PF Exclusive: Debt increase in FY2015 lowest in 14 years

So basically you can have a surplus and yet the national debt rises. You could have 10 surplus years in a row and the national debt could rise all ten years. Now that don't make sense to me. Somewhere along the line someone is putting a whole bunch of spending or interest payments off the books. Something any bookkeeper would go to jail for.

rather it is official or unofficial, the only honest and true way to deem if there was a deficit or surplus is to look at the national debt. If the debt goes up, we had a deficit. If the debt goes down we had a surplus.

All the rest is GIGO or gobbledygook bookkeeping. It is like the unemployed figures. The government only counts those out of work or unemployed it wants to count. You could have for example 100 people unemployed, but if the government says it is only 50, it is only 50 because the other unemployed aren't looking for work and thus ceased to exist in the count.

Crazy and it has been like this since who knows when. No wonder no one trusts their own government when they can't even add 2 plus 2 and come up with 4. Anyway, thanks for the info.

For me the last president who had a surplus is still Eisenhower who did it twice. Twice the national debt went down under IKE. He is still be best president in my lifetime that I can personally remember. I was born right after WWII, but personally I can't remember Truman.

 

Take another look at the US Treasury Dept table. You are misreading it. The national debt decreased in 2000. It did not rise.

And that is the total debt. The Debt held by the Public (which excludes SS) decreased by hundreds of billions of dollars in the late 1990s.

 

So spending on Social Security does not count but congress can spend the revenues from the payment we make into Social Security. Social Security is not longer a stand alone program, it lock box has been broken into many, many moons ago. The way I understand it there is nothing more than IOU's in that Social Security box.

Social Security is a government program run by the government who collects money from the people to pay for it and returns payments to us when the time comes.

I guess I am as confused as ever and hence my fall back to if the debt goes up, we didn't take in enough revenue to cover all our expenses. Not including social security is like me not including my house payment for the mortgage in my budget. I may have saved some money after I paid for food, transportation, clothing, recreation, but at the end of the month I still have to pay the mortgage. I can say I ran a surplus if I exclude it from my budget, but I really didn't.

You know I am not a financial guru. But the only way I see it is if the debt goes up, there was no surplus or it would have gone down. Anything else, any way else, is just juggling the books.

As far as I am concerned, if the government says they had a surplus and the debt goes up as it did in 2000, they are lying. Now I give Bill Clinton credit, 17 billion increase in the national debt is about as close as we will get to a balance budget or a real surplus when the debt goes down. Bill was a good president when it came to financial responsibility. One of a few since IKE.

I suppose the bottom line is I am too hard headed to see it differently. But I appreciate the info and the try. On some things I am as stubborn as a mule and this is one of them.

 

There are operating budgets and capital budgets and debt. So yes you can have a debt increase and still have a budget surplus. I can increase the debt I carry and still remain in my budget and not spend all I budgeted and no more than I earned that year. Yes is is much easier to lower your debt if you have surplus funds in your budget and we should be running balanced budgets and the Republicans got us there in the late ninties and had us heading there again after the 2000/2001 recession/911/dot.com bust with the deficits down to a mere $161B. Then the Democrats took control of the budgets and increased spending 9% and then 18% and ran that deficit up to $1,400B in just two years and kept it over $1,000b for the next 4 years EXPLODING the debt.

- - - Updated - - -

Thank you Gingrich and Kasich.

 

Back to Apples vs Oranges?
Clinton did not achieve a FY surplus in any of the years he was in office, but a surplus can be shown comparing the calendar year debt, which was $113,875,300,527.96 less than what it was comparing the December 2000 debt to that of the previous year, however that 'surplus' was reduced to $47,351,805,666.37 on January 2, 2001.

There is a constant revenue flow, coming into and leaving the Federal government the amounts of each vary daily, which in effect results in what could be considered a surplus or a deficit on a daily basis.
If you were to compare the debt on a daily basis to the debt the previous year debt on the same day there may be other periods of time in which a surplus might be shown, but the budget is based on a fiscal year so that is what we should really be looking at.

As for the "good news" implied by the OP, it will be "good news" when/if the government ever starts to show a debt decrease, not simply being relative to the GDP, but in the total amount of debt outstanding ALL of which is ultimately owed by the taxpayers.

There appears to be some confusion as to what "off budget" means. Social Security is an example of something which is 'off budget', but it and ALL other 'off budget' spending is included in the debt. Any spending which exceeds the existing means results in an increase in the debt. It may be possible under some circumstances to delay its inclusion to the debt total, although it will at some time be added.

 

The debt went down in 2000. I've shown you the proof. You seem to be too hard headed to see any thing differently than what your fed by RW propaganda. It's not unusual.

 

If the national debt stood at 5,656,270,901,615.43 at the end of 1999 and at the end of 2000 it stood at 5,674,270,901,615.43. If that is going down I'll eat my hat. The fact is this country owed more money and borrowed more money at the end of 2000 than the end of 1999. It must be the new math they are teaching in school to day. The national debt is more at the end of 2000 than it was at the end of 1999. If you can't see that, I can't help it either.

