Interesting Chart on US Debt history

[TheJedi]

So are deficits good or bad?

According to Cheney, they don't matter............unless........a Democrat is in office.

Ten years ago today on December 6, 2002, the Bush Administration fired its top two economic advisers: Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey due to the continuing lagging economy (when Bush took office, unemployment was 4.2%. In Dec of 2002... more than a year after 9/11... the rate jumped from 5.7% to 6.0% in one month). In November of 2002, when O'Neill, a "deficit hawk", tried to warn Vice President Dick Cheney that growing budget deficits... expected to top $500 billion that fiscal year alone... posed a threat to the economy. Cheney cut him off, saying, "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter."

 

[Dad2three]

Amazing how you can play with numbers, isn't it.



Under Bill Clinton, the fabulous 'surplus' myth was born.

Actually, over the rapist Bill Clinton's term, the national debt went up 41%.

Another conservative that doesn't understand the difference with Clinton 4 budget , (3 after he vetoed the GOP's $700+ tax cut) surpluses and debt.

One is a yearly budget, money coming in versus going out, the other is accumulated debt

 

[Dad2three]

Amazing how you can play with numbers, isn't it.



Under Bill Clinton, the fabulous 'surplus' myth was born.

Actually, over the rapist Bill Clinton's term, the national debt went up 41%.

To be perfectly honest, the "surplus" that came from Clinton's tenure was a more a result of the multiple tax increases that came from Reagan and Bush. That really was what enabled it, else the money would not have been there.

To be fair, the national debt has gone up under just about every President. The better indicator is debt as a % of the GDP. Which is why I highlighted that particular chart but also linked to the whole wiki. (I find that most people do not read my links so I am trying to post the stuff I think is most important-apologies if it seemed misleading, it wasn't my intention).

I find this info pretty credible: The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton’s fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries.

Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.

Yeah, the 1993 bill without one GOP vote did nothing, but cut the deficit in half immediately and increase revenues by creating 3 new tax brackets and increasing the top rate from 35% to 39.6%


"The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that. [He] did something about it, fast. And I think we are seeing some benefits."
— Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Board Chairman (1979-1987), in Audacity, Fall 1994



"Clinton’s 1993 budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity."
— Business Week, May 19, 1997



David Stockman bombshell: How my Republican Party destroyed the American economy




The “debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party’s embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts.”

Cue the FoxNews denunciations.

David Stockman, director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan


David Stockman bombshell: How my Republican Party destroyed the American economy. | ThinkProgress

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So are deficits good or bad?

deficits = inflation.
debt has only small inflationary effect unless too much deficit inflation or missed debt payment spikes interest rates.

When did Clinton cut spending with his Dem House and Dem Senate?

 

[Dad2three]

In 1993 Democrat President, House & Senate CUT Government Spending

They cut spending from what to what?

In 1993 Democrat President, House & Senate CUT Government Spending

Saw that chart the first time.

Now do you have one that shows they cut spending?

They Clinton budget cut spending $140+ billion, part of their $400+ billion deficit reduction bill

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fi...104xx/doc10415/1994_03_reducingthedeficit.pdf

 

[Dad2three]

"Clinton’s large budget surpluses.....but even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while."


Really?


Clinton ran deficits throught all 8 years of his term, and one can go to the US Treasury Department and looking through the history of the total outstanding debt through Clintons term.

Every year Clinton was in office, the total national debt continued to climb.


"...the national debt did not go down one year during the Clinton administration."
How much surplus did the US have when Clinton left office




Would you like to see the actual national debt figures?
1993 4,351,044
1994 4,643,307
1995 4,920,586
1996 5,181,465
1997 5,369,206
1998 5,478,189
1999 5,605,523
2000 5,628,700

Historical Tables | The White House (table 7.1)

The table 7.1 will also show that he inherited a $4 trillion debt.
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999


That means the debt increased 41% under Clinton.
And no wars or military build up to blame it on!




