US Debt clock.....really good stuff

[Madtown HD Junkie]

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

this is really interesting...saw on Fox & Friends this am

[wildbill129]

Quit spending Money which does not exist

There's a concept Congress does not get.........

[msmith198025]

I have seen this clock many times, and one can not fathom the numbers. Is that why we do not stop? The numbers do not seem real?

[HDRoberts]

I have seen this clock many times, and one can not fathom the numbers. Is that why we do not stop? The numbers do not seem real?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY

In 1961, Ike warned us. In 25 years, his warning came true as Reagan launched massive increases in military spending, which have further snowballed, particularly under George W. Bush.

Earmarks are another problem. I'm extremely disappointed congress did not pass the proposed total ban on earmarks.

The other problem is stupid politicians (Ahem Reagan, ahem George W. Bush) who want to lower taxes while raising spending. That national debt clock clearly shows that fiscal policy does not work.

Oops, sorry, only social spending is bad.:augentreher:

[msmith198025]

LMAO! I love how you try to pin most of it on two guys. Repubs as it turns out. That is pretty funny

[Bob Haller]

were well on our way to a 1776 kinda revolution, if the economy doesnt improve dramatically.

the uncontrolled spending by the bought by lobbyistss congress is just one factor in the perfect storm

[HDRoberts]

LMAO! I love how you try to pin most of it on two guys. Repubs as it turns out. That is pretty funny

It's not just them. Bush I, Clinton, and Obama are also were part of the problem, not to mention congressional leaders during each of those presidencies. But they are the worst offenders. Especially in the "cut taxes, raise spending" department.

Sadly, the debt for so many conservatives has only been a problem under Obama. Don't you people remember 1992, when Ross Perot ran on a platform of a balanced budget? You seem to forget, the budget has been unbalanced for a long time.

[msmith198025]

The debt has been an issue for quite some time. It is getting more attention now, but it has skyrocketed recently (the past few years).
Problem is, just balancing the budget at this point, wont fix the debt problem.

[HDRoberts]

The debt has been an issue for quite some time. It is getting more attention now, but it has skyrocketed recently (the past few years).
Problem is, just balancing the budget at this point, wont fix the debt problem.

And yet Obama has only been president for 1 year. But it is still all his fault. Hmmmm

[msmith198025]

And yet Obama has only been president for 1 year. But it is still all his fault. Hmmmm

I didnt say that, although, like you, I will say that to this point he has contributed to it. IF things keep going like they are, he will contribute more.

I have not seen either side try to be fiscally conservative as of late.

[Bob Haller]

Debt was actually DECREASING under clinton near the end of his presidency.

[HDRoberts]

Debt was actually DECREASING under clinton near the end of his presidency.

I know. I just think with some smart spending cuts, it could have gone down more.

[Bob Haller]

I know. I just think with some smart spending cuts, it could have gone down more.

Without 2 wars, one a trumped up one, the deficit wouldnt be so bad.....

[stevenl]

Bob our Massive Deficits the past 5-10 years have not been because of wars. At least not the bulk of it. Certainly it plays a role. Across the board cuts on EVERYTHING is needed to get us on the right track. I mean Taking military spending down 200billion a year (to 2001 levels) will not make us "less safe" at all. Just for starters

[msmith198025]

Without 2 wars, one a trumped up one, the deficit wouldnt be so bad.....

Did you look at the clock?

It is a big expense, but it is not the biggest one. There are cuts that can be made everywhere.

[Bob Haller]

Agreed, its not just the wars, its the entire congress pork piggie being bought and paid for by lobbyists. but wars paid for on credit arent a good idea. LBJ was a fool but at least it was pay as you go..........

Our system is BROKE, and it would get fixed till the economy totally collapses.

either no real recovery, most likely

or recovery with run away inflation.

