America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 13 years ago by MikeyRavioli. 106 replies replies.
3 Pages<123
New Rules
FuzzNJ Offline
#101 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
MikeyRavioli wrote:
Maybe I am wrong, but I think Fuzz is a victim of fuzzy math.

Go to the U.S. Treasury website: http://www.ustreas.gov/

Click on "Bureaus": Takes you to http://www.ustreas.gov/bureaus/

Click on "Bureau of the Public Debt": Takes you to http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/

Scroll down to the section "The U.S. Public Debt" and click on "See the U.S. Public Debt to the Penny."

This takes you to the link http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np


Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:


Fiscal
Year Year
Ending National Debt
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion



As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit.


End of the fiscal year numbers are good and fine. Interest is a bitch, especially on numbers that high. Here are a couple more dates and numbers.

03/30/2000 5,788,541,874,357.52
09/29/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86

A difference of 114 billion or so.

Clinton did pay down the debt, 3 years in a row. He was able to take in more revenue (taxes) then he spent and the economy was doing fine. That enabled his administration to at least start to pay down the debt.

Here's an interesting graph:

http://cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/Revenue_v_Spending.png

10-1-93 4,406,339,573,433.47
10-31-01 5,815,983,290,402.24

Increase of 32%

10-31-01 5,815,983,290,402.24
9-30-09 11,909,829,003,511.75

Increase of 105%

So far under Obama it's increased 20%

DrMaddVibe Offline
#102 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,550
DrafterX wrote:
wasn't it a projected surplus over the next 50 years or somethin......??? Huh



Frying pan


Yeah, and Global Warming is gonna kill us all!!!!Brick wall
FuzzNJ Offline
#103 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
DrafterX wrote:
wasn't it a projected surplus over the next 50 years or somethin......??? Huh


10, lots of caveats, like not spending it or giving tax breaks instead of paying off the debt.

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/29/us/10-year-estimate-of-budget-surplus-surges-once-more.html

ZRX1200 Offline
#104 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,656
Numbers are never manipulated by mother gubmint.....like unemployment numbers and such.

Google is tired.

FuzzNJ Offline
#105 Posted:
Joined: 06-28-2006
Posts: 13,000
ZRX1200 wrote:
Numbers are never manipulated by mother gubmint.....like unemployment numbers and such.

Google is tired.



I'm not concerned about your opinion to be honest, you wouldn't believe anything unless it conformed to your world view even if Jesus himself came by your place and whispered it in your ear.
MikeyRavioli Offline
#106 Posted:
Joined: 10-10-2005
Posts: 2,105
Like the old saying goes beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
And Government spending interpretation is in the eye of the viewer.
Public Debt vs Govmt Debt, interest, borrowing from SocSec, plus a hundred other factors that are inserted or deleted manipulate the numbers as the person doing the calculation sees fit.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
3 Pages<123