Comments on: Federal Surpluses and Deficits 1968 – 2007

By: Deficit Realities « Steve Guggenheimer

Deficit Realities « Steve Guggenheimer — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 06:00:42 +0000

[...] the national debt, but let’s be realistic here. The fact is that we have run a deficit for almost every year since 1968. Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman has explained why it’s not a good idea [...]

By: Americanliberal

Americanliberal — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 02:08:03 +0000

hey nanagram6 isn’t it funny that as the Democrats started to take control of the House and Senate that the deficits started to shrink. Righstuff which air craft carrier would you have used to defend the towers.

By: nanagram6

nanagram6 — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 12:35:41 +0000

Not that I like “W” but he hasn’t had a Republican congress for a while now, so lets put blame on not passing good legislation where it belongs on Democrats. We need another “Mr Smith Goes to Washington” type of president. But alas there are none I see out there who will be allowed to make it there.

By: RightStuff

RightStuff — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 19:58:40 +0000

Right! Bill Clinton cut back on military expenditures, and that is why there is a surplus. Because of this relaxation of our defenses, the terrorists hit us in September 2001. Way to go, Bill Clinton, you idiot.

By: PhxTitan

PhxTitan — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 22:26:30 +0000

If you look at the green area of the above chart, you would think, wow, some positive developments that had impact. It’s very misleading in its scale and contribution however. Today’s National Debt is $9.7 Trillion total. The “Debt held by the Public” portion of that over-all National Debt is $5.5 Trillion. Clinton’s last year in office produced a $1 Billion surplus in “Federal Funds” (the general fund), excluding dedicated Trust Fund surpluses. Take away Washington’s looting and embezzling of the Trust Funds and you would need a microscope to see that little amount of green in a sea of red ink for that single surplus year in 2000. Thus its misleading scale of green and number of so called “surplus years”. Clinton did however leave behind trillions in “projected budget surpluses as far as the eyes could see”, thru his tax hike in his first year of office and countless vetoes of tax cut legislation bills offered up by Gingrich’s republican congress. Those projected surpluses from here to eternity would have produced trillions in eventual surpluses, that could have been used to off-set the trillions in deficits accumulated over the years and aggregated into the national debt. But GW Bush’s tax cut within months of taking office scuttled those projected surpluses and plunged us deep into deficit territory and red ink oceans once again, to aggregate for future burdens once again.

There should be TWO side by side charts of surpluses & deficits in the two budget fund types: “Federal Funds” (General Funds) and those of the 150 lumped together “Trust Funds”. Or maybe a two-layer chart with the two fund types. Washington does their best to confuse, using “on-budget” and “off-budget” accounting terms as well, not necessarily one in the same.

By: TMLutas

TMLutas — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 16:57:50 +0000

The fix for cash, accrual, or any other proposed accounting is to run the numbers and provide charts on them all. None of them are going to look particularly good and all show a shameful legacy for the next generation.

By: oshow

oshow — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 12:39:25 +0000

US citizens aren’t taxed very high, we have one of the lowest tax rates in the world. Our tax rate is almost half that of France, Germany, or Belgium. One of our biggest problems is the devaluation of our dollar. This is mainly because of an oversupply of the American dollar.

By: SeaTurtle

SeaTurtle — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 21:11:17 +0000

The debt is the product of a simple reality. The US Government taxes its own citizens very highly. The US Government allows foreign competition to American Citizens into their market without requiring them to pay any taxes. This is by definition a Trade War against the Citizens of the USA by their own government.

Many of the problems we face demand INCOME. Without forcing the end of this trade war by the USA against itself we have no hope of income to resolve our problems. Because income is required, the USA can tolerate no policy which does not maximize the wages and working security of the ordinary citizens of the country. Continuing the trade war is literally a national suicide pact. The only question is: Are you Suicidal? If you are do nothing.

There is a one to one relationship between the trade deals NAFTA GATT etc and the collapse of the US citizens ability to earn a living. Basically we must establish a tax system whereby “He who plays here pays here.” This demands the FAIR TAX. Without the FAIR TAX there is no hope of fixing this situation by any means what so ever. Fiscal restraint is nearly impossible and does not stop the root cause of the problem. It may be necessary and we should demand it highly. The cause is the suicidal effort to raise taxes from a people who are having their market flooded with tax free goods.

By: robspooner

robspooner — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:54:55 +0000

There’s a misunderstanding here about accrual basis. The example is wrong, as credits don’t balance with debits under any strategy. If you borrow $25K, you show both asset and liability at once. Borrowing from the bank is not a cash vs accrual question.

For the feds, it works both ways. They build a dam and they don’t count it as an asset. The money is all expensed immediately, which a corporation would not do. But that is dwarfed by the Social Security liability they don’t calculate. We are supposed to be setting aside money now out of the SS surplus to pay benefits in future years. Instead, that money is considered a “gift” to the federal general fund, which is how we manage to be as close to balanced as we seem.

By: agraddy

agraddy — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:56:13 +0000

This chart is misleading, as shown by what rsherow said. The government basically gets to use its own accounting rules to report its financial condition. These numbers are the “cash” based accounting numbers, which look merely at cash that came in versus what went out. Which is fine for personal checking, or a very small business. Federal law requires businesses with revenues over $1M/yr to use “accural” based accounting, which measures income and expenses when they accrue. For example, if I borrow $25k, cash accounting says I have $25k on my books, and doesn’t take into account the fact that I owe that to someone. Accrual accounting says I have $25k + -$25k in debt = $0. During the final four years of Clinton’s budget, they reported at $559B surplus. When the government audited the numbers (with accrual accounting), they actual had a $484B deficit.

While I’d much prefer Clinton’s administration to the Bush administration (I wouldn’t choose either, but Clinton > Bush), using his fake surplus as a reason is just incorrect.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/2006-08-02-deficit-usat_x.htm