Lets get a few facts streight. The total debt is made up of that held by the public (US and Foreign) and that which is held by the US Governmnet mostly in the Social Security and Medicate Trust Funds. There is a difference between the cumulative net deficit and the gross deficit that includes interest payable. The gross deficit including the amount held by Social Security/Medicare is the total amount we owe.

In 1998, 99 and 2000 we ran an annual surplus. In 98 it was $69Billion. 99 it was $125 Billion and in 2000 it was $236 Billion. You can see this on the OMB web site as follows: www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2000/guide04.html.

The gross deficit in 1980 was $ 909 Billion. When Reagan left it was $ 4 Trillion. When GW took office it was $5.8 Trillion and now it is $7.5 Trillion. OMB budget projection has the gross deficit by the end of FY 2008 of just under $10 Trillion!

The reason we had a annual budget surplue in 98,99 & 2000 was mostly for two reasons. First was the Bush 41 tax increase (read my lips one). The second reason we reduced military and intel spending which began under Bush 41 and was cut even more under Clinton. Without thoes two things- a tax increase and reduction in military/intel spending- we would not have had any surplus.

Although we have had deficits before Reagan the sice and cumulative amount was modest. It was the Supply side VooDoo economics that produced a structural deficit by drastic cuts in taxes and massive increases in spanding. This policy shift started with Reagan and again with Bush 43. It is a continuation of that polict that will create an annual requirement to pay interest on the gross debt that could reach 1/2 Trillion by about 2009-2010 under the current fiscal policy. That will come as we will begin facing the impact of the Bobby Boomers. retirement

Reply #16 By: COL Gene - 10/1/2004 7:05:53 PM Lets get a few facts streight. The total debt is made up of that held by the public (US and Foreign) and that which is held by the US Governmnet mostly in the Social Security and Medicate Trust Funds. There is a difference between the cumulative net deficit and the gross deficit that includes interest payable. The gross deficit including the amount held by Social Security/Medicare is the total amount we owe. In 1998, 99 and 2000 we ran an annual surplus. In 98 it was $69Billion. 99 it was $125 Billion and in 2000 it was $236 Billion. You can see this on the OMB web site as follows: www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2000/guide04.html. The gross deficit in 1980 was $ 909 Billion. When Reagan left it was $ 4 Trillion. When GW took office it was $5.8 Trillion and now it is $7.5 Trillion. OMB budget projection has the gross deficit by the end of FY 2008 of just under $10 Trillion! The reason we had a annual budget surplue in 98,99 & 2000 was mostly for two reasons. First was the Bush 41 tax increase (read my lips one). The second reason we reduced military and intel spending which began under Bush 41 and was cut even more under Clinton. Without thoes two things- a tax increase and reduction in military/intel spending- we would not have had any surplus. Although we have had deficits before Reagan the sice and cumulative amount was modest. It was the Supply side VooDoo economics that produced a structural deficit by drastic cuts in taxes and massive increases in spanding. This policy shift started with Reagan and again with Bush 43. It is a continuation of that polict that will create an annual requirement to pay interest on the gross debt that could reach 1/2 Trillion by about 2009-2010 under the current fiscal policy. That will come as we will begin facing the impact of the Bobby Boomers. retirement

Sorry "col" but the "US TREASURY DEPARTMENT" says NO surplus in those years. Check the link:
And they are quoting Gross figures the bottom quote is *also* from the treasury dept.
Link

What caused the debt that United States now has? The total public debt is largely a legacy of war, economic recession, and inflation. It represents the accumulated deficits in the Government's budgets over the years. The United States first got into debt in 1790 when it assumed the Revolutionary war debts of the Continental Congress. At the end of 1790, the gross public debt was approximately $75 million. For a brief period in the mid-1830's the public debt was virtually zero. At the start of World War I in 1916, the public debt was $1 billion. It then rose to a peak of $26 billion in 1919 to finance the war. The debt declined for the next decade. During the Great Depression of the 1930's, however, the debt increased from $16 billion to $42 billion. During the Second World War the public debt rose sharply to a peak of $279 billion in 1946. From its postwar low in 1949, the outstanding public debt grew gradually for nearly the next two decades. Then, beginning at the time of the Vietnam War in the mid-1960's, the rate of the debt's increase accelerated sharply.

