U.S. National Debt Approaches $17 Trillion

[Dooble]

Have you never noticed that when Congress does pass something it's usually comprised of a buffet with a little bit of something for everyone?

Kinda like Obamacare, huh?

 

[Gimmesometruth]

The only reason the deficit is not higher is due to gridlock...

Yes, gridlock...is revenue neutral.

 

[Vern]

Repeat a lie often enough... .

Exactly. That’s why you have to repeat the silly things you believe.

When Bush left office, there was a $410 spending bill on his desk that he would not sign

There were also billions of unspent TARP funds when Bush left office that Bush would not spend

The stimulus was passed under Obama and all but $140B was spent before the fiscal year ended.

Now a reasonable argument could be made that President Obama added over a trillion in spending to Bush's 2009 deficit

Now frog, try to fit your silly beliefs into the fact that Bush’s 2009 budget deficit was revised to 1.2 trillion before President Obama took over. For his last budget Bush asked for and got a 3.1 trillion dollar budget. Revenues were estimated to be 2.8 trillion. Thanks to the Great Bush Recession, spending was revised up 450 billion and revenues revised down 450 billion before President Obama took over. Here’s the revision to Bush’s last budget FY 2009. Again this was revised BEFORE PRESIDENT OBAMA TOOK OVER

_____________1/7/09
Total Revenues__ 2,357__
Total Outlays__ _ 3,543__
CBO | The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2009 to 2019

Now lets look at actuals. Certainly we’re going to see that trillion you’re talking about.
_____________1/7/09____actuals
Total Revenues__ 2,357__ 2,105
Total Outlays__ _ 3,543__ _ 3,518
CBO | The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2010 to 2020

WHAT?!?!?!? How can that be? Where’s that extra trillion?!?!?!? Mmm, not only am I not seeing that extra trillion, I see that revenues collapsed another 250 billion. So revenues collapsed 700 billion and spending only went up 400 billion. And that 400 billion was less than estimated. Of course your reasonable argument will take into account the actual facts.

 

[Visbek]

After two major wars, cutting taxes during wartime, and adding Medicare D, the deficit was below $400B every year except '04 (barely above) and '08 under Bush.

Spending also shot up under Bush.

2000: $1.8T (Clinton)
2001: 1.8T
2002: 2.0T
2003: 2.16T
2004: 2.3T
2005: 2.5T
2006: 2.7T
2007: 2.7T
2008: 2.9T
2009: 3.5T (Bush final)

And again:
• close to half the 2009 deficit was due to drops in tax revenues and receipts
• Huge swaths of the deficit were due to war spending and the recession
• Obama cut spending in real dollars in 2010 (LBJ is the only post-WWII president to do so)
• TARP cost half of what was expected, and is mostly repaid

Of course, with Bush in the big house, the Democrats were criticizing the large deficits.

And the Republicans were proclaiming that "deficits don't matter." :mrgreen:

 

[froggigger]

Exactly. That’s why you have to repeat the silly things you believe.

You just admitted there was no surplus.

Now frog, try to fit your silly beliefs into the fact that Bush’s 2009 budget deficit was revised to 1.2 trillion before President Obama took over. For his last budget Bush asked for and got a 3.1 trillion dollar budget. Revenues were estimated to be 2.8 trillion. Thanks to the Great Bush Recession, spending was revised up 450 billion and revenues revised down 450 billion before President Obama took over. Here’s the revision to Bush’s last budget FY 2009. Again this was revised BEFORE PRESIDENT OBAMA TOOK OVER

_____________1/7/09
Total Revenues__ 2,357__
Total Outlays__ _ 3,543__
CBO | The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2009 to 2019

Now lets look at actuals. Certainly we’re going to see that trillion you’re talking about.
_____________1/7/09____actuals
Total Revenues__ 2,357__ 2,105
Total Outlays__ _ 3,543__ _ 3,518
CBO | The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2010 to 2020

WHAT?!?!?!? How can that be? Where’s that extra trillion?!?!?!? Mmm, not only am I not seeing that extra trillion, I see that revenues collapsed another 250 billion. So revenues collapsed 700 billion and spending only went up 400 billion. And that 400 billion was less than estimated. Of course your reasonable argument will take into account the actual facts.

Now Vern, there is no "extra" trillion and I never said there was. I just pointed out that some of the spending credited to Bush was actually Obama spending that occurred in Bush's last fiscal year. Your charts and links never even touched that point, which was THE point of my post.

