question about the national debt

but there was no surplus if you took out the social security revenues. (actually, i think there was one BARELY in 2000).

it's the typical GOP double speak:

lefty: under clinton, we had surpluses.
righty: not if you pull out the social security revenue from the general revenue.

lefty: we can't afford a tax cut.
righty: but the government is over-taxing us -- look at this huge surplus!

 

I am pretty sure that there was. I'll check when we get NOTD back.

LARRRRRRRRRRRRRRYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

There was a surplus only if you don't include the SS surplus quota of new debt they took on to finance the budget and shofted to long term debt. They in effect refinance their mortage every year, so their cash flow looks great, but they aren't making any house payments, so their debt never drops. Since they have the ability to float that debt indefinitely, as well as avoid reporting that it actually exists, they can say they ran a surplus, when the last true surplus I believe we had was in the 70's (I think. I'll have to check)

 

It was everything. The whole ball of wax. Expenses were less than receipts. We took in more than we paid out. We turned a profit. We were in the black. Credits were more than debits.

 

Then why did accumulated debt - Total rise year to year for that period?

 

When I get the thread I can answer that question. I am thinking that it was 1998 though. And you could run a surplus for the year and have the debt go up - because of rising interest rates.

I think......

 

Check to be sure. From how I read the formulas at GAO, when they report "debt" and "surplus" numbers, they refer to fiscal year numbers. Since they consider "intra" to in effect be long term debt, it was my understanding that they do not include it in the fiscal year numbers they report, so unless you look at total debt numbers, you don't get the whole picture. If they are good at nothing else, they have shell game down pat.

 

Intra-gov't debt actually isn't even debt at all. I'm not sure about the intra-gov't debt being long term or not. But I know that economists widely consider "net debt" to be the correct measure of the country's debt burden, which doesn't include the intra number. Economists don't conveniently ignore the long term debt.

 

Another thing to keep in mind is that with such a large portion of it being private debt, that someone has that debt. Currently the largest purchaser of U.S. debt is... Communist China. So put that in your pipe and smoke it. So, what happens if we default, do have to hand shit over to them?

I would also think that as your debt increases, or at least your debt to GDP ratio increases, your curreny would falter. With the current state of our currency, coupled with the current rock-bottom interest rates (stifling foreign investment in the U.S.) this could be a big problem if there is ever a run on the dollar.