2009 Annual Budget Deficit Near $2 Trillion

[Twisted_Dawg]

While it is currently predicted to be $1.84 trillion, I bet we bust $2 trillion this year.

And for you budget deficit experts, does this figure also include all those "off budget" expenses like the money the government borrows form the Social Security surplus?

While Bush was running $500+ billion deficits, I guess the new standard is $2 trillion.

****************


The White House Monday pushed up its forecast for the U.S. budget deficit for this year by $89 billion, reflecting the recession, a raft of new unemployment claims and corporate bailouts.

A fresh estimate of the deficit showed it coming in at $1.84 trillion—representing a massive 12.9 percent of gross domestic product—in the current 2009 fiscal year that ends on Sept. 30.

A prior White House forecast released in February projected a deficit of $1.75 trillion, or 12.3 percent of GDP.

The report may add to the political challenges facing President Barack Obama as he seeks to push through a new healthcare plan and other big domestic initiatives.

A White House official said the gloomier deficit picture reflected weaker tax receipts as the economy declined and higher costs for social safety-net programs such as unemployment insurance.

Spending on the government rescues for the financial and automobile industries was also a factor in the higher deficit, said the official, who spoke to reporters on condition of anonymity.

While the Democratic-led Congress has given its approval to the broad outline of Obama's proposed budget for the 2010 fiscal year that includes initiatives on healthcare, education and other items, some moderate Democrats and a number of Republicans have expressed wariness about the deficit outlook.

Republicans contend that Obama's agenda would sharply increase the size of government and add to a mountain of debt but Democrat Obama counters that the enormous deficits are a legacy of President George W. Bush, a Republican.

White House Budget Director Peter Orszag blogged Monday, saying the high deficits are being driven by an economic crisis that President Barack Obama inherited.

Orszag also said that the administration's latest budget deficit estimates reflect the latest data on tax receipts, federal bailouts and other government costs.

The report from the White House Office of Management and Budget also revised the deficit higher for the 2010 fiscal year, forecasting it at $1.26 trillion, or 8.5 percent of GDP, and up $87 billion from the $1.17 trillion projection given in February.

After taking office in January, Obama released a bare-bones version of his budget in February that offered a spending plan for 2010 carrying a price tag of $3.55 trillion. The White House revised up the size of the spending plan to $3.59 trillion.

And Monday, the Obama administration will propose raising nearly $60 billion over 10 years through changes to the estate tax law and closing certain domestic tax loopholes, an administration official said.

Funds raised will go to beef up a health care reserve fund, a $634 billion pot of money President Barack Obama wants to use to revamp the health care system and expand insurance to tens of millions of Americans who lack it.

The White House wants to raise $24 billion over 10 years by tightening rules related to the estate tax, a levy on an inherited part of an estate if the value exceeds an exclusion limit set by law. Currently, the first $3.5 million for an individual, or $7 million for a couple, are exempted.

The changes to the estate tax are related to how assets are valued, said the official, who was not authorized to be quoted.

Other proposals include denying tax deductions for firms with punitive damage claims, the official said.

Later on Monday, the administration will provide details on a series of tax proposals unveiled last week, said to raise $210 billion over a decade, to tighten rules related to overseas investments.

[Wild Cobra]

It was only 1.7 trillion last month. What happened? How much bigger will it be next month?

Anyone?

I already heard that this congress and president will double the debt in 5 years and triple it in 10. Now that assumes that we don't have inflation!

[ElNono]

I already heard that this congress and president will double the debt in 5 years and triple it in 10. Now that assumes that we don't have inflation!

That's what you do in a recession.

[FaithInOne]

I wonder if I will live to see the days when Quadrillion will be a common term in the American vernacular.

We'll probably adapt a global currency and deflate the value back down though.

[JoeChalupa]

That sucks.

[Marcus Bryant]

That's what you do in a recession.

Nah, that's what this country does all the fucking time. We spend on credit to solve all of our problems. When we end up with stagflation can we finally write the epitaph on Keynesianism (which was originally devised to deal with jump starting an economy mired in depression, not to head off a recession or simply to enhance economic growth)?

[ElNono]

I wonder if I will live to see the days when Quadrillion will be a common term in the American vernacular.

We'll probably adapt a global currency and deflate the value back down though.

The American Peso... coming to a bank near you real soon now!

[Wild Cobra]

The American Peso... coming to a bank near you real soon now!
But since we have a Socialis/Marxist/Fascist (you take your pick) president, maybe we should call it the American Mark. Look at what happened in Germany way back when...

I have this one hanging on my wall:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Misc/Reichsbanknote1000front150dpi.jpg

[jman3000]

Social Security needs to be changed in a big way. Entitlement programs need to be put in check as well.

But at least thy're disclosing the full costs and not hiding war spending in emergency funding bills like Bush did.

[Extra Stout]

That's what you do in a recession.
I've read a bit on Keynesian economics, but I don't remember the part where the correct response to a recession is to bankrupt the entire country. Where can I find that?

[ElNono]

I've read a bit on Keynesian economics, but I don't remember the part where the correct response to a recession is to bankrupt the entire country. Where can I find that?

I've read a bit the newspapers, but I don't remember reading that this country is bankrupt. Where I can find that?

[Extra Stout]

Social Security needs to be changed in a big way. Entitlement programs need to be put in check as well.

But at least thy're disclosing the full costs and not hiding war spending in emergency funding bills like Bush did.
Social Security is not even a drop in the bucket compared to Medicare. Medicare, simply put, will cause the insolvency of the U.S. government in our lifetimes by itself.

[Wild Cobra]

I've read a bit on Keynesian economics, but I don't remember the part where the correct response to a recession is to bankrupt the entire country. Where can I find that?
Yes. I'd like to know too.

Wouldn't it have been far better to let all failing entities go bankrupt and extend unemployment until we recover?

I cannot get the idea of OCP from Robocop out of my mind when the government says a corporation is too large to fail. It can then only get bigger, and unstoppable.

Who here wants to live in Delta City?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b1/OCP_logo.jpg

Obama Consumer Products anyone?

... Anyone...

[Extra Stout]

I've read a bit the newspapers, but I don't remember reading that this country is bankrupt. Where I can find that?
Look at Obama's ten-year budget. Then look at the CBO analysis of it.

[ElNono]

And FWIW, I'm not a big fan of increased government spending either. But I haven't heard of any other economic theory that has been used in the real world to deal with recession/deflation). Certainly none that includes being fiscally conservative.