Ever notice that it is only Democrats that are spectacular economic whiz kids.....y'know, like Obama.

Debt and deficit are two different things. Yes, the debt still climbed, and, as I have mentioned before it went up under most every President in history so it is disingenuous when we only point out one party for increasing debt when all parties have done it consistently since the founding of of the country. Hell, we started out in massive debt.

Clinton did create a surplus and he did erase the deficit for a little while but he ALSO increased the debt as most every President past and present has.

Also, I am not sure where you got that 40% increase on Clinton. I'll admit, I am a still a layman on these issues, but if I am reading this correctly it actually went down a tad from previous levels during his second term. According to the chart in the wiki (Federal spending, federal debt, and GDP), Clinton increased the debt by 13.2% in his first term and it went down by .2% in his second but I am not certain if Social Security was included in that figure, in which case you could be right. Reagan, on the other hand, increased the debt by 49% in his first term and 40.2% in his second so if we assume that SS was not included in that figure.......WOW!

"I have mentioned before it went up under most every President in history so it is disingenuous when we only point out one party for increasing debt...."


You're not really this dense....are you?

Where did you find "we only point out one party for increasing debt."



The specific point was the myth that Clinton had surpluses.

I believe I've put that fable to rest.

Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.


The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton




Investopedia explains 'Budget Surplus'

When spending exceeds income, the result is a budget deficit, which must be financed by borrowing money and paying interest on the borrowed funds, much like an individual spending more than he can afford and carrying a balance on a credit card. A balanced budget occurs when spending equals income. The U.S. government has only had a budget surplus in a few years since 1950. The Clinton administration (1993-2001) famously cured a large budget deficit and created a surplus in the late 1990s.

 

[Dad2three]

Debt and deficit are two different things.

Doesn't federal law require any and all surplus to service the national debt?

If so, then if there were a surplus, the debt would drop.

Yes, the debt still climbed, and, as I have mentioned before it went up under most every President in history so it is disingenuous when we only point out one party for increasing debt when all parties have done it consistently since the founding of of the country. Hell, we started out in massive debt.

In order for the debt to increase, expenditure had to exceed income.

Is that your definition of "surplus?" (Must be a theory the Paul Krugman school of Economics and Animal Balloons.)

Clinton did create a surplus and he did erase the deficit for a little while but he ALSO increased the debt as most every President past and present has.

You can tell there was a surplus by the decline in the debt, as the budget surplus was applied to it,

Oh, wait...

Also, I am not sure where you got that 40% increase on Clinton. I'll admit, I am a still a layman on these issues, but if I am reading this correctly it actually went down a tad from previous levels during his second term. According to the chart in the wiki (Federal spending, federal debt, and GDP), Clinton increased the debt by 13.2% in his first term and it went down by .2% in his second but I am not certain if Social Security was included in that figure, in which case you could be right. Reagan, on the other hand, increased the debt by 49% in his first term and 40.2% in his second so if we assume that SS was not included in that figure.......WOW!

The debt increased 1.277 trillion under Clinton.

That is a 29.3% increase over the 4.35 trillion debt he inherited.

lol, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE WITH OPERATING BUDGETS VERSUS DEBT. One is money coming in versus going out, the other is total debt that a person/Gov't holds


A budget is different than debt




More money coming in under Clinton 4 times (3 after vetoing the GOP $700+ tax cut), created 4 BUDGET SURPLUSES



Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.


The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

 

[Dad2three]

You are mistaken, that is exactly how it works.



Then the debt went down. IF the debt didn't go down, either Clinton embezzled the funds, or there was no surplus.



Ah, so you are approaching this from a partisan perspective, rather than a factual one.

I thought I smelled the Krugman clown college behind this.



Had he achieved it, the debt would have gone down. The ONLY place the "surplus" existed is in the partisan press and as urban legend among party sycophants.