 

[froggigger]

Spending also shot up under Bush.

2000: $1.8T (Clinton)
2001: 1.8T
2002: 2.0T
2003: 2.16T
2004: 2.3T
2005: 2.5T
2006: 2.7T
2007: 2.7T
2008: 2.9T
2009: 3.5T (Bush final)

And again:
• close to half the 2009 deficit was due to drops in tax revenues and receipts
• Huge swaths of the deficit were due to war spending and the recession
• Obama cut spending in real dollars in 2010 (LBJ is the only post-WWII president to do so)
• TARP cost half of what was expected, and is mostly repaid



And the Republicans were proclaiming that "deficits don't matter." :mrgreen:

Of course spending increased. It increases under every president and they spend more than they take in every year. There hasn't been a surplus since 1957. I'm not defending Bush or any other president, and I certainly do not defend deficit spending, but fair is fair. Compared to today, the Bush deficits before the crash weren't that great, but you're right. Republicans said deficits don't matter and Democrats complained that they did. Now, both parties just give lip service to the huge deficits.

 

[jstepp590]

Ok, obviously you are in need of further education in economics. Can you answer this for us? Why did we start running $1 trillion dollar deficits when he took office? Was it because he was building the People's Library?

 

[Vern]

You just admitted there was no surplus. .

Mmmm, what is frog talking about? Why is he responding to something I didn’t say? oh I know, he’s trying to deflect from what he said. Now try to focus Frog, you said

When Bush left officee, there was a $410 spending bill on his desk that he would not sign

There were also billions of unspent TARP funds when Bush left office that Bush would not spend

The stimulus was passed under Obama and all but $140B was spent before the fiscal year ended.

Your empty factless rhetoric was pretty clear. According to you, President Obama added 410 billion omnibus and 600 billion from the stimulus and you concluded

Now a reasonable argument could be made that President Obama added over a trillion in spending to Bush's 2009 deficit

Now you say

Now Vern, there is no "extra" trillion and I never said there was. I just pointed out that some of the spending credited to Bush was actually Obama spending that occurred in Bush's last fiscal year. Your charts and links never even touched that point, which was THE point of my post.

Of course now that I’ve posted the facts, you are trying to backpeddle from your vague statement about president Obama adding a Trillion but you cant backpeddle from the silly stimulus statement. You said President Obama spent 600 billion of the stimulus in FY 2009. That statement just proves you have no idea what you are posting. And as is usually the case with cons, your statements are not determined by the facts but by what you want to believe. Here it is again.
_____________1/7/09____actuals
Total Revenues__ 2,357__ 2,105
Total Outlays__ _ 3,543__ _ 3,518

So revenue collapsed 700 billion and spending only went up 400 billion it clearly shows that no, it was not just a spending problem. There goes another republican narrative.

 

[polgara]

Good morning Lady P. - hope you're home and fully on the road to recovery.

I don't know what Americans would do if someone actually ran for office on a platform of truly getting your total debt in balance. The numbers are so immense that they become unreal to most people who struggle and work hard to balance their weekly budget. Unfortunately, it's easier just to let someone else think about it and let people in the future pay for it and worry only about ensuring that our individual entitlements are still available.

Greetings, CJ. :2wave:

A while back, I ran across an article on this subject that blew my mind. Using the example of someone earning $75 million a year...which leaves most of us out the picture in the first place...that person would have to earn $75 million every year for 14,000 years to equal $1 trillion dollars in earnings! And our debt is nearing $17 trillion? We aren't going to be able to earn our way out of this mess, and those for want the rich to pay more when they are already paying nearly 40% of all taxes is absurd, sad, and laughable, IMO. :shock:

So what is Plan B? :drink:

 

[froggigger]

Mmmm, what is frog talking about? Why is he responding to something I didn’t say? oh I know, he’s trying to deflect from what he said. Now try to focus Frog, you said



Your empty factless rhetoric was pretty clear. According to you, President Obama added 410 billion omnibus and 600 billion from the stimulus and you concluded

Now you say

Of course now that I’ve posted the facts, you are trying to backpeddle from your vague statement about president Obama adding a Trillion but you cant backpeddle from the silly stimulus statement. You said President Obama spent 600 billion of the stimulus in FY 2009. That statement just proves you have no idea what you are posting. And as is usually the case with cons, your statements are not determined by the facts but by what you want to believe. Here it is again.
_____________1/7/09____actuals
Total Revenues__ 2,357__ 2,105
Total Outlays__ _ 3,543__ _ 3,518

So revenue collapsed 700 billion and spending only went up 400 billion it clearly shows that no, it was not just a spending problem. There goes another republican narrative.