As americans see their way of life collapsing around them a 1776 type of change will take place. Most likely seeing a real throw the bums out of congress.

specifically BOTH republicans AND democrats. neither of which really care about anything but playing partisian politics with our future:(

[msmith198025]

Bob our Massive Deficits the past 5-10 years have not been because of wars. At least not the bulk of it. Certainly it plays a role. Across the board cuts on EVERYTHING is needed to get us on the right track. I mean Taking military spending down 200billion a year (to 2001 levels) will not make us "less safe" at all. Just for starters

Hard to cut military spending by that much during war time though, otherwise, I agree.

[Bob Haller]

its all non critical spending, but the 2 wars and lifetime healthcare for vets cant help.

In pittsburgh the feds largely funded a mass transit tunnel under the river, a totally unnecessary expense that no one wanted. It will run a permanent deficit of 2 bucks per rider for its expected 40 year life expectancy.

1/4 of federal budget should be zeroed each year, and only reinstated its it critically needed, and ZERO earmarks!

[HDRoberts]

While were talking counters, here is one for the wars:

http://costofwar.com/

Getting close to a trillion dollars, or 8% of the total deficit. Probably the largest single item that could have been cut. And I believe that only covers direct costs. Like Bob says, there are a lifetime of costs associated with VA benefits.

Even then, I think more could be cut from the millitary. Do we really need new tankers? Replacements for the P-3 Orion? The Nimitz class carriers were the most technologically advanced carriers, and then we spent $14 Billion developing a replacement, and that does not include building any. We could go on. All these programs seem to do little more than give big contracts to defense contractors.

[stevenl]

Hard to cut military spending by that much during war time though, otherwise, I agree.


You do realize the war has a separate budget? It was not until Obamas recent budget that they included the wars into the defense budget. During the Bush years they were separate.

[msmith198025]

While were talking counters, here is one for the wars:

http://costofwar.com/

Getting close to a trillion dollars, or 8% of the total deficit. Probably the largest single item that could have been cut. And I believe that only covers direct costs. Like Bob says, there are a lifetime of costs associated with VA benefits.

Even then, I think more could be cut from the millitary. Do we really need new tankers? Replacements for the P-3 Orion? The Nimitz class carriers were the most technologically advanced carriers, and then we spent $14 Billion developing a replacement, and that does not include building any. We could go on. All these programs seem to do little more than give big contracts to defense contractors.
IMHO, the tanker program is one that we DO need. The fleet that we have now is old, and I would have to dig up the link, but cost as much to maintain as they do to fly because of their age.

I think I read that about the costs in the Mobile Press paper, which is the city that the competing tanker would have been built in.

[msmith198025]

You do realize the war has a separate budget? It was not until Obamas recent budget that they included the wars into the defense budget. During the Bush years they were separate.

How is it calculated in the clock? It says defense/wars, so I guess that is combined. Which is why I said it would be hard to get THAT number down while the wars are ongoing.

[stevenl]

How is it calculated in the clock? It says defense/wars, so I guess that is combined. Which is why I said it would be hard to get THAT number down while the wars are ongoing.

Not sure about the clock but I know the 2010 budget is somthing like (within a few billion)
500billion for defense budget (non war spending) and 200billon allocated for war spending. Seems to me 500billion for just day to day non-war operations is a bit much.

[HDRoberts]

IMHO, the tanker program is one that we DO need. The fleet that we have now is old, and I would have to dig up the link, but cost as much to maintain as they do to fly because of their age.

I think I read that about the costs in the Mobile Press paper, which is the city that the competing tanker would have been built in.

I'm not sure we really need many tankers these days, though. They were developed to keep SAC bombers in the air. But now there is no SAC.

[stevenl]

I support the new tanker program, and new Air Craft Carrier program. I believe any nation who has Air Superiority has the ultimate edge in any battle, and maintaining the best navy/air force in the world will do a lot to keep us protected from all threats present and future.

Just look at WW2. When we controlled the skies we won the war. The gulf war was won without little to no ground operations (I mean the air force won the war before the boots even crossed the boarder. And sure like in Iraq and Afghanasatain today, we may still be fighting but there is no threat of us losing because we control the skies.

[HDRoberts]

I support the new tanker program, and new Air Craft Carrier program. I believe any nation who has Air Superiority has the ultimate edge in any battle, and maintaining the best navy/air force in the world will do a lot to keep us protected from all threats present and future.