In fact it means exactly that.

Deficits increase debt, surplus reduces debt. There is no wiggle room.



So, you think that borrowing money is generating a surplus?

LOL

Okay then.



Clinton created a surplus by spending more than we took in.

Brilliant.

WE TOOK IN MORE THAN WE SPENT IN THAT BUDGET. PERIOD.

Is it really that impossible to have an impartial discussion here?

WE TOOK IN MORE THAN WE SPENT IN THAT BUDGET.

And your proof is that debt increased.

Keep showing ignorance on yearly budgets which have nothing to do with debt. Must be a conservative

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

 

[Dot Com]

Amazing how you can play with numbers, isn't it.



Under Bill Clinton, the fabulous 'surplus' myth was born.

Actually, over the rapist Bill Clinton's term, the national debt went up 41%.

First post, out of the gate, and you make insults and source-less claims Republican much? [MENTION=12394]PoliticalChic[/MENTION]

 

[PoliticalChic]

Amazing how you can play with numbers, isn't it.



Under Bill Clinton, the fabulous 'surplus' myth was born.

Actually, over the rapist Bill Clinton's term, the national debt went up 41%.

First post, out of the gate, and you make insults and source-less claims Republican much? [MENTION=12394]PoliticalChic[/MENTION]

You should realize by now that I'm never wrong.

Which part do you want documented?

 

[Dad2three]

You are mistaken, that is exactly how it works.



Then the debt went down. IF the debt didn't go down, either Clinton embezzled the funds, or there was no surplus.



Ah, so you are approaching this from a partisan perspective, rather than a factual one.

I thought I smelled the Krugman clown college behind this.



Had he achieved it, the debt would have gone down. The ONLY place the "surplus" existed is in the partisan press and as urban legend among party sycophants.



In fact it means exactly that.

Deficits increase debt, surplus reduces debt. There is no wiggle room.



So, you think that borrowing money is generating a surplus?

LOL

Okay then.



Clinton created a surplus by spending more than we took in.

Brilliant.

WE TOOK IN MORE THAN WE SPENT IN THAT BUDGET. PERIOD.

Is it really that impossible to have an impartial discussion here?

The most celebrated achievement of the Clinton era turned out to have been a macroeconomic turd. The dampening of GDP was counterbalanced by massive increases in household debt, decreases in household savings, and the winding up of the Fannie and Freddie debt bonanza which was a huge contributing factor in causing the real estate bubble and subsequent collapse.

If the government is running a surplus, this means the government is taking in more $$$$ than its spending. This has the exact opposite effect of a stimulus. The trade deficit also massively increased during the 90s, which resulted in a dampening of GDP during this time period. The trade deficit was taking away from GDP, and the government sector was talking more $$$$ away from the private sector than it was sending out so to speak.

This resulted in private consumption compensating for the dampening effects from the trade deficit and government. Household savings also tanked during this time period.

Clinton created the F/F problem? lol

The American mortgage market stood at 1 trillion a year in 2000. The real surge in the mortgage market began in 2001 (the year of the stock market crash). From 2000 -2004, residential originations the U.S. climbed from about $1trillion to almost $4 trillion.

About 70% of this rise was accounted for by people refinancing their conventional mortgages at lower interest rates

http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf


BUSH HAD HOUSEHOLD DEBT DOUBLE UNDER HIM


Right-wingers Want To Erase How George Bush's "Homeowner Society" Helped Cause The Economic Collapse

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In 1993 Democrat President, House & Senate CUT Government Spending

Saw that chart the first time.

Now do you have one that shows they cut spending?

They Clinton budget cut spending $140+ billion, part of their $400+ billion deficit reduction bill

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fi...104xx/doc10415/1994_03_reducingthedeficit.pdf

Thanks for the 404 page report.

What page shows he cut spending by $140 billion?

 

[Dad2three]

What I find telling is where we see the largest increases and it seems to contradict certain long held arguments regarding spending.

