Not according to Treasury numbers. Budgets are not the same as actual spending. If the budget had an actual surplus that related to actual spending, then the debt would be paid down. That never happened.
You'll have to show me where the Treasury Depart says any such thing. Actual spending and receipts are recorded in historical budget data, such as can be found here: http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45249-2015-01-HistoricalBudgetData2.xlsx 1) No, as the OMB article explained, the amount borrowed in any given year doesn't equate to the difference between spending and revenues for any number of reasons. 2) It did happen. The total debt decreased $116 billion in 2000.
Weird YOU can't get past the FACT that a YEARLY BUDGET WHETHER BALANCED OR NOT, HAS ZERO TO DO WITH DEBT A surplus ONLY means you have more money coming in than going out. PERIOD. IF you have more debt, it's INCONSEQUENTIAL to the actual YEARLY BUDGET! - - - Updated - - - I get it Bubba, DEBT is IRRELEVANT to whether a YEARLY BUDGET (MONEY COMING IN VERSUS OUT) IS BALANCED OR NOT!
Yeah, "progressives" did this Non-Partisan Congressional Tax Report Debunks Core Conservative Economic Theory The conclusion? Lowering the tax rates on the wealthy and top earners in America do not appear to have any impact on the nations economic growth. This paragraph from the report says it all The reduction in the top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution. These three sentences do nothing less than blow apart the central tenet of modern conservative economic theory, confirming that lowering tax rates on the wealthy does nothing to grow the economy while doing a great deal to concentrate more wealth in the pockets of those at the very top of the income chain http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...rvative-economic-theory-gop-suppresses-study/
IF you mean by "record" revenues STILL not up to where Clinton/Carter had them, about 20% of GDP, NO. But if you mean Obama is doing better than Dubya taking US to less than 15% of GDP (a cut of 25% of fed revenues). YES, OBAMA'S DOING OK..
Not according to actual dollars and the Treasury. You seem to not be able to understand that actual debt never decreased. - - - Updated - - - Well then, according to that weird logic, when we have more spending than what comes in, there are no deficits adding to the debt.
I don't understand that because it is false. ftp://ftp.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opds122000.pdf Non sequitur.
Treasury, debt to the penny 9/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43 9/20/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86 www.treasurydirect.gov
That's the reduced budget which does not include all expenses. TreasuryDirect has the complete numbers. You are wrong no matter how many times you repost the propaganda.
And I've just proved to you to the penny with a page straight from the Treasury Department the debt decreased $114 billion in 2000, proving your statement: "that actual debt never decreased" is completely false. What's your point?
LMAO! Let me see if we can straighten this out. So when claim that the Treasury numbers say there was no surplus, what you mean is the Treasury numbers from the page that says nothing about a deficit, but what you don't mean are the Treasury numbers form the pages that explicitly say there was a surplus. Is that your position? LOL Fox News Not one Republican member of Congress supported the Clinton Budget Bill of 1993. Yet eight years and 23 million new jobs later, President Clinton had converted the $300 billion into a $1 trillion surplus. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/...#ixzz2awsPHFBc New Republic Who Created The 1990s Surplus http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/jona...on-or-the-gop# Town Hall The four straight years of budget surpluses were 1998 through 2001. ... http://srnnews.townhall.com/news/pol..._in_gop_debate Free Republic Only a Republican Congress Has Run a Budget Surplus http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2161628/posts Fox News The four straight years of budget surpluses were 1998 through 2001. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/01/24...#ixzz2awuBUGLI The Blaze THE FACTS: Actually, two. The four straight years of budget surpluses were 1998 through 2001. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012...ng-gop-debate/ CNS News. the government ran deficits. In 1998 and 1999, the government ran surpluses. Washington achieved surpluses for two years after that. - See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/fact....alNZMGwQ.dpuf Cato 1998: Yet today’s surplus is, ... http://www.cato.org/publications/com...balance-budget American Spectator As a result, the $200 billion annual federal deficits, which had prevailed for over 15 years, were transformed into record-breaking surpluses by 1998, peaking at $236 billion by 2000. http://spectator.org/archives/2011/1...gingrich/print Washington Times In fact, some Republicans insist Mr. Gingrich's reforms, which resulted in a balanced budget and a federal surplus http://washington-times.vlex.com/vid...-out-371347994 You know you are a real RW nutjob when you have to say that sources like Fox News, and New Republic Town Hall, and Free Republic. and The Blaze, and CNS News, and Cato, and American Spectator, and the Washington Times, are "propaganda" because even they won't take positions that are so incredible and bizarre as yours.
Total debt as of yesterday. $18,120,851,078,035.52 - - - Updated - - - Total debt is total debt. I know you need to cling to a story but you cannot make the real numbers go away.
My "story" was a webpage and link directly to the US Treasury Department proving the total debt decreased $114 billion in 2000, and thus your statement was completely wrong. Anyone can verify that for themselves. I know you need to cling to a story but you cannot make the real numbers go away.
Yeah, you have balanced your checkbook but you keep using your credit card. That doesn't make you fiscally responsible.
"when we have more spending than what comes in, there are no deficits adding to the debt." REALLY? YOU don't understand 3rd grade math? Take the revenues, deduct expenses and you either have balanced budget, a surplus of money OR a deficit IT'S CALLED A BUDGET, NOT A DEBT WATCH....
Now you are even contradicting yourself. Speaking of 3rd grade math, how hard was it for you? Debt increases when you spend more (because you have to borrow to do that) than you take in. Pretty simple really.
So many of these folks demonstrated they have no clue about accounting or economics, and they read a blog by a RW computer programmer with no background in accounting or economics, and that's all they need to believe. Doesn't matter even every government agency, every news source, every economist, and even RW propaganda sources like Fox, Washington Times, and Cato all say there was a surplus. They will just go on denying because of their political views. Propaganda is truly an amazing thing how effective it is on the gullible and uncritical. - - - Updated - - - How is he contradicting himself? Please cite a reliable source that says you measure a deficit or surplus with the debt. Thanks.
You are repeating yourself (and have been over several threads). If you don't get it by now, you are too lost to worry about. TreasuryDirect gives the complete debt, in a simple format. You are wrong, there was no surplus, despite your links to the incomplete federal finances.
Yet the debt increased every year, according to the Treasury. I know, I know, real numbers are not important.
Why do you continue to say that when I've proved to you with a page linked straight from the Treasury Department that it is completely false? You say real numbers are not important, and I guess you prefer to live in a fictional world. A lot of conservatives seem to need to do that.
So, more debt is OK as long as the balance sheet shows a surplus eh? I would hate to see your finances or maybe you used to work for Enron.
LOL http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=375591&page=15&p=1064735669#post1064735669 .......... - - - Updated - - - Please quote where I said that "more debt is OK as long as the balance sheet shows a surplus" Strawmen is the refuge of those who can't defend their positions. "Please cite a reliable source that says you measure a deficit or surplus with the debt. Thanks". Why did you dodge it? That is what Battle3 does.
Don't know what a yearly budget is huh? Can debt increase in YOUR household even if you paid all your bills?
