Slashdot Mirror

Yes. There's something seriously wrong with that graphic. It doesn't add up. Consider for example the Obama White House claim of debt under Bush: 12.7 T. But they arrive at that number by comparing an estimate, in this case a projected savings, against an actual deficit. There's nothing objective about that comparison because you're not comparing two values computed in the same manner.

I looked the Treasury Dept's own figures.
Jan, 2001 (Month/Year Bush took office): $5.7T
Jan, 2008 (Month/Year of transition): $9.2T
Today: $15.1T

According to the Treasury Dept then, the debt increased during Bush's 8 years by $3.5T. In the almost 4 years since Obama took office, the debt has increased an additional $5.9T. The White House only takes responsibility for $1.4T in their graphic. Either the Treasury of the White House need to explain the significant discrepancy in those numbers.

In the words of Mark Twain: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."

Apparently US citizens are a bit more generous: click

Besides, I doubt the FOIA applies to the British government.

While I'm sure it's probably somewhat accurate, why not get the debt directly from the government agency who monitors the debt?

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

Also, it's $15,110,498,560,876.77 as of 11/30

Poor Mr. Buffet, too bad he doesn't have the option of paying extra taxes...
.
.
.
Oh, wait... http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm
.
.
.
Someone should tell him about this, he'll be so relieved...

That makes sense, but the US government seems to have an infinite credit limit.

Wow. Actually, no. It doesn't. It just feels like it right now because Europe is even more messed up financially than the U.S., but if the U.S. doesn't change things, it will become the next Greece with Treasury Bonds being near junk status and having to pay huge interest rates to attract investors. Also note that the Federal Reserve is actively buying Treasury Bonds to keep long term interest rates low (helping to feed your illusion of infinite credit). The net effect will be higher inflation (forcing interest rates up).

Even with rock bottom interest rates, interest on the U.S. national debt for FY2011 was $454,393,280,417.03. Tax revenues (estimated) for FY2011 were at $2,173,700,000,000 -- so with extremely low interest rates, 20% of the tax revenue has to go to just service the debt.

It also did not include actualizing the social security debt or some of the other debts / trickery that was used to create the supposed surplus. It's explained here:

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

You can verify it here (U.S. Treasury site):
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway

Enter 09/30/1997 through 10/01/2001 for range and look at 9/30 for each year.

After all, the US federal reserve is causing money destruction that is causing the federal reserve notes to lose over 10% of value per year.

So you mean to tell me that my junk 88 Ford Bronco II with 253,XXX miles on it is appreciating against the dollar instead of decreasing in value. Please wizzard of the finance tell me where I can invest my money so that I will get an inflation beating return since obviously if I owned any TIPS I should be seeing an interest rate above 0.25% for a 3 month bond, or a 1 year treasure bill with a rate above 0.102%

After all, the US federal reserve is causing money destruction that is causing the federal reserve notes to lose over 10% of value per year.

So you mean to tell me that my junk 88 Ford Bronco II with 253,XXX miles on it is appreciating against the dollar instead of decreasing in value. Please wizzard of the finance tell me where I can invest my money so that I will get an inflation beating return since obviously if I owned any TIPS I should be seeing an interest rate above 0.25% for a 3 month bond, or a 1 year treasure bill with a rate above 0.102%

After all, the US federal reserve is causing money destruction that is causing the federal reserve notes to lose over 10% of value per year.

So you mean to tell me that my junk 88 Ford Bronco II with 253,XXX miles on it is appreciating against the dollar instead of decreasing in value. Please wizzard of the finance tell me where I can invest my money so that I will get an inflation beating return since obviously if I owned any TIPS I should be seeing an interest rate above 0.25% for a 3 month bond, or a 1 year treasure bill with a rate above 0.102%

Clinton was running a rather large surplus.

That's a common claim but it's not at all supported by the facts.

Please go to the US Treasury department's official website, look up the "Debt to the Penny" data series and point out during which year in the Clinton administration (or any administration for that matter) the Total Public Debt Outstanding was reduced from the previous year.

Okay, do your part by paying another 12% right here, no one is stopping you
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm

After decreasing during Carter's term, it began to climb after Reagan was elected and continued to climb under GHW Bush. During Clinton's term, the curve was reversed and the debt began decreasing again. Since 2000 it has been back on an upward climb.