National debt by U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your not suppose to show how GOP presidents spent trillions to increase the debt...

Only thing is, Presidents don't spend money. Congresses do.

Look at the chart. It proves what I've been saying here for 4 years. Democrat Congresses cannot be trusted with the national purse. Look at just Clinton Bush and obama administrations. Deficits increase slower when Congress is controlled by the GOP. The only reason our economy has improved a bit in the last 3 years is the ability of the House of Representatives to prevent passage of some massive spending bills.

The “debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party’s embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts.”

Cue the FoxNews denunciations.

David Stockman, director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan, has dared to call out his own party for creating our current economic problems


David Stockman bombshell: How my Republican Party destroyed the American economy. | ThinkProgress





David Stockman, Ex-Reagan Budget Director: George W. Bush's Policies Bankrupt The Country



A former adviser of Ronald Reagan has some choice words for George W. Bush.

David Stockman, Reagan’s budget director from 1981 to 1985, slammed Bush and his former boss in an op-ed in The New York Times Sunday. Stockman argued in the piece that Reagan’s view on the deficit “created a template for the Republicans’ utter abandonment of the balanced-budget policies of Calvin Coolidge.”

“(Reagan’s deficit policies) allowed George W. Bush to dive into the deep end, bankrupting the nation through two misbegotten and unfinanced wars, a giant expansion of Medicare and a tax-cutting spree for the wealthy that turned K Street lobbyists into the de facto office of national tax policy,” Stockman wrote.


David Stockman, Ex-Reagan Budget Director: George W. Bush's Policies Bankrupt The Country

 

[Dad2three]

So are deficits good or bad?

deficits = inflation.
debt has only small inflationary effect unless too much deficit inflation or missed debt payment spikes interest rates.

When did Clinton cut spending with his Dem House and Dem Senate?

1993, for the '94 F/Y budget

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fi...104xx/doc10415/1994_03_reducingthedeficit.pdf

 

[Dad2three]

Amazing how you can play with numbers, isn't it.



Under Bill Clinton, the fabulous 'surplus' myth was born.

Actually, over the rapist Bill Clinton's term, the national debt went up 41%.

First post, out of the gate, and you make insults and source-less claims Republican much? [MENTION=12394]PoliticalChic[/MENTION]

You should realize by now that I'm never wrong.

Which part do you want documented?

Except you confuse debt with budgets....

 

[Dad2three]

Saw that chart the first time.

Now do you have one that shows they cut spending?

They Clinton budget cut spending $140+ billion, part of their $400+ billion deficit reduction bill

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fi...104xx/doc10415/1994_03_reducingthedeficit.pdf

Thanks for the 404 page report.

What page shows he cut spending by $140 billion?

The one where you should have landed, page 29

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your not suppose to show how GOP presidents spent trillions to increase the debt...

Only thing is, Presidents don't spend money. Congresses do.

Look at the chart. It proves what I've been saying here for 4 years. Democrat Congresses cannot be trusted with the national purse. Look at just Clinton Bush and obama administrations. Deficits increase slower when Congress is controlled by the GOP. The only reason our economy has improved a bit in the last 3 years is the ability of the House of Representatives to prevent passage of some massive spending bills.

The “debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party’s embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts.”

Cue the FoxNews denunciations.

David Stockman, director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan, has dared to call out his own party for creating our current economic problems


David Stockman bombshell: How my Republican Party destroyed the American economy. | ThinkProgress





David Stockman, Ex-Reagan Budget Director: George W. Bush's Policies Bankrupt The Country



A former adviser of Ronald Reagan has some choice words for George W. Bush.

David Stockman, Reagan’s budget director from 1981 to 1985, slammed Bush and his former boss in an op-ed in The New York Times Sunday. Stockman argued in the piece that Reagan’s view on the deficit “created a template for the Republicans’ utter abandonment of the balanced-budget policies of Calvin Coolidge.”