You have seriously deficient comprehension problems. It's entertaining and sad at the same time.

 

[DaveFagan]

Don't know and don't care. I just add up the numbers.

I believe that. It's OK. The Fed will just write more Federal Reserve Notes. Cheney said "Deficits don't matter." Didn't you get your talking points?

 

[Jack Hays]

Why don't you explain to us how Obama is responsible for the debt? ..... I realize this makes for nice political smack, but for those truly knowledgeable about how the federal budget works, it shows a bit of economic naivete.

The POTUS is always responsible.

 

[Jack Hays]

this is a funny thread. Funny and false (aren't all con posts?) When the deficit gets to 24 trillion then you can say he surpassed the total of all the other. In spite of the fact that Bush was handed a surplus, he managed to double the debt. Man he came close to surpassing the combined total of all the others. President Obama will someday surpass Bush's total but he hasn't yet. And it should be easy, bush left trillion dollar deficts and a destroyed economy. seriously, this is a funny thread

09/30/2012___ 16,066,241,407,385.89____end of Obama’s 3rd budget
09/30/2011___14,790,340,328,557.15____end of Obama’s 2nd budget
09/30/2010___13,561,623,030,891.79____end of Obama’s first budget
09/30/2009 __ 11,909,829,003,511.75____ end of Bush’s last budget
09/30/2008 __ 10,024,724,896,912.49___start FY 2009
09/30/2007 __ 9,007,653,372,262.48___start FY 2008
09/30/2006 __ 8,506,973,899,215.23___start FY 2007
09/30/2005 __ 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 __ 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 __ 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 __ 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 __ 5,807,463,412,200.06____FY 2002 start of Bush’s first budget


Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 2000 - 2012

now a reasonable argument could be made that President Obama added about 150 billion in spending to Bush's 2009 deficit but cons aren't posting reasonable arguments. They are posting lies and spin. But a reasonable argument in that matter also fails because the extra spending was necessary to prevent the Great Bush Depression. Ah, that's why cons don't post reasonable arguments.

BHO surpassed GWB. Before he was reelected.

 

[Jack Hays]

I thought the current Republican/conservative talking point was that the sequester was Obama's idea? *shrug*

Why should I adhere to Repub talking points?

 

[Slyfox696]

Why should I adhere to Repub talking points?

It kind of seemed a pattern earlier in the thread. *shrug*

 

[Vern]

BHO surpassed GWB. Before he was reelected.

oh, that's right the 'conservative entertainment complex' invented the "measure debt by Inauguration Day'. No, debt is measured by budget years. Always has been. See how Bush's deficits started low. That's because Clinton handed him a surplus. See how President Obama's started in the trillions. Yea, Bush destroyed the economy. So as I've posted and proven, Bush's last last budget deficit, FY 2009, was revised to 1.2 trillion before President Obama started. It ended up being 1.4 trillion because revenue collapsed another 250 billion (this also disproves the "its only a spending problem" narratives cons were spoon fed).

So read this slowly, 2009 belongs to Bush. President Obama didn't 'add' the 400 billion omnibus. Less that 200 billion of 2009 was the stimulus. But again, the stimulus was just President Obama preventing the Great Bush Depression and ending the Great Bush Recession so I file that under Bush. Regardless how you 'score' the stimulus, you cant deny bush handed President Obama a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit with a devastated economy and 2009 belongs to Bush.

 

[ItAin'tFree]

oh, that's right the 'conservative entertainment complex' invented the "measure debt by Inauguration Day'. No, debt is measured by budget years. Always has been. See how Bush's deficits started low. That's because Clinton handed him a surplus. See how President Obama's started in the trillions. Yea, Bush destroyed the economy. So as I've posted and proven, Bush's last last budget deficit, FY 2009, was revised to 1.2 trillion before President Obama started. It ended up being 1.4 trillion because revenue collapsed another 250 billion (this also disproves the "its only a spending problem" narratives cons were spoon fed).