[ElNono]

Look at Obama's ten-year budget. Then look at the CBO analysis of it.

Lot of things can happen in 10 years. Again, what's your proposition to deal with this recession? Any tested economic policy you want to suggest?

[Wild Cobra]

And FWIW, I'm not a big fan of increased government spending either. But I haven't heard of any other economic theory that has been used in the real world to deal with recession/deflation). Certainly none that includes being fiscally conservative.
One positive step would be to require anyone receiving government assistance to work, who can. Drug test them and make them earn their keep, or kick them off the programs. More productive citizens = more revenue and less spending.

[Marcus Bryant]

Lot of things can happen in 10 years. Again, what's your proposition to deal with this recession? Any tested economic policy you want to suggest?

When has Keynesianism actually worked? Doing something simply because 'that's what has been done before' does not, in and of itself, provide justification for the continued practice.

[Wild Cobra]

Lot of things can happen in 10 years. Again, what's your proposition to deal with this recession? Any tested economic policy you want to suggest?
Let it play out. Government is not the solution, but the problem!

[Marcus Bryant]

Not to mention, the left and right in this country worship at the altar of Keynes. Of course, he did give every politician the justification for ever increasing government spending while diminishing the concern for the use of debt financing.

[spurster]

We love tax cuts and government spending. At some point, something's got to give.

$2 trillion deficit? How about we agree to cutting spending by $1 trillion and increasing taxes by $1 trillion? Sound fair?

[ElNono]

When has Keynesianism actually worked?


Japan during the Great Depression and again in the early '90s.



Doing something simply because 'that's what has been done before' does not, in and of itself, provide justification for the continued practice.

It has worked before, you just need to inform yourself better.

[ElNono]

Not to mention, the left and right in this country worship at the altar of Keynes. Of course, he did give every politician the justification for ever increasing government spending while diminishing the concern for the use of debt financing.

I'm still waiting for your proposed economic policy that will get the country out of this recession. If it's a tested and sound policy, even better yet.

[Wild Cobra]

We love tax cuts and government spending. At some point, something's got to give.

$2 trillion deficit? How about we agree to cutting spending by $1 trillion and increasing taxes by $1 trillion? Sound fair?
How about cutting the bailout and social spending by 2.5 trillion instead?

[Marcus Bryant]

Japan during the Great Depression and again in the early '90s.


Japan?



It has worked before, you just need to inform yourself better.

ROFL. Please, oh great one, inform me of when it has worked here.

[Marcus Bryant]

I'm still waiting for your proposed economic policy that will get the country out of this recession. If it's a tested and sound policy, even better yet.

How about not replacing the last collapsed house of cards with another?

[ElNono]

How about cutting the bailout and social spending by 2.5 trillion instead?

The Republicans didn't have the balls to cut social spending, and actually spearheaded the bailouts. What makes you think a democrat government will undo all that?

[Wild Cobra]

Japan during the Great Depression and again in the early '90s.

So you want the USA to be like the Empire of Japan was? How else can you make it work?

I can see it now... Emperor Obama... Has kinda a nice ring, huh?

[Marcus Bryant]

We love tax cuts and government spending. At some point, something's got to give.

$2 trillion deficit? How about we agree to cutting spending by $1 trillion and increasing taxes by $1 trillion? Sound fair?

Neither side will give in to that, though sensible. Much like a real compromise on the social insurance programs which institutes means testing and provides assistance to those who need it, as opposed to everyone, will never fly politically.

[Wild Cobra]

The Republicans didn't have the balls to cut social spending, and actually spearheaded the bailouts. What makes you think a democrat government will undo all that?
Spearheaded the bailout? Am I remembering that wrong?

Correct me if I'm wrong. The October bailout almost didn't happen because the democrats had enough votes, but they wanted to get some republicans to vote with them!

Am I right or wrong?

[Marcus Bryant]

Spearheaded the bailout? Am I remembering that wrong?

Correct me if I'm wrong. The October bailout almost didn't happen because the democrats had enough votes, but they wanted to get some republicans to vote with them!

Am I right or wrong?

Eh, that was a bipartisan effort, at least in name. But really an unipartisan effort of the DC party.

Remind me again whose Treasury secretary ran to the Congress screaming for a $700 billion blank check.

[ElNono]

Japan?

Japan
The Great Depression did not strongly affect Japan. The Japanese economy shrank by 8% during 1929–31. However, Japan's Finance Minister Takahashi Korekiyo was the first to implement what have come to be identified as Keynesian economic policies: first, by large fiscal stimulus involving deficit spending; and second, by devaluing the currency. Takahashi used the Bank of Japan to sterilize the deficit spending and minimize resulting inflationary pressures. Econometric studies have identified the fiscal stimulus as especially effective.[48]
The devaluation of the currency had an immediate effect. Japanese textiles began to displace British textiles in export markets. The deficit spending, however proved to be most profound. The deficit spending went into the purchase of munitions for the armed forces. By 1933, Japan was already out of the depression. By 1934 Takahashi realized that the economy was in danger of overheating, and to avoid inflation, moved to reduce the deficit spending that went towards armaments and munitions. This resulted in a strong and swift negative reaction from nationalists, especially those in the Army, culminating in his assassination in the course of the February 26 Incident. This had a chilling effect on all civilian bureaucrats in the Japanese government. From 1934, the military's dominance of the government continued to grow. Instead of reducing deficit spending, the government introduced price controls and rationing schemes that reduced, but did not eliminate inflation, which would remain a problem until the end of World War II.
The deficit spending had a transformative effect on Japan. Japan's industrial production doubled during the 1930s. Further, in 1929 the list of the largest firms in Japan was dominated by light industries, especially textile companies (many of Japan's automakers, like Toyota, have their roots in the textile industry). By 1940 light industry had been displaced by heavy industry as the largest firms inside the Japanese economy.

LINK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression)


ROFL. Please, oh great one, inform me of when it has worked here.

They were never applied completely in the US. Roosevelt tried to do it while keeping the budget balanced, and he failed miserably. Hence, the attempt to apply these rules while being fiscally conservative has already been proven to FAIL.

There's one more historical tidbit we can learn from:
The crisis had many political consequences, among which was the abandonment of classic economic liberal approaches, which Roosevelt replaced in the United States with Keynesian policies. These policies magnified the role of the federal government in the national economy. Between 1933 and 1939, federal expenditure tripled, and Roosevelt's critics charged that he was turning America into a socialist state.

