2009 Annual Budget Deficit Near $2 Trillion

[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 nuts .

[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?

Bull . 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 lib 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 ing 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:



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:



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]

Bull . 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 lib liar.

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

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 ing 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 re ed.

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:



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:



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.

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 re ed.

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:



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 bull .

[Wild Cobra]

You guys were on the same topic.

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

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

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

CBO Historical Budget Data; part of file:



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



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 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

They have a historical debt chart:



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.