So read this slowly, 2009 belongs to Bush. President Obama didn't 'add' the 400 billion omnibus. Less that 200 billion of 2009 was the stimulus. But again, the stimulus was just President Obama preventing the Great Bush Depression and ending the Great Bush Recession so I file that under Bush. Regardless how you 'score' the stimulus, you cant deny bush handed President Obama a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit with a devastated economy and 2009 belongs to Bush.

Got to love the "surplus" crop of manure spread by leftist everywhere. Funny how they can never show a year when Clinton was President that the deficit shrank by as little as one cent. Low information types around America have bought into that fabel hook, line and sinker.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Good evening, CJ. :2wave:

I checked the US debt clock just now, and our unfunded debt currently stands at $124 plus trillion! and ticking merrily away! Yes, it is virtually impossible to imagine such an amount, let alone pay same.

At least get the talking points straight. Red States and other echo chambers said $124 trillion in unfunded liabilities which is simple a bizarre number. Those obligations are different than our current debt and trying to spin numbers is nothing more than misinformation.

 

[upsideguy]

Repeat a lie often enough...

Not certain what your "repeat a lie often enough..." statement refers, except that I noted the previous poster's allegations that ... "Bush was handed a surplus" was bolded. Are you suggesting that is a lie? If you note the 1999 and 2000 On budget numbers on the table above (which is schedule 2.1 from the US Budget)... there were surpluses, not large ones, but surpluses. Even with some type of nuanced "yes, but" argument, the budget was in a very manageable state in 1999 and 2000. Bush started with an essentially balanced budget and delivered a mess (more on that below).

After two major wars, cutting taxes during wartime, and adding Medicare D, the deficit was below $400B every year except '04 (barely above) and '08 under Bush. The deficits skyrocketed after the 2008 crash when Bush, and then Obama, followed the Keynesian path of spend spend spend. Of course, with Bush in the big house, the Democrats were criticizing the large deficits.

Projected Deficit

...The deficit was below $400B ONLY if you count the $150-200B annual social security surplus (see off budget per table above). Of course, if you want to count that (and so many Cons do when trying to tell us how the Bush tax cuts worked (when they didn't), then you are a believer that social security is a part of the general budget.... and if you believe that, then our debt is not $16T, but "only" $11T AND everyone is paying income tax).... but, if you want to argue the debt is $16T ($5T of which is owed to the social security trust fund) or that 47% of people do not pay taxes, then you do not get to count the $200B social security surplus, In that case, the Bush running deficits were never lower than $300B (see table above) and in 2008 reached $641B (see table above). Then the economy cratered, which cost the treasure $400B in revenue between 2008 and 2009 (see table above) and increased unemployment disbursements from $50B to $150B.... So, lets add it all up: Bush starts with a balanced budget and ends with $640B deficit (in 2008) plus $400B revenue shortfall plus $100B increased unemployment benefits... that is a $1.1T deficit that Bush left Obama.... even before you ascribe any 2009 expenditure increases to Bush.....

That is what you get by starting two wars, cutting income taxes (a move designed to eliminate budget surpluses, believe it or not) and expand medicare without funding it....

When Bush left office, there was a $410 spending bill on his desk that he would not sign. Obama signed it and spent it, but the amount is added to the Bush column since it was a Bush fiscal year.

There were also billions of unspent TARP funds when Bush left office that Bush would not spend. Bush released the funds to Obama as requested, and Obama spent $200B before the fiscal year ended. That $200B was also added to the Bush column.

Then there's the $800+B stimulus. The stimulus was passed under Obama and all but $140B was spent before the fiscal year ended. Again, credited to Bush. All, that is, except the $140B that was spend in the first Obama fiscal year. Total it all up and it's well over a trillion in Obama spending that is blamed on Bush.

Now a reasonable argument could be made that President Obama added over a trillion in spending to Bush's 2009 deficit but libs aren't posting reasonable arguments. They are posting lies and spin. But it's arguable that the extra spending was necessary to prevent the Great Bush Depression. It's nothing more than the typical rhetorical dodge. Ah, that's why libs don't post reasonable arguments.

Now, you can repeat lies often enough.... or you can be misinformed and think you are informing others....same result.
All very nice, but spending only went from $2.5T in 2008 to $3.0T in 2009.... there wasn't $1T of new spending anywhere. Also, the $800B stimulus was 1/3 tax cuts and 2/3 spending.... and, as established above, Bush delivered a $1.1T dollar running deficit (before you blame Bush for ANY of the 2009 spending, other than the increase in unemployment.)