Sounds familiar?

[Wild Cobra]

Remind me again whose Treasury secretary ran to the Congress screaming for a $700 billion blank check.
Yep, he was a lame piece of shit. A very poor appointment. President Bush should have never listened to him.

Also... the conflict of interest...

[Wild Cobra]

ElNono, borrowing and deficit spending is fine when used properly. The problem is, we always have deficit spending. When there is no control to pay it back in peacetime and a growing economy, there is only certain doom.

[Marcus Bryant]

Remember the 70s?

As for the Great Depression, that eventually ended thanks to WWII and the federal government spending more than the nation's GDP at times.

Of course, I guess we should forget about the recent Japanese experience and the implications for increasing debt financed government expenditure after the collapse of an asset bubble. Not to mention, easing monetary policy to go along with that.

[ElNono]

Spearheaded the bailout? Am I remembering that wrong?


Excuse me? You were the first in line bitching at Bush and all the Republican cronies for even proposing the bailout. Or are you going to deny that the TARP program was invented by a republican and implemented by a Republican administration?



Correct me if I'm wrong. The October bailout almost didn't happen because the democrats had enough votes, but they wanted to get some republicans to vote with them!

Am I right or wrong?

Are you telling me the democrats you abhor were about to save the day from a Republican bailout?

[Marcus Bryant]

Yep, he was a lame piece of shit. A very poor appointment. President Bush should have never listened to him.

Also... the conflict of interest...

Yet, Bush did and a rather large contingent of congressional Republicans went along with it (a majority, if I am not mistaken). There's no way to claim that these bailouts are somehow merely a Democratic effort.

[ElNono]

ElNono, borrowing and deficit spending is fine when used properly. The problem is, we always have deficit spending. When there is no control to pay it back in peacetime and a growing economy, there is only certain doom.

We had a balanced budget merely 8 years ago. Even a projected surplus.

[Winehole23]

As for the Great Depression, that eventually ended thanks to WWII and the federal government spending more than the nation's GDP at times.Sounds like an argument that keynesianism worked -- military keynesianism.

[Wild Cobra]

Excuse me? You were the first in line bitching at Bush and all the Republican cronies for even proposing the bailout. Yes, and as the democrats created the legislation, and more facts came out, it lost republican support.

Or are you going to deny that the TARP program was invented by a republican and implemented by a Republican administration?
This was a serious mistake by president Bush. I never said otherwise. However, the democrats really twisted it when they got a hold of it. Even in it's untwisted form, I was firmly against it.


Are you telling me the democrats you abhor were about to save the day from a Republican bailout?
There was that threat. I recall them stalling the final vote and making changes to get the republicans go along with them that didn't at first.

Yet, Bush did and a rather large contingent of congressional Republicans went along with it (a majority, if I am not mistaken). There's no way to claim that these bailouts are somehow merely a Democratic effort.

I don't remember the numbers. Have them handy by chance? I think it was about 1/3rd of the republicans, wasn't it?

[Wild Cobra]

We had a balanced budget merely 8 years ago. Even a projected surplus.
Then why was there a deficit?

[Marcus Bryant]

Sounds like an argument that keynesianism worked -- military keynesianism.

Perhaps. If we are prepared to move to a command economy with the government spending $15 trillion+ a year (forget about this piker of a $3.5 trillion annual federal budget). Of course, some argue that the depression really didn't end until the late 40s as the federal government started to ramp down public expenditure and the federal government finally ended its almost two decade long massive intervention in the economy.

[ElNono]

Yes, and as the democrats created the legislation, and more facts came out, it lost republican support.


Excuse me? The bill was introduced by a Democrat, but it had 274 cosponsors, including many Republicans. Not to mention this was entirely a Bush creation.


This was a serious mistake by president Bush. I never said otherwise. However, the democrats really twisted it when they got a hold of it. Even in it's untwisted form, I was firmly against it.


I know you were. I think pretty much everyone was. You don't really need to be a republican or democrat to know that was some bullshit legislation.


There was that threat. I recall them stalling the final vote and making changes to get the republicans go along with them that didn't at first.

They didn't want to take sole responsibility for passing such a measure. Understandable considering the presidential election was looming.


I don't remember the numbers. Have them handy by chance? I think it was about 1/3rd of the republicans, wasn't it?

Here's the senate count: LINK (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00213)

Way more than 1/3...

[Marcus Bryant]

I don't remember the numbers. Have them handy by chance? I think it was about 1/3rd of the republicans, wasn't it?

House GOP: 91 Yeas, 108 Nays (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll681.xml)

Senate GOP: 33 Yeas, 15 Nays (http://www.opencongress.org/roll_call/show/5093)

Executive GOP: 1 Yea

[Extra Stout]

They were never applied completely in the US. Roosevelt tried to do it while keeping the budget balanced, and he failed miserably. Hence, the attempt to apply these rules while being fiscally conservative has already been proven to FAIL.
While we're on the subject of Japan, take a look at how Keynesian policies DIDN'T work there in the 1990's, and what the resultant effect was on their national debt.

[ElNono]

Then why was there a deficit?

What deficit? LINK (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal. html)

[Winehole23]

Perhaps. If we are prepared to move to a command economy with the government spending $15 trillion+ a year (forget about this piker of a $3.5 trillion annual federal budget). Of course, some argue that the depression really didn't end until the late 40s as the federal government started to ramp down public expenditure and the federal government finally ended its almost two decade long massive intervention in the economy.The numbers seem to back you up. Who's your source for this. MB?

Deficit spending (as a percentage of GDP (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy00/hist.html)) didn't pick up again until the mid 1970's, spiked under Reagan and GHWB, and again under GWB.

[Marcus Bryant]

The numbers seem to back you up. Who's your source for this. MB?

My memory, not that I was there though. Will find the source.




Deficit spending (as a percentage of GDP (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy00/hist.html)) didn't pick up again until the mid 1970's, spiked under Reagan and GHWB, and again under GWB.

I was reminded of Nixon's "we're all Keynesians now" quote.

[Wild Cobra]

What deficit? LINK (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal. html)
OK, play that stupid game.

Did they follow the budget...

If they did, why was the a larger debt each year afterward?