“(Reagan’s deficit policies) allowed George W. Bush to dive into the deep end, bankrupting the nation through two misbegotten and unfinanced wars, a giant expansion of Medicare and a tax-cutting spree for the wealthy that turned K Street lobbyists into the de facto office of national tax policy,” Stockman wrote.


David Stockman, Ex-Reagan Budget Director: George W. Bush's Policies Bankrupt The Country

David Stockman, Ex-Reagan Budget Director: George W. Bush's Policies Bankrupt The Country

If Bush's addition of $4.9 trillion to the debt in 8 years was bad, Obama's addition of $6.9 trillion, in less than 5 1/2 years, must be truly awful.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

WE TOOK IN MORE THAN WE SPENT IN THAT BUDGET. PERIOD.

Is it really that impossible to have an impartial discussion here?

WE TOOK IN MORE THAN WE SPENT IN THAT BUDGET.

And your proof is that debt increased.

Keep showing ignorance on yearly budgets which have nothing to do with debt. Must be a conservative

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

Gingrich had a 236B Surplus?

Wow

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They Clinton budget cut spending $140+ billion, part of their $400+ billion deficit reduction bill

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fi...104xx/doc10415/1994_03_reducingthedeficit.pdf

Thanks for the 404 page report.

What page shows he cut spending by $140 billion?

The one where you should have landed, page 29

I don't see that on page 29. Perhaps you should cut and paste the proof you claim?

 

[Dad2three]

Only thing is, Presidents don't spend money. Congresses do.

Look at the chart. It proves what I've been saying here for 4 years. Democrat Congresses cannot be trusted with the national purse. Look at just Clinton Bush and obama administrations. Deficits increase slower when Congress is controlled by the GOP. The only reason our economy has improved a bit in the last 3 years is the ability of the House of Representatives to prevent passage of some massive spending bills.

The “debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party’s embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they result from tax cuts.”

Cue the FoxNews denunciations.

David Stockman, director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan, has dared to call out his own party for creating our current economic problems


David Stockman bombshell: How my Republican Party destroyed the American economy. | ThinkProgress





David Stockman, Ex-Reagan Budget Director: George W. Bush's Policies Bankrupt The Country



A former adviser of Ronald Reagan has some choice words for George W. Bush.

David Stockman, Reagan’s budget director from 1981 to 1985, slammed Bush and his former boss in an op-ed in The New York Times Sunday. Stockman argued in the piece that Reagan’s view on the deficit “created a template for the Republicans’ utter abandonment of the balanced-budget policies of Calvin Coolidge.”

“(Reagan’s deficit policies) allowed George W. Bush to dive into the deep end, bankrupting the nation through two misbegotten and unfinanced wars, a giant expansion of Medicare and a tax-cutting spree for the wealthy that turned K Street lobbyists into the de facto office of national tax policy,” Stockman wrote.


David Stockman, Ex-Reagan Budget Director: George W. Bush's Policies Bankrupt The Country

David Stockman, Ex-Reagan Budget Director: George W. Bush's Policies Bankrupt The Country

If Bush's addition of $4.9 trillion to the debt in 8 years was bad, Obama's addition of $6.9 trillion, in less than 5 1/2 years, must be truly awful.

Weird, you must think all policy ends the day the next guy enters office?

Economic Downturn and Bush Policies Continue to Drive Large Projected Deficits


Just two policies dating from the Bush Administration — tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — accounted for over $500 billion of the deficit in 2009 and will account for nearly $6 trillion in deficits in 2009 through 2019 (including associated debt-service costs of $1.4 trillion). By 2019, we estimate that these two policies will account for almost half — over $8 trillion — of the $17 trillion in debt that will be owed under current policies



Economic Downturn and Legacy of Bush Policies Continue to Drive Large Deficits ? Center on Budget and Policy Priorities