When Bush left office, there was a $410 spending bill on his desk that he would not sign. Obama signed it and spent it, but the amount is added to the Bush column since it was a Bush fiscal year.

There were also billions of unspent TARP funds when Bush left office that Bush would not spend. Bush released the funds to Obama as requested, and Obama spent $200B before the fiscal year ended. That $200B was also added to the Bush column.

Then there's the $800+B stimulus. The stimulus was passed under Obama and all but $140B was spent before the fiscal year ended. Again, credited to Bush. All, that is, except the $140B that was spend in the first Obama fiscal year. Total it all up and it's well over a trillion in Obama spending that is blamed on Bush.

Now a reasonable argument could be made that President Obama added over a trillion in spending to Bush's 2009 deficit but libs aren't posting reasonable arguments. They are posting lies and spin. But it's arguable that the extra spending was necessary to prevent the Great Bush Depression. It's nothing more than the typical rhetorical dodge. Ah, that's why libs don't post reasonable arguments.

All very nice, but spending only went from $2.5T in 2008 to $3.0T in 2009.... there wasn't $1T of new spending anywhere. Also, the $800B stimulus was 1/3 tax cuts and 2/3 spending.

 

[Jack Hays]

oh, that's right the 'conservative entertainment complex' invented the "measure debt by Inauguration Day'. No, debt is measured by budget years. Always has been. See how Bush's deficits started low. That's because Clinton handed him a surplus. See how President Obama's started in the trillions. Yea, Bush destroyed the economy. So as I've posted and proven, Bush's last last budget deficit, FY 2009, was revised to 1.2 trillion before President Obama started. It ended up being 1.4 trillion because revenue collapsed another 250 billion (this also disproves the "its only a spending problem" narratives cons were spoon fed).

So read this slowly, 2009 belongs to Bush. President Obama didn't 'add' the 400 billion omnibus. Less that 200 billion of 2009 was the stimulus. But again, the stimulus was just President Obama preventing the Great Bush Depression and ending the Great Bush Recession so I file that under Bush. Regardless how you 'score' the stimulus, you cant deny bush handed President Obama a 1.4 trillion dollar deficit with a devastated economy and 2009 belongs to Bush.

Only one POTUS at a time. Every dime spent after 20 Jabnuary 2009 is on BHO. :lamo

 

[froggigger]

View attachment 67150007

Not certain what your "repeat a lie often enough..." statement refers, except that I noted the previous poster's allegations that ... "Bush was handed a surplus" was bolded. Are you suggesting that is a lie? If you note the 1999 and 2000 On budget numbers on the table above (which is schedule 2.1 from the US Budget)... there were surpluses, not large ones, but surpluses. Even with some type of nuanced "yes, but" argument, the budget was in a very manageable state in 1999 and 2000. Bush started with an essentially balanced budget and delivered a mess (more on that below).

Not suggesting it is a lie at all. I'm flat out saying it is a lie. There was no surplus. Now, you can repeat lies often enough.... or you can be misinformed and think you are informing others....same result. I have already explained the "whys" behind the so-called surplus twice. The short version is that there is no way to have a surplus if debt increased. You can have a debt and a surplus at the same time, but if debt goes up there is no surplus, and debt has gone up every year since 1957. If you don't believe that, your argument is with the Treasury, not me.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual

...The deficit was below $400B ONLY if you count the $150-200B annual social security surplus (see off budget per table above). Of course, if you want to count that (and so many Cons do when trying to tell us how the Bush tax cuts worked (when they didn't), then you are a believer that social security is a part of the general budget.... and if you believe that, then our debt is not $16T, but "only" $11T AND everyone is paying income tax).... but, if you want to argue the debt is $16T ($5T of which is owed to the social security trust fund) or that 47% of people do not pay taxes, then you do not get to count the $200B social security surplus, In that case, the Bush running deficits were never lower than $300B (see table above) and in 2008 reached $641B (see table above). Then the economy cratered, which cost the treasure $400B in revenue between 2008 and 2009 (see table above) and increased unemployment disbursements from $50B to $150B.... So, lets add it all up: Bush starts with a balanced budget and ends with $640B deficit (in 2008) plus $400B revenue shortfall plus $100B increased unemployment benefits... that is a $1.1T deficit that Bush left Obama.... even before you ascribe any 2009 expenditure increases to Bush.....