I can make a household budget that shows I save $2,000 a month. Doesn't mean shit if I spend that money anyway.

I budgeted to save the $2,000, but didn't follow through.

Bottom line and what's important. can you show me those years that the debt was reduced?

Was there a larger or smaller debt at the end of those budgeted.

I don't know about you, but I look at the reconciled numbers. Not the bullshit they lay out for lemmings.

[Winehole23]

I don't know about you, but I look at the reconciled numbers. Not the bullshit they lay out for lemmings.Ok, let's play that stupid game. Let's see your numbers, WC.

[Marcus Bryant]

Here are the GDP stats (http://www.bea.gov/national/index.htm) (from the BEA).

As for spending as a % of GDP, it looks like it was around 50% (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_20th_century_chart.html) at its peak towards the end of WWII. So that would translate to about $7 trillion per annum today.

Per the BEA, US GDP is at $14 trillion in current $. So 50% of that is $7 trillion. I guess we're ready to double the current $3.5 trillion monstrosity to whip the ol' recession monster.

[Winehole23]

Per the BEA, US GDP is at $14 trillion in current $. So 50% of that is $7 trillion. I guess we're ready to double the current $3.5 trillion monstrosity to whip the ol' recession monster.Hopefully, the banks we're keeping on life support won't hinder the recovery like they did in Japan in the 1990's. An L-shaped recession is still a possibility.

[Wild Cobra]

Gross Federal Debt by year (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/sheets/hist07z1.xls):

1960 290,525
1961 292,648
1962 302,928
1963 310,324
1964 316,059
1965 322,318
1966 328,498
1967 340,445
1968 368,685
1969 365,769 Last reduction in debt... Nixon's administration!
1970 380,921
1971 408,176
1972 435,936
1973 466,291
1974 483,893
1975 541,925
1976 628,970
TQ 643,561
1977 706,398
1978 776,602
1979 829,467
1980 909,041
1981 994,828
1982 1,137,315
1983 1,371,660
1984 1,564,586
1985 1,817,423
1986 2,120,501
1987 2,345,956
1988 2,601,104
1989 2,867,800
1990 3,206,290
1991 3,598,178
1992 4,001,787
1993 4,351,044
1994 4,643,307 up by 6.72%
1995 4,920,586 up by 5.97%
1996 5,181,465 up by 5.3%
1997 5,369,206 up by 3.62%
1998 5,478,189 up by 2.03%
1999 5,605,523 up by 2.32%
2000 5,628,700 up by 0.41%
2001 5,769,881 up by 2.51%
2002 6,198,401
2003 6,760,014
2004 7,354,657
2005 7,905,300
2006 8,451,350
2007 8,950,744

[ElNono]

ok, let's play that stupid game. Let's see your numbers, wc.

+1

[JoeChalupa]

Yeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhh!!!!

[Marcus Bryant]

1981 994,828
1982 1,137,315
1983 1,371,660
1984 1,564,586
1985 1,817,423
1986 2,120,501
1987 2,345,956
1988 2,601,104
1989 2,867,800
1990 3,206,290
1991 3,598,178
1992 4,001,787

What's the CAGR for that period?

[Winehole23]

2001 5,769,881 up by 2.51%
2002 6,198,401
2003 6,760,014
2004 7,354,657
2005 7,905,300
2006 8,451,350
2007 8,950,744

[Marcus Bryant]

And you can't use the 'Dems controlled the Congress' line for most of that last series.

[Wild Cobra]

What's the CAGR for that period?
That's real nasty numbers. Remember though, president Reagan inherited double-digit inflation! Borrowing with bonds anyone could buy were paying double in 5-years.

Any clue what Obama's spending will become with double digit inflation that can occur?

[Marcus Bryant]

Neither party can be trusted with the national purse at this point. The problem, of course, is that the people essentially don't care. Politicians give the people ultimately what they want, and the people want low taxes and all kinds of government expenditure.

[Winehole23]

That's real nasty numbers. Remember though, president Reagan inherited double-digit inflation!Your point? That deficit spending made it better?:lol

[ElNono]

While we're on the subject of Japan, take a look at how Keynesian policies DIDN'T work there in the 1990's, and what the resultant effect was on their national debt.

It has been argued that the Japanese tried to get out of the Keynesian economics too early, thinking the worst had passed by.
As they tried to cut spending their economy plummeted again. It took another round of big spending to finally get out of the hole then.

[Winehole23]

Really WC, you have Paul Volcker's tight money policy to thank for keeping inflation in check under Reagan.

[ElNono]

Neither party can be trusted with the national purse at this point. The problem, of course, is that the people essentially don't care. Politicians give the people ultimately what they want, and the people want low taxes and all kinds of government expenditure.

This much is true. Plus the Keynes model implicitly states that as the economy recovers, the extra spending should be cut, and you need to use the economic boom times that always follow recession to balance the economy again.
Due to our political system, this part of the bargain is the one that never happens.

[Wild Cobra]

Your point? That deficit spending made it better?:lol
We've been over this before. Why do you beat a dead horse?

[Winehole23]

It has been argued that the Japanese tried to get out of the Keynesian economics too early, thinking the worst had passed by.
As they tried to cut spending their economy plummeted again. It took another round of big spending to finally get out of the hole then.Krugman's argument now is that Japan didn't fix the banks, even though Japan more or less followed his prescription for massive stimulus.

[Winehole23]

We've been over this before. Why do you beat a dead horse?What dead horse? You haven't even made a point yet.

[Marcus Bryant]

Really WC, you have Paul Volcker's tight money policy to thank for keeping inflation in check under Reagan.

Meanwhile, Bubble Ben keeps the Fed's lights on at night...

[Marcus Bryant]

Krugman's argument now is that Japan didn't fix the banks, even though Japan more or less followed his prescription for massive stimulus.

Is there even an arguable example of Keynesianism working since Bretton Woods was no more?

[ElNono]

One more thing. As far as philosophies go, you either have to go with Keynes or Friedman. But Friedman type of policies is what got us here in the first place (unfettered freedom to the free markets, etc).
That's the only reason we're going with Keynes, as far as I understand the conundrum.

[Wild Cobra]

What dead horse? You haven't even made a point yet.
Please stop being Chump the 2nd.

This thread is not about the Reagan era. We have been over that in previous threads. You want to discuss that, start a new thread please.

My point is that there was no real surplus under president Clinton. Now that I made it, you are changing the subject. Cannot tolerate the truth?