You're playing word games "public debt" isn't the same as "national debt". And there's this canard about a Clinton surplus that decreased the national debt. That's a myth. The truth is that even though the increase in the national debt slowed down under Clinton, it rose every year of his presidency.

LK

You need to learn how to read the very charts you're linking to. The Clinton administration absolutely did have a surplus, and you can see it in the taxpolicycenter.org spreadsheet which you linked to, specifically in 1998, 1999, and 2000, including the first year of Bush's term, 2001.

This is also where you learn that surplus refers to a budget surplus, as in the difference between revenue and spending. It does not refer to outstanding debts in any way, which is what your treasurydirect.gov link refers to.

I recommend you take a look at their faq here, specifically the second question, which explains your misunderstanding of debt and deficit: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/resources/faq/faq_publicdebt.htm

Thanks in advance for not spreading misinformation in the future under the pretense of stopping the spread of misinformation with your newfound experience with statistics and FAQs.

Why you should not always trust Wikipedia. Actual debt dropped in 1957 under President Eisenhower, and has increased every year since then. Per the US Treasury.

You are wrong.

Note that just a few years ago Clinton ran several years of surplus budgets and paid down some of the debt, without the trillions in cuts that Obama's austerity bullshit includes.

False. the US debt has increased every year since President Eisenhower in 1957. I don't know where this myth started, but it most assuredly is a myth; Clinton never had a surplus, never paid down the debt. It is a fiction, pure and simple - the numbers from the US Treasury prove it to be such.

Are you sure it wasn't Bush's decision to slash taxes when we were running a surplus for the first time in modern history and on course to pay down the deficit?

Few corrections to your statement:

1. The Bush tax rate cuts were a response to the Clinton recession, and later 9/11. And they dramatically increased actual taxes collected - in absolute and inflation-adjusted dollars. Far from a tax cut, they were, in fact, a tax increase as total taxes collected increased.
2. President Bush never had a surplus. Never. Check the facts - every year since 1957 the Federal debt has increased. Including the Clinton years. I know it's "common knowledge" that Clinton had a surplus - but the fact is, he didn't. This is a case of common knowledge that is actually common myth - it never happened.

As far as Republican Administrations creating the debt, please review the Constitution about who writes the budgets. It's the Congress - not the President - who allocates funds. And I remember Tip O'Neill famously quoting that every single proposed budget from Ronald Reagan was DOA - the Democrat controlled House created the budgets with the large deficits.

As far as Federal revenues as a percent of GDP, historically post WWII tax revenues have been at ~18.5% of GDP. Go ahead and collect another 4% of the GDP today, to bring up tax receipts to that historical level - that's an additional $560 billion in taxes. We'd still have a ~$1.2 TRILLION deficit to deal with. It's the spending that is the vast majority of the problem, NOT revenue.

There is rewriting on both sides and your own post is only part of the truth. Let's look at the actual numbers:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

Debt at start of Regan's presidency:826 bn (based on 9/30/79 prior to Reagan assuming office)
Debt at end of Regan's presidency: 2300 bn

Debt at start of Clinton's presidency: 3600 bn
Debt at end of Clinton's presidency: 5600 bn

Reagan did indeed triple the debt, adding 1.5tn -- yet he did not add as much debt as Clinton did (2tn); and Clinton increased the debt year over year in spite of the the budget surplus.

I'm not saying that it's good or bad - I'm coming to realize that I don't yet understand enough of macroeconomics to have an opinion - but it seems to me that using phrases like "tripling the national debt" is rather misleading in comparison to subsequent Presidencies, even if technically accurate.

The other thing that's interesting to me is the number of people who think that Clinton lowered the debt (I've even seen this implied in mainstream media) when the opposite is true. Presumably there were reasons - again, I am realizing don't understand enough to judge them - but budget surplus != reducing debt.

Per capita money income in past 12 months (2009 dollars) 2005-2009 $27,041;
Median household income, 2009 $50,221;
Population, 2010 308,745,538
07/27/2011 Debt Held by the Public $9,747,742,929,867.95 + Intragovernmental Holdings $4,595,076,219,736.81 = Total Public Debt Outstanding $14,342,819,149,604.76

debt $14,342,819,149,604.76 / Population, 2010 308,745,538 = $46,455.15 per capita debt;
so my statement was overly strong, but not outrageously so.
Of course with,
Number of Returns with Positive AGI 139,960,580, the 50th percentile break point is $33,048 means that at least half of the wage earners owe 1.4 times their annual salary, someone at minimum wage ($7.25 * 2000 = $14,500, 46455.15/ 14,500 = 3.2) owes 3.2 times their annual salary, while still paying 15% Medicare taxes and 15% social security! With the top 1% of taxpayers already paying 38% of all the income taxes where is all of this money supposed to come from? $67,280 is the 25th percentile point, That's middle-class in most places.