 

You are simply wrong. Your numbers are not for the end of 1999 and 2000. $5,656,270,901,615.43, for example is the number as of 9/30/1999, not year end 1999.

Here are the year end numbers once again, straight from the Treasury Department's website, and once again I provide the link so (if you are interested in the truth) you can check them yourself.



ftp://ftp.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opds122000.pdf

You also get the same figures by plugging in the last day of 1999 and 2000 in the Treasury Department's "Debt to the Penny website, here:

http://treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/current

I've plugged in the numbers and you can see them yourself here:

http://treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/s...=31&startYear=1999&endMonth=&endDay=&endYear=
http://treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/s...=31&startYear=2000&endMonth=&endDay=&endYear=

I can show you the indisputable facts, I can show you the truth, in black and white, and I can prove to you they are from the official source that keeps the record of the nation's debt. I can give you the link and an image of the actual numbers from the site.

But of course, you can believe whatever you want. It certainly is not uncommon for conservatives to believe things totally opposite from black and white indisputable fact because in contradicts their ideological belief, in my experience.

 

Well that is the end of the fiscal year is it not, why use the Calender year end?

 

That was based on his "figuring" if you bothered to read the thread.

He said his "figuring" was to look at the debt to determine if there was a surplus or deficit ("My way of figuring is if the debt goes up, there was no surplus."). I pointed out that under his "figuring" there was a surplus in 2000 because the debt decreased by $114 billion.

That does not mean I am agreeing his "figuring" is correct or appropriate. I've pointed out that a deficit or surplus is calculated by comparing revenues and outlays.

But many conservatives are loathe to admit that there was a surplus under a Democratic administration when we've had such budget failures under Republican ones, which I suspect the case is here.

 

My numbers are from the treasury department. Are you telling me treasury lies? You even posted the same numbers at the beginning of this thread.

 

Those are fiscal years ending 9/30. Do you really not understand? Are you so blinded by ideology?

In the year ending 12/31/2000 the debt went down by $114 billion. The numbers are from the Treasury Department. They are right in front of your face. Are you telling me treasury lies?

 

Well then, we all agree. Treasury lies.

 

I'm curious as to who you concluded I agree with that.

But if that is what you believe, then you have no basis for asserting that there was no surplus under Clinton.

 

And you that it had a surplus. Which is impossible if the debt rose almost 18 billion according to treasury. So if we throw out the treasury figures, that makes both of us right. Enough already. I liked Bill and thought he was a darn good president and to get the debt down to 17 billion and change was an accomplishment worth a merit badge and a night in the local whore house. But when the debt rises, in my opinion there was no surplus. You think different which is your privilege. Let's just leave it there.

 

Clinton opposed and fought against the measures that balanced the budgets and produced the surpluses. Gingrich and Kasich did it in spite of Clinton.

 

I have and you seem to be playing your wack-a-mole game.

In spite of a Democrat administration, are you still confused as to who controls the budget and who actually balanced them and produced the surpluses or just loath to admit it?

 

Not at all. I'm not the one claiming the Treasury Department lies about the debt. And the fact that there was a surplus is based on the fact that revenues exceed expenditures, not the level of debt.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Either you accept the Treasury numbers and acknowledge that in 2000 the debt declined by $114 billion and so there was a surplus even by your "figuring", or you don't have any basis to make that claim.

Really, I appreciate you acknowledged you are not a financial guru. It shows in your every post. So I have to wonder why you argue with me about it.

The fact that there is a large total debt in no way means you could not have a surplus. The total debt is the net accumulation of all money borrowed by the US Govt. The surplus shows the amount revenues exceed outlays in any given year (or else you have a deficit).

I haven't said anything about throwing them out. Indeed, I asked you why you would conclude I agreed to such a thing. Which you dodged.

You "opinion" is wrong on many counts.

First of all, regardless of what you "figure", a deficit is not measured by the debt but by revenues and expenditures.


US Treasury Department
The deficit is the fiscal year difference between what the United States Government (Government) takes in from taxes and other revenues, called receipts, and the amount of money the Government spends, called outlays. The items included in the deficit are considered either on-budget or off-budget.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/resources/faq/faq_publicdebt.htm#DebtOwner

Government Accountability Office
Deficit: The amount by which the government’s spending exceeds its revenues for a given period, usually a fiscal year. (opposite of surplus)
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05734sp.pdf

Congressional Budget Office
deficit: The amount by which the federal government’s total outlays exceed its total revenues in a given period, typically a fiscal year. Compare with surplus
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/glossary.pdf

Office of Management and Budget
Deficit means the amount by which outlays exceed receipts in a fiscal year. It may refer to the on-budget, off-budget, or unified budget deficit. (See budget totals.)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/a11_current_year/s20.pdf

Second, even if we look at the debt, we see the debt went down $114 billion in 2000 as I indisputably proved above.

You can have any opinion you want. But when your opinion is based on clearly erroneous facts and fundamental misunderstanding of basic principles like yours is here, don't be surprised when I point them out.