[Winehole23]

Hmm. If Obama's rosy scenario pans out, I guess we can point to us.

[ElNono]

Answered in next post..

[ElNono]

Gross Federal Debt by year (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy09/sheets/hist07z1.xls):

1960 290,525
1961 292,648
1962 302,928
1963 310,324
1964 316,059
1965 322,318
1966 328,498
1967 340,445
1968 368,685
1969 365,769 Last reduction in debt... Nixon's administration!
1970 380,921
1971 408,176
1972 435,936
1973 466,291
1974 483,893
1975 541,925
1976 628,970
TQ 643,561
1977 706,398
1978 776,602
1979 829,467
1980 909,041
1981 994,828
1982 1,137,315
1983 1,371,660
1984 1,564,586
1985 1,817,423
1986 2,120,501
1987 2,345,956
1988 2,601,104
1989 2,867,800
1990 3,206,290
1991 3,598,178
1992 4,001,787
1993 4,351,044
1994 4,643,307 up by 6.72%
1995 4,920,586 up by 5.97%
1996 5,181,465 up by 5.3%
1997 5,369,206 up by 3.62%
1998 5,478,189 up by 2.03%
1999 5,605,523 up by 2.32%
2000 5,628,700 up by 0.41%
2001 5,769,881 up by 2.51%
2002 6,198,401
2003 6,760,014
2004 7,354,657
2005 7,905,300
2006 8,451,350
2007 8,950,744

Are those numbers adjusted for inflation? Because here's a graph with the adjustment applied:

http://i42.tinypic.com/2v84py8.png

I can readily tell where the Clinton period was.

From here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

[Marcus Bryant]

One more thing. As far as philosophies go, you either have to go with Keynes or Friedman. But Friedman type of policies is what got us here in the first place (unfettered freedom to the free markets, etc).
That's the only reason we're going with Keynes, as far as I understand the conundrum.

eh? Friedman was for no limits on the growth in the money supply and excessive government spending?

[Marcus Bryant]

Naturally, when Clinton was in the White House, the GOP controlled Congress actually cared about fiscal discipline.

[Winehole23]

One more thing. As far as philosophies go, you either have to go with Keynes or Friedman. I see no reason why this should be true. What about the Austrians?

The theory of credit cycles does seem to explain the biggest busts of the last century. Isn't there a danger that keynesian spending just inflates the next bubble?

[Marcus Bryant]

And Keynes' prescription was for an economy that had been mired in depression for years. Nowadays it's used as justification for various policies even when the economy is actually growing.

Lest we bother to think about the asymmetric monetary policy prescriptions used by our central bank.

[Winehole23]

My point is that there was no real surplus under president Clinton. Now that I made it, you are changing the subject. You were the one who brought up inflation in 1980. I don't really take issue with your take on the Clinton surplus, except that, if it were possible to return to the *phony* situation of surplus under him, I would do it in a heartbeat.

[Wild Cobra]

Are those numbers adjusted for inflation? Because here's a graph with the adjustment applied:

http://i42.tinypic.com/2v84py8.png

I can readily tell where the Clinton period was.

From here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

Changing the argument now, are we?

The reason the percentage decreased is because we had a growing economy. Had democrats been in charge of congress, I'm sure they would have found ways to keep the percentages high as well!

You should ask, with a growing economy, why did we still have deficit spending? We were not at war either. Congress and the president should have paid down the debt. Not increase it farther.

Back to our original argument.

Did the debt ever decrease under president Clinton?

[Winehole23]

Debt and deficit, though related, are not the same thing. You're derailing the conversation, WC.

Please focus.

[Marcus Bryant]

You were the one who brought up inflation in 1980. I don't really take issue with your take on the Clinton surplus, except that, if it were possible to return to the *phony* situation of surplus under him, I would do it in a heartbeat.

The Clinton administration of 1995-2001 was more conservative than the Bush one of, oh, 2001-2009.

I too, share your nostalgia for that time period, for at least then Republican conservatism did include a concern for fiscal discipline and avoiding foreign entanglements.

[Wild Cobra]

You were the one who brought up inflation in 1980. I don't really take issue with your take on the Clinton surplus, except that, if it were possible to return to the *phony* situation of surplus under him, I would do it in a heartbeat.
I only brought that up for a short response to Marcus' posting the quadrupling of debt over 12 years during the Reagan/Bush years, in case he didn't know the truth. It has nothing to do with the current administration, or the argument concerning president Clinton. It responded to show what can happen of we get high inflation again.

[Marcus Bryant]

Hmm. If Obama's rosy scenario pans out, I guess we can point to us.

If not, it'll go down the collective memory hole as we try it again.

[Wild Cobra]

The Clinton administration of 1995-2001 was more conservative than the Bush one of, oh, 2001-2009.

I too, share your nostalgia for that time period, for at least then Republican conservatism did include a concern for fiscal discipline and avoiding foreign entanglements.
1) President Clinton had republicans in control of congress for six of his eight years.

2) We were at peace and had a growing economy as everyone prepared for Y2K.

3) 9/11 occured during president Bush's first year. It stalled the economy momentarily, we prepared for war, and we went to war.

I would say we can safely assume president Clinton was in the right place at the right time. President Bush was unlucky.

[Winehole23]

You blame the growth of debt on Carter and high inflation, rather than the growth of spending, government and debt under Reagan. How telling.

[ElNono]

eh? Friedman was for no limits on the growth in the money supply and excessive government spending?

He was a Keynesian until the 50's, when he then changed his mind and proposed the word you used earlier (stagflation) to depict the use of the Keynes consumption function. He claimed the Great Depression could have been avoided entirely by applying monetary policy.
He was against government regulation of pretty much any kind.

[Marcus Bryant]

Changing the argument now, are we?

The reason the percentage decreased is because we had a growing economy. Had democrats been in charge of congress, I'm sure they would have found ways to keep the percentages high as well!

You should ask, with a growing economy, why did we still have deficit spending? We were not at war either. Congress and the president should have paid down the debt. Not increase it farther.

Back to our original argument.

Did the debt ever decrease under president Clinton?

The reason it declined is because you had a Congress who cared enough about fiscal discipline as well as an opportunistic president ready to sell out his own party.

Of course, it was derailed once you had a new 'conservative' president who was ready to sell out his own party and force the Congress to forget about fiscal discipline.