Let's start with you. I have just decided you're rich. Please send 100% of your wealth to the Bureau of the Public Debt. Oh? You think I'm rich? I should just stand back and let the gov't take whatever jealous folks like you think I should pay?

Molon Labe to you, that's what I say.

Note that even if we all (US Citizens and others subject to US Income Tax) gave it our all, it would not solve the problem of the government SPENDING MORE THAN IT TAKES IN INCLUDING BORROWING!!!!!

Clinton had 4 years where budget was in surplus and the US was paying down the debt.

This is simply untrue. The debt increased every year.

Saying anything else is Enron accounting and calls deeply into question any source which does so.

Not to mention that the "surplus" was based on paper dot com profits, an economy based on smoke and mirrors. When the dot com became the dot bomb and the economy went boom, so did the "surplus". It returned to the ether from which it came. The whole "surplus for years to come" was based on the worst kinds of wishful thinking.

Clinton had 4 years where budget was in surplus and the US was paying down the debt.

This is simply untrue. The debt increased every year.

Saying anything else is Enron accounting and calls deeply into question any source which does so.

GP has a very good point actually.

Only a very small percentage of your taxes goes to NASA. Suppose I want to fund NASA without funding the 3 wars at the same time, I would have to jump through a lot of hoops. There is currently no legal way of donating to NASA besides signing up for a tour and then giving the security guard a suitcase of cash claiming that you found it unattended.

Nearly $3 million dollars was donated to the US treasury last year, out of which NASA received roughly $15,000. I suspect that if NASA ran a well publicized donation drive for one of its more well-known missions (manned mission to Mars for example), they could easily solicit 10 or times that amount. For one, foreign donations to the US treasury is probably rare, but I imagine many foreign Scifi fans are willing to donate to NASA, myself being one.

Yes, nice numbers, but what do they mean?

You mentioned only one actual effect of those numbers, namely interest payments. Those constitute a risk-free stream of income for holders of treasuries. Is that a bad thing? That's a matter of political opinion. To my mind, this actually is somewhat problematic, because it tends to essentially be welfare for the rich.

The good news is that interest payments are entirely voluntary, and the interest rate is set by political choice via monetary policy. It is absolutely feasible to keep the interest rate as low as desired. Just look at Japan: they have a debt-to-GDP ratio beyond 200%, and yet their interest rate has been at record lows for two decades now. [1]

Also, I hate to burst your bubble, but the debts from the Second World War were never paid off. If you don't believe me, check the numbers from the source itself. The debt-to-GDP ratio did drop, but that happened because the economy was growing. The debt itself was never paid back. [3]

And that last part is really all you need to know to understand how to get out of the current situation: trying to cut the deficit and/or reduce debt is self-defeating. The only reasonable [2] way to improve anything is to get spending going so that the economy can grow.

[1] One caveat is that with the interest rate at or close to zero, a different policy tool may be necessary to dampen excessive private lending. I would suggest a flexible adjustment of capital requirement ratios for that purpose. (And while I would advocate getting rid of those interest payments, I also advocate caution. Such a change needs to be implemented slowly, over the course of many years.)

[2] Of course you could also reduce the debt simply by introducing a tax on the ownership of treasuries. Once you really understand the operations that would be involved in that, you should also understand just how ridiculous all those worries about the debt really are. (And yes, of course such a tax would be utterly stupid.)

[3] You know what's funny about the whole paying-back-the-debt discussion? The owners of US debt as a whole actually don't want to be paid back! After all, they enjoy a risk free income stream thanks to them.

No he didn't. I'll see your factcheck and raise you a treasurydirect:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

Factcheck linked to some congressional budget info showing a 'surplus', but seeing as how the national debt went up each and every year under Clinton, I'm stumped as to how Factcheck thinks that he had a surplus in any given year. In fact, I sent an email to them to point out the treasury data seems to contradict the congressional budget info.