Just look at WW2. When we controlled the skies we won the war. The gulf war was won without little to no ground operations (I mean the air force won the war before the boots even crossed the boarder. And sure like in Iraq and Afghanasatain today, we may still be fighting but there is no threat of us losing because we control the skies.

We have air superiority with the Navy and Air Force we have.

[stevenl]

And we need to maintain that.

[HDRoberts]

And we need to maintain that.

You know, when did Al-Qaeda start developing a 5th gen. fighter? Or an aircraft carrier? Or tankers? The weapons you love so much are useless against our primary enemies.

Still, there are other nation, but the bomb, as well as our existing millitary, is plenty enough to deter any attacks.

[msmith198025]

China is the main country that comes to mind as the reason that we need to maintain our edge. They are not there yet, but they are also not sitting still. They ARE working on a 5th gen fighter, and they are building the navy to be a considerable force.

Lets not forget, these technologies take decades to develop, if we stop and others do not, it is only a matter of time before they catch or even surpass us.

I am with steven, the edge in air and naval power is very important.

[vurbano]

CHina, North Korea, Iran. etc.

[Bob Haller]

Now someone might attack us ala 9 11:(

But no country in the right mind would attack to occupy us.

First were a economic disaster, US citizens would probably unite against a common enemy, at least long enough to defeat them, heck even congress would agree on that.......

anyone who would invade usa would have to be prepared to fix things, hey maybe it would be a good idea?

[froggigger]

Debt was actually DECREASING under clinton near the end of his presidency.


I know. I just think with some smart spending cuts, it could have gone down more.

Have another shot of Kool-Aid. The "surplus" near the end of Clinton's term that brought down the debt was an accounting gimmick. If a private concern kept its books like government keeps theirs, the CEO and top officers would be thrown under the jail.

[msmith198025]

I'm not sure we really need many tankers these days, though. They were developed to keep SAC bombers in the air. But now there is no SAC.

All of our planes need refueling to get across the globe. Our tankers are strategic. Ask the airmen that fly our planes.

[Bear Paws]

Now someone might attack us ala 9 11:(

But no country in the right mind would attack to occupy us.

First were a economic disaster, US citizens would probably unite against a common enemy, at least long enough to defeat them, heck even congress would agree on that.......

anyone who would invade usa would have to be prepared to fix things, hey maybe it would be a good idea? You got your wish.. The Wilson Roosevelt progressives let them in the back door and didn't nigh as much as make a whimper when the Marxist propaganda ministers of the USSR impregnated the minds of these useful idiots of America. Now they occupy the majority in Congress and the White House.

These words have come true without a shot being fired..
I once said, "We will bury you," and I got into trouble with it. Of course we will not bury you with a shovel. Your own working class will bury you.
Nikita Khrushchev

[HDRoberts]

Have another shot of Kool-Aid. The "surplus" near the end of Clinton's term that brought down the debt was an accounting gimmick. If a private concern kept its books like government keeps theirs, the CEO and top officers would be thrown under the jail.

The White House Office of Management and Budget seems to disagree with you.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf
Table 1.3


All of our planes need refueling to get across the globe. Our tankers are strategic. Ask the airmen that fly our planes.

Then why do we need air bases all around the planet if our tankers are so our planes can fly across the globe?

Listen, no doubt the tankers (and whatever else the military buys) are nice. But we can't afford what we don't need, and i think the military can be effective with a lot less than it has. It's just like I'd love a Maseratii. I'd like it, I could get to work a whole lot faster, but I don't need it. My mid-90s sedan does just fine.

[msmith198025]

I imagine in times of need it is quicker to refuel in air than land, refuel, and takeoff again. Not saying it is needed every time, but that is one advantage we have over MOST nations (and one that is needed or was needed more times than we care to know). It is one I would not want to lose, and the tankers we have are old, and are costing us more to maintain than fly.

It is a good program, one of the most important IMO.

[msmith198025]

I would like to point out that SAC role was not completely done away with. It is carried on by the Air Combat Command, and the Air Mobility Command. So the role of these aircraft is not diminished.