[Marcus Bryant]

He was a Keynesian until the 50's, when he then changed his mind and proposed the word you used earlier (stagflation) to depict the use of the Keynes consumption function. He claimed the Great Depression could have been avoided entirely by applying monetary policy.
He was against government regulation of pretty much any kind.

He said the Great Depression could have been avoided had the Fed actually acted as the lender of last resort. Sure, he opposed regulation in most other areas, but he certainly did not approve of excessive monetary growth and deficit spending as you so attached to him.

[Wild Cobra]

You blame the growth of debt on Carter and high inflation, rather than the growth of spending, government and debt under Reagan. How telling.
Not true. There is no one thing. Are you single minded? Cannot see there are generally multiple causes?

This deserves it's own thread. I'm done talking about president Reagan here. Besides, I'm getting off for now. Have to wait for any farther responses later today, or tomorrow.

But... I will ignore it if it's in this thread!

[Wild Cobra]

The reason it declined is because you had a Congress who cared enough about fiscal discipline as well as an opportunistic president ready to sell out his own party.

Of course, it was derailed once you had a new 'conservative' president who was ready to sell out his own party and force the Congress to forget about fiscal discipline.
Back to my question:

Did the debt ever decrease under president Clinton?

[ElNono]

Changing the argument now, are we?

The reason the percentage decreased is because we had a growing economy. Had democrats been in charge of congress, I'm sure they would have found ways to keep the percentages high as well!

You should ask, with a growing economy, why did we still have deficit spending? We were not at war either. Congress and the president should have paid down the debt. Not increase it farther.

Back to our original argument.

Did the debt ever decrease under president Clinton?

What part of the graph you don't understand? I see it clearly shaping down during the Clinton years. That effectively means he did paid down debt, otherwise it wouldn't go down.

[Winehole23]

But... I will ignore it if it's in this thread!By all means, suit yourself, WC.

[ElNono]

He said the Great Depression could have been avoided had the Fed actually acted as the lender of last resort. Sure, he opposed regulation in most other areas, but he certainly did not approve of excessive monetary growth and deficit spending as you so attached to him.

Where did I claim that? I pointed that his unregulated free market policies is what brought us here in the first place. That's all.

[Marcus Bryant]

1) President Clinton had republicans in control of congress for six of his eight years.

Yeah. Actual Republicans who wanted to reduce the scale and scope of the federal government and who weren't for preventative wars.



2) We were at peace and had a growing economy as everyone prepared for Y2K.

Yet the GOP found time to oppose Clinton's Balkan adventure.



3) 9/11 occured during president Bush's first year. It stalled the economy momentarily, we prepared for war, and we went to war.

I would say we can safely assume president Clinton was in the right place at the right time. President Bush was unlucky.

ROFL. Bush doubled down on his unlucky hand and now conservatives will be paying the price for a while. Not to mention that Bush not just diverged from conservatism, he doused it with gasoline and lit it.

Rove decided that economic and fiscal conservatism did not sell. He though the path to a permanent GOP majority was to roll with the social conservatives and the neo-progressive militarist 'national security conservatives'. That permanent majority lasted all of about 3 years.

[Wild Cobra]

What part of the graph you don't understand? I see it clearly shaping down during the Clinton years. That effectively means he did paid down debt, otherwise it wouldn't go down.
WTF...

I never said it didn't decrease as a percentage.

I would go into more detail about how fucking stupid you are becoming, but I don't have time.

My argument was about the increasing debt, period. Real dollars. That even though a budget said we had a surplus we didn't.

Did the debt, in dollars, ever decrease under president Clinton?

If that answer is NO, then there was no real surplus! Get it?

[ElNono]

WTF...

I never said it didn't decrease as a percentage.

I would go into more detail about how fucking stupid you are becoming, but I don't have time.

My argument was about the increasing debt, period. Real dollars. That even tough a budget said we g=had a surplus we didn't.

Did the debt, in dollars, ever decrease under president Clinton?

If that answer is NO, then there was no real surplus! Get it?

I'm talking about raw millions of dollars adjusted for inflation. There's no percentage there. Again, can you read a graph?

[Marcus Bryant]

Where did I claim that? I pointed that his unregulated free market policies is what brought us here in the first place. That's all.

The problem is, that's not what caused the current problem.

[Marcus Bryant]

Back to my question:

Did the debt ever decrease under president Clinton?

Who cares? Did it grow at a rate anywhere close to what it did from 2001-2006?

[ElNono]

The problem is, that's not what caused the current problem.

Let's see your revisionist history of what caused this recession. I'm all ears.

[Marcus Bryant]

Let's see your revisionist history of what caused this recession. I'm all ears.

Amusing. Since I don't agree with your revisionist history an alternative view must be "revisionist".

I guess you believe asset bubbles have nothing to do with monetary policy and that a government agency which itself is allowed to borrow at government rates and pursue its own profit by buying up property debt securities had nothing to do with our present predicament.

[ElNono]

Amusing. Since I don't agree with your revisionist history an alternative view must be "revisionist".


Not really. I didn't claim my view to be necessarily correct.


I guess you believe asset bubbles have nothing to do with monetary policy and that a government agency which itself is allowed to borrow at government rates and pursue its own profit by buying up property debt securities had nothing to do with our present predicament.

I know what I believe. I want to hear what's your take on it.

[Marcus Bryant]

Well, there you go. An asset bubble created by excess credit creation due to an overly easy monetary policy as well as due to the GSEs and their private gain/social loss arrangement.

[Winehole23]

You left out the cratering of trust due to the extreme lack of transparency in finance, and the exploitation of this opacity by firms to take on risk beyond all bounds of fiduciary responsibility, but that's a pretty good nutshell.

[ElNono]

Well, there you go. An asset bubble created by excess credit creation due to an overly easy monetary policy as well as due to the GSEs and their private gain/social loss arrangement.

Well, see, we actually agree. WH appended basically my other concern, which I think would have been preventable or at least mitigated with government intervention.
In a way, we completely underestimated the greed of some of these corps, and this is something I would like to see addressed, before they fall again, and we are told one more time that we need to bail them out because they're too big to fall.

[Wild Cobra]

I'm talking about raw millions of dollars adjusted for inflation. There's no percentage there. Again, can you read a graph?
Bullshit. You are changing your story because I proved you wrong. You were referring to it all along as a budget surplus. That means dollars. Not percents.