Sorry, The Office Of the President,and OMB clearly document an annual surplus in 98,99,2000. You are not looking at the annual budget but the cumulative debt including interest. One ic cumulative the other is the net of a single years transactions Rev less Exp. in one year only!

Face it , we did have annual surpluses for the last three year of clinton and ran annual deficits every other year from 1980 except for those three years

Reply #18 By: COL Gene - 10/1/2004 8:10:22 PM Sorry, The Office Of the President,and OMB clearly document an annual surplus in 98,99,2000. You are not looking at the annual budget but the cumulative debt including interest. One ic cumulative the other is the net of a single years transactions Rev less Exp. in one year only!

Nope you face it. Your own words betray you! You have already admitted that I was looking at a cumulative debit. How then can we have a surplus when the debt is on the negative side?
In simple terms and by ALL mathematical rules you can't have a surplus when you have a debt! And since the "Treasury Dept" is the one handling the money I'd be more inclined to believe them!

More of that 1990s fuzzy math.

Reply to Terpfan 1980

You are correct most of the tax cuts that will benefit the rich have not fully phased in to date. However the Congressional Budget Office estimated about 270 Billion of the 450 Billion annual deficit on FY 04 comes from the tax cuts that have taken place. Thus, as more and more of the tax cuts to the upper incomne group take effect the problem with the annual deficit gets worse.

Bush wants to make all his tax cuts remain and the total impact in the second ten years (when all fully in place) would cut 3 times as much revenue from the Fed than the first ten years. To allow the tax cuts to be made permanent, will make our fiscal situation impossible!

Drmiler just doews not get it about the annual surples that we had in 98,99 $ 2000. However the issue is not what took place in any one year but the fact we dig the hole deeper and deeper with each year we spend more than we tax. As interest rates return to historic norms, the total interest we be required to pay will skyrocket because of the larger amount to finance and the higher interest rates. The 1/2 Trillion per year by 2010 is very likely.

Drmiler just doews not get it about the annual surples that we had in 98,99 $ 2000.

Well let's see:
1. No War on Terrorism.
2. WTC still standing.
3. Taxes were higher.
4. Still feeling the effects of the dot com bubble but by 2000 it started going down hill, because guess what bubbles pop.
5. Read the Four again.
6. No War Period.
7. No Four Hurricanes hitting Florida.
8. California had not gone bankrupt quite yet.
9. No money being spent on outfitting and changing US Soldiers and Military Formations from Cold War Gear and Formations to the new gear and modular formations.
10. President has little control over the economy, but what control he does have takes so long to effect the economy that by the time it does it causes more harm than good.
11. Greenspan has always had more control over the economy than a President.
12. Read them all again, if they still haven't sunk in than hmmm I guess it never will.

How can you question this, well you will try but I think you will try to evade it or equate it with something else.

- GX

To Drmiler: The surplus the Col refers to is a BUDGET surplus. That means a year in which
revenue exceeds spending. The COL is correct in his statement that the US had BUDGET
surpluses in 98, 99 & 2000. What you are referring to is the National Debt. Let's make an
analogy to better understand the difference:

Sam buys a house and takes a mortgage for $500,000 (the National Debt)
In the first year Sam earns $100,000 but he spends $110,000 (a BUDGET deficit of $10,000)
in that $110,000 of spending Sam only pays the interest on his motgage. He now owes
$510,000 (The original motgage plus the loan he had to take to cover his excessive spending
or Cumulative Net Deficit).
In the second year Sam earns $125,000 but only spends $100,000 ( a BUDGET SURPLUS of
$25,000.00) Unfortunately, Sam still only paid the interest on his debt so, he is still in debt
for $510,000. But, as we all know, if you have $510,000 in debt, that refers to the amount
you owe if you pay it off TODAY, but if you include the interest you will pay you actually owe
$985,604.50 (30 yrs at 5% also known as Gross Deficit) and that is only IF you pay interest
AND PRINCIPAL. If you continue to pay only interest and if you run BUDGET deficits
requiring additional loans....well, at this point, you should have the picture. But, just in case
you still doubt the existence of the surplus, refer to your hero George W when he used
the FACT of the surplus to justify tax cuts saying, "It's your money, you paid for it"