[Bear Paws]

We have air superiority with the Navy and Air Force we have. Yep, The B-24 Liberator was the cats meow in air superiority once too as was the P-15 Mustangs. How do you think they would have fared against the Mig-17s and TU-16s a mere few years later toward the end of the Korean War?

[HDRoberts]

I imagine in times of need it is quicker to refuel in air than land, refuel, and takeoff again. Not saying it is needed every time, but that is one advantage we have over MOST nations (and one that is needed or was needed more times than we care to know). It is one I would not want to lose, and the tankers we have are old, and are costing us more to maintain than fly.

It is a good program, one of the most important IMO.

Fine. Then instead let's close down the 22 massive air bases around the world the US operates out of. Just keep a few select tankers in commercial airports around the world, but do all combat flying out of the US and aircraft carriers.

[HDRoberts]

I would like to point out that SAC role was not completely done away with. It is carried on by the Air Combat Command, and the Air Mobility Command. So the role of these aircraft is not diminished.

We have aircraft folding in the air armed with nuclear weapons 24 hours a day somewhere? The comparison is not the same.

Like I said, they may be nice to have, but do we NEED them? Do we need to have a lot of what the military buys? Sadly, so many citizens treat military might as an international d**k measuring contest.

I want to know how so many countries have avoided getting conquered while lacking our great military might.

[HDRoberts]

Yep, The B-24 Liberator was the cats meow in air superiority once too as was the P-15 Mustangs. How do you think they would have fared against the Mig-17s and TU-16s a mere few years later toward the end of the Korean War?

It's foolish to compare the state of aviation change today to that of 60 years ago.

Also, we no longer have any Russians to compete with. We are setting the pace. The Chinese are years from their first 5th generation fighter, something the US already has two of.

[msmith198025]

Fine. Then instead let's close down the 22 massive air bases around the world the US operates out of. Just keep a few select tankers in commercial airports around the world, but do all combat flying out of the US and aircraft carriers.
I am also sure that refueling aircraft is not all those bases do....

[msmith198025]

I want to know how so many countries have avoided getting conquered while lacking our great military might.

They know that we generally wont allow it?

[msmith198025]

It's foolish to compare the state of aviation change today to that of 60 years ago.

Also, we no longer have any Russians to compete with. We are setting the pace. The Chinese are years from their first 5th generation fighter, something the US already has two of.
How many years? Some say as few as 5.

Like I said it takes decades to develope this tech. If we stop, eventually we will be surpassed.

I am not saying spend every dime on defense by any means, but you seem to think we can cut it back to near nothing, and that is not feasible either.

We have a huge strategic advantage, and to be honest, it keeps more peace, IMO (wars and all that we see included) simply because most NATIONS know not to mess with us or our allies.

History shows, if we do not develop these weapons/tools, someone else will. Personally, I trust us to have them, and better/more advanced models, than most other nations.

[froggigger]

The White House Office of Management and Budget seems to disagree with you.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf
Table 1.3

:free-happy-smileys- Of course they disagree. Do you really think government is going to tell you what they are doing? Allow me to explain it to you because whitehouse.gov darn sure won't.

In a nutshell, government borrowed new money to pay off old debt, then called it debt reduction. Say a company was in debt and losing more every day. Then, they borrow funds from places like the bond market and use the funds to cover its losses with some left over, and then brag about having a surplus. That's pretty much what Clinton did. There were budget deficits that increased the national debt, so-called trust funds were used to cover the spending, and what was "left over" was promptly declared a budget surplus. Social Security and all other trust funds constitute present and future obligations, yet government treats it as revenue and spends it. For a couple of years under Clinton, thanks to payroll tax increases, there was enough money to cover spending and have some left over. Calling the left over funds a surplus is dishonest at best and an outright lie at worst. Let a private banker use trust fund deposits in the same way and see how long it takes for him to be hauled before a judge.

[HDRoberts]

How many years? Some say as few as 5.

Like I said it takes decades to develope this tech. If we stop, eventually we will be surpassed.