When you use inflation adjusted dollars, you are using ratio's, changing each data point. A ratio is a percentage. Mathematically similar!

If you had ever said as a percentage, or as inflation adjusted dollars, I wold have agreed.

I use to respect you. Now you're just a another libtard liar.

Yes, I understand graphs. Do you understand "surplus?" Do you understand "balance?" Do you understand you are trying to change the argument. Well guess what.

Yes, spending goes up and down as a percentage of GNP and GDP when the GNP and GDP do not make linear changes with inflation! This is such a simple mathematical concept, do you realize how fucking bad you are insulting my intelligence?

After I pointed out being I meant the reconciled budget and that I can budget my monthly spending, and not follow it, you continued on your same course. It wasn't until you found the chart as a percentage that you changed your wording. I even provided debt data that clearly showed I meant dollars. Not percents.

Do you budget your household income based on percentages, or real money?

I never denied those graphs of inflation adjusted dollars or by GDP. I am in 100% agreement with the shape of them as public debt. However, they are not gross debt numbers as I have pointed out. Gross debt graph of debt vs. GDP:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Politics/GrossDebtvsGNP.jpg

Look at my graph vs. the one you supplied. Mine is from the same data I linked earlier. Yours is public debt only, not gross debt. It can also be plotted from that link if you don't believe me. Here it is:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Politics/PublicDebtvsGNP.jpg

Now in the other graph, I stopped at 2007 because that's where the reconciled data ends. This one, I included 2008 and 2009 estimated data, which is not factually correct for either my graph or yours. Subject to interpretation and politically motivated guesses. Yours probably included the initial bailout and mine probably doesn't.

Also, bad form for not specifying the debt type used. Gross debt is what counts.

[ElNono]

Bullshit. You are changing your story because I proved you wrong. You were referring to it all along as a budget surplus. That means dollars. Not percents.

When you use inflation adjusted dollars, you are using ratio's, changing each data point. A ratio is a percentage. Mathematically similar!


It's asinine to pretend the value of the dollar to be static throughout the years. If you truly believe that to be the case, then I'll be happy to purchase your home for $300. After all, there was a time where that many dollars bought you a property.



If you had ever said as a percentage, or as inflation adjusted dollars, I wold have agreed.


I just claimed we had a balanced budget and even a surplus. I was correct.



I use to respect you. Now you're just a another libtard liar.


I see how this works. You posted useless numbers, and I called you out for it. Now, I'm a liar. :tu



Yes, I understand graphs. Do you understand "surplus?" Do you understand "balance?" Do you understand you are trying to change the argument. Well guess what.


Absolutely. A surplus is when your income exceeds your expenses. A balanced budget is when you plan to spend only as much as your income allows. How is it that I changed the argument?



Yes, spending goes up and down as a percentage of GNP and GDP when the GNP and GDP do not make linear changes with inflation! This is such a simple mathematical concept, do you realize how fucking bad you are insulting my intelligence?


I presented two graphs. One against GDP, one against raw dollars adjusted for inflation. In both cases the debt took a nose down during the Clinton years. I'm sorry if you can't seem to grasp that. It's not me insulting your intelligence, it's just you.



After I pointed out being I meant the reconciled budget and that I can budget my monthly spending, and not follow it, you continued on your same course. It wasn't until you found the chart as a percentage that you changed your wording. I even provided debt data that clearly showed I meant dollars. Not percents.


Sure, you posted meaningless numbers. Using dollar amounts without adjusting them to their value in time is basically useless. You simply can't pretend $100 dollars were worth the same in 1990 and now. I'm sorry, that's just retarded.



Do you budget your household income based on percentages, or real money?


Real money, adjusted to it's current value in time. Or do you budget your household income based on the value of the dollar in 1845?



I never denied those graphs of inflation adjusted dollars or by GDP. I am in 100% agreement with the shape of them as public debt. However, they are not gross debt numbers as I have pointed out. Gross debt graph of debt vs. GDP:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Politics/GrossDebtvsGNP.jpg

Look at my graph vs. the one you supplied. Mine is from the same data I linked earlier. Yours is public debt only, not gross debt. It can also be plotted from that link if you don't believe me. Here it is:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Politics/PublicDebtvsGNP.jpg

Now in the other graph, I stopped at 2007 because that's where the reconciled data ends. This one, I included 2008 and 2009 estimated data, which is not factually correct for either my graph or yours. Subject to interpretation and politically motivated guesses. Yours probably included the initial bailout and mine probably doesn't.

Also, bad form for not specifying the debt type used. Gross debt is what counts.

Excuse me? I posted two graphs, and each include both gross and non-gross curves. The point being, no matter which one you pick, they both indicate a reduction of debt in the Clinton years, which was my point all along.

Furthermore, because I'm fairly sure you didn't even bother to read the article I linked, if you were to calculate the income vs expenses during that period using an accrued accounting model (like most corps do) you would STILL come up with a surplus.

[Wild Cobra]

It's asinine to pretend the value of the dollar to be static throughout the years. If you truly believe that to be the case, then I'll be happy to purchase your home for $300. After all, there was a time where that many dollars bought you a property.

I'll agree with that, but that was not the argument.


I just claimed we had a balanced budget and even a surplus. I was correct.

Technically, you were right. I immediately pointed out that those were planned spending, but the budget wasn't followed. Also that I used reconciled numbers. A budget itself is meaningless. Do you always follow your monthly household budget? You continued to argue as if what I said was meaningless.


I see how this works. You posted useless numbers, and I called you out for it. Now, I'm a liar. :tu

Not useless, we were just talking about two different sets of numbers.


Absolutely. A surplus is when your income exceeds your expenses. A balanced budget is when you plan to spend only as much as your income allows. How is it that I changed the argument?

I explained that early on in our arguments. You either missed it or ignored it.


I presented two graphs. One against GDP, one against raw dollars adjusted for inflation. In both cases the debt took a nose down during the Clinton years. I'm sorry if you can't seem to grasp that. It's not me insulting your intelligence, it's just you.

I grasp them perfectly well, and g=have used the same arguments myself in the past. You fail to grasp that we were talking about two different numbers, in fact, you changed your argument midstream and pretended you didn't.


Sure, you posted meaningless numbers. Using dollar amounts without adjusting them to their value in time is basically useless. You simply can't pretend $100 dollars were worth the same in 1990 and now. I'm sorry, that's just retarded.

