to other blogs are not creditable factual sources.

Yet you linked to a blog to back up your argument, a blog written not by an economist or an accountant or a financial analyst or someone who understands pensions, but by a software engineer.

You refer to the US Treasury. Here is a document from the US Treasury. The US Treasury says there is a surplus. It says so right on the very front of this US Treasury document.

This issue includes the final budget results and details a surplus of
$237.0 billion for Fiscal Year 2000.

http://fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0900.pdf

Why would the US Treasury say there was a surplus when, as you and that software engineer blogger say, there was no surplus?

The CBO said there was a surplus.

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9957/...bles09-web.XLS

How come the CBO says there was a surplus?

Why are the government agencies that are responsible for tracking the budget and cash flows of the United States wrong and you and a software engineer blogger correct?

Why would we disbelieve experts and believe ideologically biased people who are not experts?

Also, explain why the increase in the national debt is not an accounting function? I can tell you why it is an accounting function. Tell me why I'm wrong.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

The CBO said there was a surplus.

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9957/...bles09-web.XLS

How come the CBO says there was a surplus?

Why are the government agencies that are responsible for tracking the budget and cash flows of the United States wrong and you and a software engineer blogger correct?

Why would we disbelieve experts and believe ideologically biased people who are not experts?

Why not trust what the CBO says?
CBO Admits (Very Quietly) That HR 3200 Will Reduce Costs | Health | Change.org

CBO doubles some health care spending estimates – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs
Douglas Elmendorf, the CBO director, said the latest report "updates and expands" on the previous report. He noted that assessing effects on discretionary spending was speculative because such appropriations require congressional action, and could be larger or smaller than initially anticipated.

CBO: Health Care Bill Will Cost $115 Billion More Than Previously Assessed - Political Punch - ABC News
Greenspan on Heath Care Costs: Severe Consequences if CBO is Wrong - Political Punch - ABC News



I trust the public information found under the Federal Treasury Government Link. I'm not following ideology, but I'm looking to the facts between Federal Government DEBT and DEFICIT Source: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np (this TreasuryDirect Government site allows you to go into a History search to show you the Outstanding Federal Debt). Why does the public debt continue to go up during the Clinton administration?

Here is a listing of the Public Debt for prior fiscal years under President Bill Clinton:
09/29/1995 .... $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1996 .... $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/30/1997 .... $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1998 .... $5,526,194,008,897.62
09/30/1999 .... $5,656,270,901,615.43

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_U.S._public_debt



Can you explain the reason behind the INCREASE in the Federal debt ceiling during Clinton's term?
April 6, 1993 .. $4,370,000,000,000
Aug 10, 1993 .. $4,900,000,000,000
Mar 29, 1996 .. $5,500,000,000,000
Aug 5, 1997 .... $5,950,000,000,000
June 11, 2002 . $6,400,000,000,000 (under President George W Bush, the same gradual increase in the debt ceiling is shown to have be made)

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt


Yes the deficit went down, but at the cost of the Federal Debt. See Deficit vs Federal Debt Graphs - usgovernment link: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/debt_deficit_brief.php Following this government link you will see TWO groups of graphs; one that focuses on Government Debt since 1900, followed by a set graphs that shows the Government Deficit. The graphs will show the Deficit did go down, but at the cost of the Federal Debt which continued to go up.