To American_girl65

The surplus the Col refers to is a BUDGET surplus. That means a year in which revenue exceeds spending. The COL is correct in his statement that the US had BUDGET surpluses in 98, 99 & 2000. What you are referring to is the National Debt. Let's make an analogy to better understand the difference:

Well let's see: 1. No War on Terrorism. 2. WTC still standing. 3. Taxes were higher. 4. Still feeling the effects of the dot com bubble but by 2000 it started going down hill, because guess what bubbles pop. 5. Read the Four again. 6. No War Period. 7. No Four Hurricanes hitting Florida. 8. California had not gone bankrupt quite yet. 9. No money being spent on outfitting and changing US Soldiers and Military Formations from Cold War Gear and Formations to the new gear and modular formations. 10. President has little control over the economy, but what control he does have takes so long to effect the economy that by the time it does it causes more harm than good. 11. Greenspan has always had more control over the economy than a President. 12. Read them all again, if they still haven't sunk in than hmmm I guess it never will. How can you question this, well you will try but I think you will try to evade it or equate it with something else.

- GX

To GX
"Drmiler just doews not get it about the annual surples that we had in 98,99 $ 2000."

That satement was not in reference to how the surplus got there, it is in reference to Drmiler
denying the surpluses ever happened. If you read back through a few postings you will see
that Col agrees with you on some of your points, referring to both higher taxes (the read my
lips tax) and reduced military spending by BOTH Bush I AND Clinton. Not only are your points
not "evaded", some of them were made before you brought them up.

Oh okay, as long as they were understood. No harm, no foul.

- GX

Reply #25 By: American_girl65 (Anonymous) - 10/2/2004 12:20:57 AM To GX "Drmiler just doews not get it about the annual surples that we had in 98,99 $ 2000." That satement was not in reference to how the surplus got there, it is in reference to Drmiler denying the surpluses ever happened. If you read back through a few postings you will see that Col agrees with you on some of your points, referring to both higher taxes (the read my lips tax) and reduced military spending by BOTH Bush I AND Clinton. Not only are your points not "evaded", some of them were made before you brought them up.

I'm going to have to take your word for it. Try as I might I can't find any charts or graphs to back up what your saying. Been to OMB,Treasury and White house sites

To GX

By the way, the original blogger, COL Gene, is the author of a book titled, "Four More For
George W?" The following is a quote from his book, Chapter 1, Paragraph 2:

'The Office of President has very little impact on the day-to-day monetary policy since our
system has established the Federal Reserve as an independent agency..... The Federal
Reserve has done an effective job to help keep interest rates low during the past three years.
This has prevented the economic downturn that began at the end of the Clinton Administration
from becoming a serious recession...'

I believe this quote addresses your points 10 & 11. It also addresses point 4, and therefore
point 5, which is to repeat point 4 and therefore point 12 which is to repeat all points.
Perhaps you should buy a copy of his book, it is available at most online booksellers.

True it did prevent the economic downturn that was happening from going into a recession, but guess what happened in 2001, hmmmm. I wonder what blew those preventive measures out of the water, hmmm, what could it be, hmmm, only 3,000 Americans died during that, hmmm, I just can't figure out what it was.

Look I blame all recent Presidents and Presidential Candidates for taking or giving credit for and taking or giving blame for the economy when they don't control it and both sides should drop that and get to some real pertinent non-'red herring' issues but I guess they will not because they just are not that wise.

Oh well, seems like some of third parties got the right idea.

As for the book, I DON'T BUY POLITICAL BOOKS FROM ANY SIDE OR ANYBODY, I said it before to the Col, it is not that I hate the book but I don't like wasting money I on political books when political information is online, I would rather spend money on science-fiction, some military books, etc. but not political ones, just don't like them.

- GX

Some help for drmiler and the Budget Surplus

I believe the problem may be that drmiler expected the national debt to drop when the surplus existed. He did not see that on the treasury link. The reason for this is that our government did not apply or use the surplus in 98,99 and 2000 to reduce the National Debt but spent it on other things. However, the surplus did exist and my statement that" Bush turned a surplus ( 3 years running) into the largest deficit in our history", IS TRUE.

To find the budget surplus and the OMB web site with that data, go to Google and type in "Budget Surplus 2000" You will get a lot of sources . The OMB info is one of the first references.. I hope this will help.