I'm not disagree with that. Just that you changed your argument.


Excuse me? I posted two graphs, and each include both gross and non-gross curves. The point being, no matter which one you pick, they both indicate a reduction of debt in the Clinton years, which was my point all along.

Yes, brain fart on my part. You never specified gross/non-gross before the graphs. You first used real numbers, not adjusted for inflation. You are really making me pissed by changing your argument. The link you supplied for your argument had this:

http://cdn.factcheck.org/imagefiles/Ask%20FactCheck%20Images/FederalDeficit/FederalDeficit(1).jpg

Thius graph very closely reflects the excel chart I linked in one of its columns. It is not inflation adjusted. Then you claim it's not valid without being inflation adjusted.

Come on now, Get real. Make your your mind.


Furthermore, because I'm fairly sure you didn't even bother to read the article I linked, if you were to calculate the income vs expenses during that period using an accrued accounting model (like most corps do) you would STILL come up with a surplus.

Then why didn't you make such a statement as soon as I made it clear I was using non-inflation numbers?

Get over it. My argument has not change. I agree with your changed argument. It's still not right to have deficit spending in current non inflated dollars during a good economy without war. The real debt should be paid down.

[ElNono]

ElNono, borrowing and deficit spending is fine when used properly. The problem is, we always have deficit spending. When there is no control to pay it back in peacetime and a growing economy, there is only certain doom.


We had a balanced budget merely 8 years ago. Even a projected surplus.

I don't think there's any ambiguity there.

[Wild Cobra]

I don't think there's any ambiguity there.
There was no real projected surplus. It was a number game.

I agree that as a percentage, it did go down. Do you agree that in actual non-adjusted dollars, it never went down for more than 20 years?

That's all I want to know.

[Winehole23]

Currency inflates over time. Will you agree that non-adjusted dollars are not *actual*, but in fact counterfactual dollars?

[Wild Cobra]

Currency inflates over time. Will you agree that non-adjusted dollars are not *actual*, but in fact counterfactual dollars?
LOL...

That's how I feel about our money all the time.

I'm not disagreeing with ElNono's revised point. I agree with it entirely. I'm just pissed that he doesn't have the integrity to admit we were talking about two different things at first.

[Winehole23]

I'm not disagreeing with ElNono's revised point. I agree with it entirely. I'm just pissed that he doesn't have the integrity to admit we were talking about two different things at first.You guys were on the same topic.

His numbers reflect something closer to reality. Yours were chosen tendentiously, to back up your bullshit.

[Wild Cobra]

You guys were on the same topic.

His numbers reflect something closer to reality. Yours were chosen tendentiously, to back up your bullshit.
No, there was no actual surplus. There was a budgeted surplus, not counting the fact it was borrowing from SS, etc. A real budget surplus never happened, and if a surplus was budgeted, that never happened either. My argument was the simple fact that no surplus happened, because we had deficit spending, and increased debt. Is that so hard to comprehend?

I agree those numbers are more realistic. However, that was not the argument! Did I ever say otherwise? Would you please stop assuming you know what I think?

[ElNono]

LOL...

That's how I feel about our money all the time.

I'm not disagreeing with ElNono's revised point. I agree with it entirely. I'm just pissed that he doesn't have the integrity to admit we were talking about two different things at first.

But we weren't. I posted the quotes of what we were talking about, and then you went off the tangent and started posting phony numbers to back up your crap. Then I called out your phony numbers.
Don't be mad. You just are being unrealistic, that's all.

[Wild Cobra]

But we weren't. I posted the quotes of what we were talking about, and then you went off the tangent and started posting phony numbers to back up your crap. Then I called out your phony numbers.
Don't be mad. You just are being unrealistic, that's all.
Excuse me...

Here's what happened.

You said:

"We had a balanced budget merely 8 years ago. Even a projected surplus."

I said:

"Then why was there a deficit?"

You said:

What deficit? LINK (http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal. html)

I did the research. Those numbers were not inflation adjusted. Here is the link for an excel file:

CBO Historical Budget Data (http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10014/HistoricalMar09.xls); part of file:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Politics/Historical09CBOExcel.jpg

Compare the numbers in the red ovals with those of your link, and graph:

http://cdn.factcheck.org/imagefiles/Ask%20FactCheck%20Images/FederalDeficit/FederalDeficit(1).jpg

Open the excel file and carefully link at the different tabs.

It is speaking of dollars not adjusted for inflation. I simply used a chart from the GPO, the real numbers, instead of from the CBO (fake congressional number) like you did.

I showed there was no surplus in dollars.

You maintained otherwise.

You changed your story to inflation adjusted after providing a link with data from non-inflation adjusted numbers.

What the hell am I suppose to believe?

All I see from you is lack of integrity. You will not admit those facts.

[ElNono]

Those numbers clearly show a positive value during the Clinton years, thus a surplus. That's the polar opposite from running a deficit.
If your gripe is that such surplus was not used to pay off public debt, then I can't help you.
However, my point stands. We had a balanced budget and a projected surplus.

[Wild Cobra]

Those numbers clearly show a positive value during the Clinton years, thus a surplus. That's the polar opposite from running a deficit.
If your gripe is that such surplus was not used to pay off public debt, then I can't help you.
However, my point stands. We had a balanced budget and a projected surplus.
Projected surplus numbers are meaningless. Again, I can lay out a plan to save $2,000 a month. That doesn't mean I will follow that plan. In fact, I wouldn't.

You missed a point I just made. Your numbers are CBO numbers. You also missed a point I made early on. That I can budget one amount and spend another. I was specific from the start asking why there was a deficit. You said there wasn't. I show you real, hard data, and you give me meaningless CBO data.

Your link is not accurate numbers to begin with. CBO numbers rarely are. They come out of congress, and have political motivation behind them!

The GPO has the real numbers. The CBO numbers can be used for propaganda.

Want more good data? Use GAO numbers. Read this:

FINANCIAL AUDIT
Bureau of the Public Debt’s Fiscal Years
2008 and 2007 Schedules of Federal Debt (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0944.pdf)

They have a historical debt chart:

http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x262/Wild_Cobra/Politics/1983to2008debt.jpg

Remember what started this.

I asked why was there a deficit under president Clinton. (every year) 2000 was close to a surplus. Only a $23,177 million (.041%) increase in gross debt.

Surpluses and deficits are in dollars. Not inflation adjusted dollars.