But I understand why your struggling to admit the obvious. A lot of other conservatives are loathe to admit that a tax raising liberal like Clinton was the only president in modern times that got us to a surplus, as short lived as it was before it was squandered by the following administration. The fact that Democratic Clinton was the most fiscally responsible president we've had drives them batty.

 

Who asked you?

I'm not confused at all, thanks.

 

It takes two to tango. In this case cooperation between the president and the congress. Remember Bill Clinton was a member of the DLC, a conservative Democratic organization and its founder I believe. G.W. Bush was more liberal than Clinton, also remember Clinton brought us welfare reform. I am not saying Bill was a conservative in the traditional sense. But he was a centrist sort of in the Eisenhower mode. The true traditional conservative president was Calvin Coolidge.

It is normal for Republican to give all the credit to the Republican congress and none to Bill Clinton and Democrats to give all the credit to Bill and none to the Republican congress. In fact it couldn't have been done without the cooperation of both. Also you had the outside pressure coming from Ross Perot which both major parties were scared to death his little Reform Party might end up being a viable alternative to the two major parties.

 

Don't be confused by Bluesguy's spin or buy into a false equivalency.

The truth is, the 1993 tax increase that sent revenues soaring (and got us to a surplus budget) was passed when the Dems controlled Congress and was opposed by every Republican in Congress.

Spending never declined in actual terms, but decreased relative to GDP because (1) GDP grew rapidly, in spite of the tax increase which conservatives claim would wreck the economy) and (2) the so-called "peace dividend".

By the time Gingrich and Kasich and the Republicans took Congress, the deficits were already falling rapidly, and were about half the size they were before Clinton took office.

And they didn't continue falling because of some love fest between Clinton and the Republicans. The Republicans wanted huge tax cuts, but Clinton knew the tax cuts they proposed would set the deficits soaring and used his veto power to shove it up their asses.

I actually used to give Republicans some of the credit for the surplus. But then they showed their true colors. When Bush was selected president in 2001, the Republicans got their way and slashed taxes, and revenues tanked by hundreds of billions a year. The golden opportunity of the surplus was squandered, and within a short few years (along with the help of unbridled military spending) we were back to new record high deficits.

 

No one has to its a public forum

Then why do you attribute the budgets to Clinton merely because he was sitting in the White House. What do you mean "under Clinton" when he opposed the measures that produced the surpluses?

 

No it did not as I have demonstrated over and over and you fail to refute. His tax increase slowed the growth of tax revenues and even with the higher rates and the deferred taxes coming in that growth, which was on a strong upward curve BEFORE his tax increased slowed from 9% to 7%. Go ahead andpost your phony analysis of the data and I will prove again how you misuse it.

Yes the economy Clinton inherited was much stronger than any had thought but nonetheless his tax rate increase slowed it and cost him the Congress and even he admitted he raised taxes trouble much. Had he done nothing we would have been better off so stop with the fallacious partisan blather.

Not because of Clinton who requested more spending every year than Congress authorised. It was the combination of the Republican tax rate cuts, spending restraint and welfare reforms which Cloning all opposed the got the economy back on the strong upsurge.

And then his political adviser told him to shut up about it and get on boars with them and tax revenues soared to double digit growth and with the denying hombhisbspending increases Gingrich and Kasich balanced the budget and produced the surpluses.

Guess you forgot aboutbthe slowdown that began before Bush was even nominated, the dot.com bust and 911 or are you going to assert they had no effect on tax revenues....just laughable. The only mistake the Republicans made was the phase in, one they accelerated them revenues soared and they lowered the deficit to a paltry $161B surely you aren't going to deny that too?

What do you mean "opportunity" the Republicans produced 4 yearsbof them till the next slowdown and had us on thebpath back o them until the Democrats took back control of the budget

ROTF yes under Democrat budgets and a 9% spending increase followed by an 18% spending increase.

Stop trying to rewrtie history.

And you can address me directly next time.

 

And when two Tango one leads and one follows. The fact remains Clinton opposed the measures that balanced the budget and only agreed to them after his political adviser Dick Morris told him if he contnued to fight thr Repubicans he would not get reelected. He did it to save his political arse.

And I'm not a Republican and I assure you Perot and his party did not scare Gingrich and Kasich.

 

I think you underestimate the influence back then of Perot and his party. Both major parties were bending over backwards, courting us in search for our support and votes. When a third party candidate can garner 19% of the vote, both parties considered him a direct threat. That 19% can decide elections especially if that 19% is drawn from what would be normal support for your party. Those were heady days back then for the little Reform Party.

We received calls here in Georgia from the state and county Republican and Democratic officals all the time asking me, us what we thought about this, could we support that, what ideas did we have. I imagine if that was happening in Georgia, it was happening more or less all over. Our official membership was very, very small. But it wasn't the membership that worried the two major parties, it was challenges to their sitting elected officials. The ability to drain votes away from them that in a way that gave us more power than what we deserved and that we certainly did not earn. But we did manage during those hey days of electing a governor, Minnesota, several statewide minor offices, some 700 state legislatures and some county officials. Then came 2000 and the implosion. The end really of the Reform Party thanks to Pat Buchanan.