I am not saying spend every dime on defense by any means, but you seem to think we can cut it back to near nothing, and that is not feasible either.

We have a huge strategic advantage, and to be honest, it keeps more peace, IMO (wars and all that we see included) simply because most NATIONS know not to mess with us or our allies.

History shows, if we do not develop these weapons/tools, someone else will. Personally, I trust us to have them, and better/more advanced models, than most other nations.

I'm not saying gut it to zero. I'm saying cut it to maybe $400 Billion a year. That's still a lot in my book.

[HDRoberts]

:free-happy-smileys- Of course they disagree. Do you really think government is going to tell you what they are doing? Allow me to explain it to you because whitehouse.gov darn sure won't.

In a nutshell, government borrowed new money to pay off old debt, then called it debt reduction. Say a company was in debt and losing more every day. Then, they borrow funds from places like the bond market and use the funds to cover its losses with some left over, and then brag about having a surplus. That's pretty much what Clinton did. There were budget deficits that increased the national debt, so-called trust funds were used to cover the spending, and what was "left over" was promptly declared a budget surplus. Social Security and all other trust funds constitute present and future obligations, yet government treats it as revenue and spends it. For a couple of years under Clinton, thanks to payroll tax increases, there was enough money to cover spending and have some left over. Calling the left over funds a surplus is dishonest at best and an outright lie at worst. Let a private banker use trust fund deposits in the same way and see how long it takes for him to be hauled before a judge.

Link (to an independent site)?

[Bob Haller]

I do wqonder at what debt threshold our country will fail?

I mean it CANT continue forever... just like a family teetering on banruptcy at some point it just collapses

[stevenl]

As long as our economy continues to grow, our debt can also. Certainly wed like it to go down, but in some cases it makes sense to carry debt.

[froggigger]

Link (to an independent site)?

There are a butt load of links that are very easy to find. The following link may not meet your criteria of independent, but it explains it very well. Here's a taste:

But history has shown that Social Security surpluses have, if anything, led to more spending, not saving. As demonstrated by Kent Smetters, a leading economist and Treasury Department official, surpluses in the Social Security accounts have enabled the non–Social Security side of the budget to spend more and run larger deficits than otherwise would be the case.

http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp26.pdf

[Bob Haller]

As long as our economy continues to grow, our debt can also. Certainly wed like it to go down, but in some cases it makes sense to carry debt.

cite where its going up. It appears most indicators are down:(

certinally manufacturing is going downhill.

athough DEBT is increasing secondly:(

with all the debt spending shouldnt the economy be booming?

[froggigger]

cite where its going up. It appears most indicators are down:(

certinally manufacturing is going downhill.

athough DEBT is increasing secondly:(

with all the debt spending shouldnt the economy be booming?

Only in a Keynesian economist's mind.

[HDRoberts]

There are a butt load of links that are very easy to find. The following link may not meet your criteria of independent, but it explains it very well. Here's a taste:

But history has shown that Social Security surpluses have, if anything, led to more spending, not saving. As demonstrated by Kent Smetters, a leading economist and Treasury Department official, surpluses in the Social Security accounts have enabled the non–Social Security side of the budget to spend more and run larger deficits than otherwise would be the case.

http://www.socialsecurity.org/pubs/ssps/ssp26.pdf

Not independent, and talking social security, not the federal budget. Yes, the government has been borrowing from SSA. But that has nothing to do with the Clinton surpluses.

[froggigger]

Not independent, and talking social security, not the federal budget. Yes, the government has been borrowing from SSA. But that has nothing to do with the Clinton surpluses.

Did you read the article? It has everything to do with the surpluses. Without borrowing from SS, there was a deficit. In fact, there was a deficit in most years even including the SS funds. There's jail time for executives if a company did the same thing but, since it's government, it's creative financing.

To understand the process, one must recognize that Social Security is not an entity separate from the government in any real sense. Rather, it is an intrinsic part of a unified federal budget. Operationally, payroll tax receipts for Social Security are intermingled with income taxes and other federal revenues; Social Security benefits are a part of total federal outlays. When the non–Social Security part of the budget is in deficit—meaning that revenues other than Social Security taxes fall short of non–Social Security outlays—budget surpluses in Social Security automatically cover the gap. Moreover, that situation has been the norm in most years.