That is what you get by starting two wars, cutting income taxes (a move designed to eliminate budget surpluses, believe it or not) and expand medicare without funding it....

If a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass on the ground when he jumps. Why all the "ifs" when you ended up agreeing with me? After all the ifs, you said the "Bush running deficits were never lower than $300B. I said they were never over $400B but twice, once barely above $400, before 2008. You used a bunch of ifs to go off on a wild tangent that didn't address what I said but ended up agreeing with me in a round about way..

Now, you can repeat lies often enough.... or you can be misinformed and think you are informing others....same result.
All very nice, but spending only went from $2.5T in 2008 to $3.0T in 2009.... there wasn't $1T of new spending anywhere. Also, the $800B stimulus was 1/3 tax cuts and 2/3 spending.... and, as established above, Bush delivered a $1.1T dollar running deficit (before you blame Bush for ANY of the 2009 spending, other than the increase in unemployment.)

I'm not going to argue the point because government accounting is a hard puppy to get a grip on. Just because money is authorized in a certain fiscal year doesn't mean it's spent in the same year. That's especially true for discretionary spending and other spending like stimulus. Plus, it's a distraction that politicians love. We're arguing who is the worst spender while the truth is that nearly every politician is guilty. Neither party is more fiscally responsible than the other. I don't trust any of them and the letter after their name makes no difference.

All very nice, but spending only went from $2.5T in 2008 to $3.0T in 2009.... there wasn't $1T of new spending anywhere. Also, the $800B stimulus was 1/3 tax cuts and 2/3 spending.

Just can't let this one pass. Did you ever dig a bit into the 1/3 tax cut story? The "tax cuts" reduced the immediate tax burden for some taxpayers by increasing the federal deficit. Basically, it was a change from tax-financed spending to deficit-financed spending. A real tax cut puts resources back into the private sector. Obama's tax cuts were deferred taxation, spend now and tax later. Interest payments by the government increase, and eventually future tax rates will increase. Naturally, though, the government will refinance the debt over many years, so the higher future tax rates will be another "kick the can down the road" solution. It's all about the here and now for politicians, ie. What do I need to promise you today to gain your vote?

 

[Slyfox696]

The short version is that there is no way to have a surplus if debt increased.

Sure there is:

PolitiFact New Jersey | Bill Clinton touts fiscal record as president during campaign stop in New Jersey
Factcheck.org and the Clinton Surplus
FactCheck.org : The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

Those explain how/why. The last link is especially good and I think fairly describes both sides of the argument.

 

[Kushinator]

Sure there is:

PolitiFact New Jersey | Bill Clinton touts fiscal record as president during campaign stop in New Jersey
Factcheck.org and the Clinton Surplus
FactCheck.org : The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

Those explain how/why. The last link is especially good and I think fairly describes both sides of the argument.

If a government does not need to issue debt to cover it's costs, but issues debt anyway, is it the same as running a surplus?

 

[Slyfox696]

If a government does not need to issue debt to cover it's costs, but issues debt anyway, is it the same as running a surplus?

Well, I posted those links to what appears to be a politically based argument about Clinton and Bush. How your question is answered will depend, for most people, on the political party you vote for.

I guess, for me, I'd say that it appears our government could have had a balanced budget without borrowing money from Social Security. Since we were legally forced to do so, thus acquiring more debt, I don't see a problem with saying both sides are right in their own way. No, our national debt did not decrease (strengthening the Republican viewpoint), but our budgets under Clinton could have been/were balanced and we most certainly did pay down the public debt.

 

[Kushinator]

Well, I posted those links to what appears to be a politically based argument about Clinton and Bush. How your question is answered will depend, for most people, on the political party you vote for.

I guess, for me, I'd say that it appears our government could have had a balanced budget without borrowing money from Social Security. Since we were legally forced to do so, thus acquiring more debt, I don't see a problem with saying both sides are right in their own way. No, our debt did not decrease (strengthening the Republican viewpoint), but our budgets under Clinton could have been/were balanced and we most certainly did pay down the public debt.

Which goes to show the level of semantics those who oppose the democratic party will stoop. A deficit is only created when revenue < expenditure. If revenue < expenditure, yet debt increased in that same time period, it does not equate to a deficit. Instead, it is a surplus in which aggregate debt had increased.

We have to remember, there is more than one reason the government should issue treasury securities.