Those 3 have been devastating in their impact. All were passed under Bill Clinton. Also, the budget was never balanced under Clinton, there was no 'surplus' as intra-governmental borrowing greatly increased. This was simply and accounting gimmick. Doubt me, check the total US debt each year. It went UP each year. It takes BOTH parties (in a 2 party system) to destroy a nation. Both attack from different perspectives, from different schema, but the end result is continuity of agenda.
The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy.
- Carrol Quigley, Tragedy and Hope (1966)
Fiscal Year End
Total Debt
09/30/2001
$5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000
$5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999
$5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998
$5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997
$5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996
$5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995
$4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994
$4,692,749,910,013.32
http://quaap.com/D/clinton-surplus-factcheckThere are two kinds of Federal debt: public debt, and intra-governmental debt. Public debt is money owed to the public, ie people who bought US Treasury bonds: regular people, companies, foreign governments, etc. Intra-governmental debt is money owed to the government. This seems to make no sense, but it actually does.
The US government takes in money through normal means like income taxes, and this money goes into the general fund, but they also take in money through secondary means, such as Social Security taxes. These other taxes do not go into the general fund, but instead go into trust funds and are entirely separate. For social security, if more money comes in through the Social Security tax than goes out through Social Security payments, they are required by law to purchase US Treasury bonds with the excess money. So now the Treasury Department owes money to the Social Security Trust Fund (This in itself is not necessarily a bad thing: there is no sense in letting money sit around losing value to inflation). This debt is called intra-governmental debt.
When Factcheck states that there was a surplus, they are looking at only the public debt and are not including the intra-governmental debt. Looked at this way, yes, there was a surplus. So much money was coming in through Social Security taxes (and used to buy Treasury bonds) that the general fund exceeded the budget by several hundred billion.
Is this a valid way to view the matter? After all, the money the government owes itself shouldn't count, right? Well, yes, it should. The social security money was already earmarked for future social security payments, and the Social Security Trust Fund will want to get its money back when it comes time to make more payments. So yes, this is real debt and I can't think of any reason to exclude it.
snip
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was and is an accounting parlour trick, played by BOTH the Republicans and the Democrats.
as of 07/14/2011
9,750,503,934,099.81 public debt
4,592,449,951,542.17 intra-governmental holdings
14,342,953,885,641.98 total national debt
go here to the US treasury Dept and plug in any dates to see what I mean and where I got that number from
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np--------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year .. End Date .. Claimed Surplus .. Public Debt .. Intra-gov Holdings .. Total National Debt
FY1997 .. 09/30/1997 .. n/a .. $3.789667T .. $1.623478T .. $5.413146T
FY1998 .. 09/30/1998 .. $69.2B .. $3.733864T .. $1.792328T .. $5.526193T (increase of $113B)
FY1999 .. 09/30/1999 .. $122.7B .. $3.636104T .. $2.020166T .. $5.656270T (increase of $130.1B)
FY2000 .. 09/29/2000 .. $230.0B .. $3.405303T .. $2.268874T .. $5.674178T (increase of $17.9B)
FY2001 .. 09/28/2001 .. $3.339310T .. $2.468153T .. $2.468153T .. $5.807463T (increase of $133.3B)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124277530070436823.html In the late 1990s, the government was running what it -- and a largely unquestioning Washington press corps -- called budget "surpluses." But the national debt still increased in every single one of those years because the government was borrowing money to create the "surpluses."
http://books.google.se/books?id=GAV2ZUZ6qPIC&pg=PA27378&lpg=PA27378&dq=Republicans+are+all+running+this+year+and+next+and+saying+surplus,+surplus.+Look+what+we+have+done.+It+is+false.+The+actual+figures+show+that+from+the+beginning+of+the+fiscal+year+until+now+we+had+to+borrow+$127,800,000,000&source=bl&ots=0Ph4YQaTRF&sig=5leuoRCOaEcY3Y0a26CZvX1LiBo&hl=en&ei=63MhTqHhGI7IswbEnISfAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Republicans%20are%20all%20running%20this%20year%20and%20next%20and%20saying%20surplus%2C%20surplus.%20Look%20what%20we%20have%20done.%20It%20is%20false.%20The%20actual%20figures%20show%20that%20from%20the%20beginning%20of%20the%20fiscal%20year%20until%20now%20we%20had%20to%20borrow%20%24127%2C800%2C000%2C000&f=false
Congressional Record V. 145, Pt. 19, October 26, 1999 to November 3, 1999
So the table itself, according to the figures issued yesterday, showed the Federal Government ran a surplus. Absolutely false. This reporter ought to do his work. This crowd never has asked for or kept up with or checked the facts. Eric Planin--all he has to do is not spread rumors or get into the political message. Both Democrats and Republicans are all running this year and next and saying surplus, surplus. Look what we have done. It is false. The actual figures show that from the beginning of the fiscal year until now we had to borrow $127,800,000,000.
Democratic Senator Ernest Hollings, October 28, 1999
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa101500b.htm An overall "downsizing" of government and a virtual end to the arms race have contributed to the surplus, but the vast majority is coming from excess Social Security taxes being paid by the workforce in an attempt to keep Social Security benefit checks coming once the "baby-boomers" start to retire.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa080899.htm Of the $142 billion surplus projected by the end of 2000, $137 billion will come from excess Social Security taxes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1654When these unified budget numbers are separated into Social Security and non-Social Security components, however, it becomes evident that all of the projected surplus throughout this period is attributable to Social Security. The remainder of the budget will remain in deficit throughout the next decade.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/20/news/economy/social_security_election/index.htm?cnn=yes Despite a revenue shortfall, full benefits are expected to be paid out between 2017 and 2041. The system will draw on its trust fund, a collection of special-issue bonds from the government, which borrowed prodigiously from the program's surplus over the years. But since the country is already running a deficit, the government will have to borrow more money to pay back its debt to Social Security. That's a little like giving with one hand and taking away with the other.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intra-governmental debt is every bit as real as the public debt. It's not canceled out simply because the government owes the money to itself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/30/AR2009033003291.html The Treasury Department has for decades borrowed money from the Social Security trust fund to finance government operations. If it is no longer able to do so, it could be forced to borrow an additional $700 billion over the next decade from China, Japan and other investors. And at some point, perhaps as early as 2017, according to the CBO, the Treasury would have to start repaying the billions it has borrowed from the trust fund over the past 25 years, driving the nation further into debt or forcing Congress to raise taxes.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/31/politics/washingtonpost/main4906936.shtml 
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