Over the last 40 years the non–Social Security part of the budget was in deficit in
every year except 2—1999 and 2000. In most years the Social Security surplus was not large enough to compensate for the deficit in the non–Social Security side of the budget. Thus, of the past 40 years, the unified federal budget was in deficit in all but 5 years: 1969 and 1998–2001.

If you don't like the source, feel free to show me a source you do like that says something different.

[HDRoberts]

Over the last 40 years the non–Social Security part of the budget was in deficit in every year except 2—1999 and 2000.

Um, that's EXACTLY what I'm saying. We were not in deficit those years.

[froggigger]

Um, that's EXACTLY what I'm saying. We were not in deficit those years.

If you have a personal debt of $1000, then you borrow $2000 and pay off the debt, do you have a $1000 surplus or a $1000 debt? You may have $1000 in your hand that looks like a surplus, but in reality you have a $1000 deficit because down the road that money has to be paid back.

[HDRoberts]

If you have a personal debt of $1000, then you borrow $2000 and pay off the debt, do you have a $1000 surplus or a $1000 debt? You may have $1000 in your hand that looks like a surplus, but in reality you have a $1000 deficit because down the road that money has to be paid back.

That's not what that article is saying. In 1999 and 2000, there was no non-social security deficit, so NO MONEY WAS BORROWED from social security those years.

There was a social security surplus, there was a non-social security surplus, so how can you say there still was a deficit?

Yes, what you say is true in 1998 and 2001, but not the years in between.

[froggigger]

That's not what that article is saying. In 1999 and 2000, there was no non-social security deficit, so NO MONEY WAS BORROWED from social security those years.

There was a social security surplus, there was a non-social security surplus, so how can you say there still was a deficit?

Yes, what you say is true in 1998 and 2001, but not the years in between.

You're reading it wrong. You took a select sentence out of context. Maybe more links will help. Keep in mind it's possible to have a debt and a surplus at the same time, but it's not possible to have a surplus if national debt is goes up, and it went up every year under Clinton. Oh, and I'm still waiting for your links that show otherwise.


So the table itself, according to the figures issued yesterday, showed the Federal Government ran a surplus. Absolutely false. This reporter ought to do his work. This crowd never has asked for or kept up with or checked the facts. Eric Planin--all he has to do is not spread rumors or get into the political message. Both Democrats and Republicans are all running this year and next and saying surplus, surplus. Look what we have done. It is false. The actual figures show that from the beginning of the fiscal year until now we had to borrow $127,800,000,000.

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/congress/?q=node/77531&id=8712130


When these unified budget numbers are separated into Social Security and non-Social Security components, however, it becomes evident that all of the projected surplus throughout this period is attributable to Social Security. The remainder of the budget will remain in deficit throughout the next decade.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1654

[HDRoberts]

You're reading it wrong. You took a select sentence out of context. Maybe more links will help. Keep in mind it's possible to have a debt and a surplus at the same time, but it's not possible to have a surplus if national debt is goes up, and it went up every year under Clinton. Oh, and I'm still waiting for your links that show otherwise.


So the table itself, according to the figures issued yesterday, showed the Federal Government ran a surplus. Absolutely false. This reporter ought to do his work. This crowd never has asked for or kept up with or checked the facts. Eric Planin--all he has to do is not spread rumors or get into the political message. Both Democrats and Republicans are all running this year and next and saying surplus, surplus. Look what we have done. It is false. The actual figures show that from the beginning of the fiscal year until now we had to borrow $127,800,000,000.

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/congress/?q=node/77531&id=8712130


When these unified budget numbers are separated into Social Security and non-Social Security components, however, it becomes evident that all of the projected surplus throughout this period is attributable to Social Security. The remainder of the budget will remain in deficit throughout the next decade.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1654

I provided a link. Post 35.

Take a look at the dates of those. One is mid 1999. The other is 1998. The surpluses were not in the books until the end of 1999 and in 2000. They are talking about 1998, where what you say is true, when there was a non social security deficit.

Your own link said it. In 1999 and 2000, there was neither a social security deficit, nor was there a non-social security deficit. So how was there a total deficit?

Again, what you say was true in 1998 and 2001.

[Madtown HD Junkie]

Now someone might attack us ala 9 11:(

But no country in the right mind would attack to occupy us.

First were a economic disaster, US citizens would probably unite against a common enemy, at least long enough to defeat them, heck even congress would agree on that.......

anyone who would invade usa would have to be prepared to fix things, hey maybe it would be a good idea?

They would attack to destroy us Bob..not occupy us.

[froggigger]

I provided a link. Post 35.

Take a look at the dates of those. One is mid 1999. The other is 1998. The surpluses were not in the books until the end of 1999 and in 2000. They are talking about 1998, where what you say is true, when there was a non social security deficit.

Your own link said it. In 1999 and 2000, there was neither a social security deficit, nor was there a non-social security deficit. So how was there a total deficit?

Again, what you say was true in 1998 and 2001.

Start with your link from post #35. Table 1.4 shows a federal fund deficit for every year except 2000. Like I said before, government doesn't want you to know what they are doing. One particularly sordid method used to contribute to a paper "surplus", like in 2000, was because of what they like to call "miscellaneous receipts". That means government expenditures were financed by buying billions in Treasure securities with money it printed, Treasure paid interest money to the Fed, who then turned around and handed the money back as "miscellaneous receipts". Only government can do crap like this. It's why you just can't take their charts and figures at face value. There's usually a lot more to the story. Government can, and does, screw around with figures to show just about any result they want.

I'll offer one more thing to see if the light will go off over your head. For the US to have a real surplus, national debt would have to go down. Really down. Not some chart adjusted for GDP or adjusted for this or adjusted for that. Hard debt numbers. Our national debt has gone up each and every year for a number of years. If you still believe that we really had a surplus for <pick any year>, then you should also be able to show me where our national debt went down for that year. Can you? I'll provide links to show it has gone up.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

[HDRoberts]

I'm still not sure. But no matter, the debt still went up FAR SLOWER under Clinton. I never argued he was perfect.

My point remains. Clinton's higher tax policies were clearly better for the debt.

My other point remains. Where were you in 2000 when Bush was on the campaign trail, telling everyone he could lower taxes because of a surplus? Where where you when he pushed the deficit from $5.8 Trillion to $10 Trillion?

[froggigger]

I'm still not sure. But no matter, the debt still went up FAR SLOWER under Clinton. I never argued he was perfect.

My point remains. Clinton's higher tax policies were clearly better for the debt.

My other point remains. Where were you in 2000 when Bush was on the campaign trail, telling everyone he could lower taxes because of a surplus? Where where you when he pushed the deficit from $5.8 Trillion to $10 Trillion?

We went through all that for you to say "I'm still not sure"? Why would you debate so adamantly about something that you're "not sure" about? The fact is, and I'm sure, there was no surplus under Clinton except on paper. The debt going up slower was possible only because his higher payroll taxes gave the government more to borrow to offset the spending. Smoke and mirrors.

Bush is a politician. He used surplus talk just like Gore used lockbox talk. Both were pure politics, fiscal misdirection, and just plain junk economics. If you're waiting for me to defend Bush and the GOP congress, it's gonna be a long wait. Congress spent more than they did under Clinton, and Bush couldn't find his veto pen. There was no excuse for it. Now Obama is making Bush look like a penny-pincher. No excuse for that, either.

[bruce]

If you're waiting for me to defend Bush and the GOP congress, it's gonna be a long wait. Congress spent more than they did under Clinton, and Bush couldn't find his veto pen. There was no excuse for it. Now Obama is making Bush look like a penny-pincher. No excuse for that, either.

Actually Obama has a excuse, he is a liberal, he is doing what liberals do, on the other hand Bush claimed he was a conservative during the election with Gore (which is why I voted for him), so he was a hypocrite and so he has no excuse.

[froggigger]

Good point