When it comes to accounting, you have to ignore the internal bullshit tricks, and look at the actual outcome. Enron claimed massive profits each and every year with their gimicks, but the end result was bankruptcy. The federal government can claim that there was a surplus, but if they had to borrow that year, then they spent more than they took in.

I'm always amazed that people think Clinton reduced the debt. He was reducing the deficit, not the debt. Debt continued to pile up under Clinton, just not quite as fast.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

The last time the debt went down was around 1951.

Actually, so far in FY 2011, they've gotten $530,856.55.

And the old joke is true: they all gave 55 cents.

Umm, I wouldn't consider $191 Billion paid last year in interest to be close to zero. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm

At it's current rate of spending and debt gathering, the US will pay $1 Trillion in interest every year by 2020. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/opinion/12brooks.html?hp

Considering our budget is about $4 Trillion a year, I'd consider the interest payments to be pretty significant. This year we borrow more than ever before, about $4/$10 we spend.

True, the debt I'm discussing is the foreign held Treasury debt. The rest of the debt, that is owed to private individuals, corporations and (mainly) the US government itself (eg. Social Security Administration and government pension funds), does not give any foreign country any leverage over any US policy. Indeed, the debt held by US government offices does not give any leverage over any US policy, as those offices are entirely controlled by US policy.

The total debt on February 28, 2003 was $6,399.975B (under a statutory limit of $6.4T). On November 30, 2008 it was $11,315B. Which is again a 1.77x increase in total debt, while debt owed to China increased 3.44x. That analysis is exactly the same as what I described in terms of the foreign debt.

the total cost of our "global engagement", includes so many things beyond the line items that show up black and white. the government lies it's ass off, about everything. just investigate their cpi calculations and the games they play. the military industrial complex and everything that's tied to our foreign policy and global footprint are hiding their tracks. from wikipedia which covers just a small part of our non-military budget: "This does not include many military-related items that are outside of the Defense Department budget, such as nuclear weapons research, maintenance, cleanup, and production, which is in the Department of Energy budget, Veterans Affairs, the Treasury Department's payments in pensions to military retirees and widows and their families, interest on debt incurred in past wars, or State Department financing of foreign arms sales and militarily-related development assistance. Neither does it include defense spending that is not military in nature, such as the Department of Homeland Security, counter-terrorism spending by the FBI, and intelligence-gathering spending by NASA." the true estimate is closer to a trillion a year, for our global engagement. I'm not here to argue with you. You're right essentially, and I believe that medicare/medicaid and social security are fucked. But you are totally and completely under stating the problem with our foreign footprint spending. It costs money to run an empire. And the external influence we are applying to various problems and issues, and desires ...it costs us an arm and a leg. As for Bush, you give him a pass, just like you did the military budget ...why? because you are misinformed that's why. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt

Your numbers for Social Security, Medicare and Medicare D are way off. Do you really expect anyone to take your post seriously when you suggest that social security is currently $14.7 trillion in debt, nearly the same as the entire GDP of the US? And moreover, that Medicare is currently $77 trillion in debt, which is $16 trillion more than the world GDP!.

Perhaps your numbers are over long periods of time, and if they are, then say that! Instead you just come off as someone who has absolutely no clue. Yes, SS/Medicare are doomed if we don't fix them, but keep the FUD numbers out of the discussion.

My source is the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank as I pointed out in another post, with updated projections provided by usdebtclock.org. The numbers are the total unfunded liability. That is, not debt that is immediately owed today, but just how far in debt the programs are long term. Social Security owes $14.7 trillion more than it will take in by 2078 and is already running a deficit now despite projections that it wouldn't start until 2017. Likewise, Medicare is projected to go into the red in 2016. We're basically at the point of unsustainability already and things will only get worse.

Just because you don't like the numbers doesn't mean they are FUD. They're a stark reality that most people WANT to ignore because it points out just how much Enron style accounting goes on in Washington, DC - just like there was never an actual budget surplus in the late 90s, aggregate debt increased every year and has every year since 1957. It was all just "advanced" accounting techniques to hide the real deficits, just like the 40+ year long raid of the Social Security Trust Fund.

Every time someone says that my numbers are bogus (and I think you're about #5 in this thread), I can't help but think back to Liar, Liar:
Fletcher: Your Honor, I object!
Judge: Why?
Fletcher: Because it's devastating to my case!

However, I do want to respond to one point of yours, which is the idea that you'll never get your SS/Medicare back. There is one extremely important component of Social Security that even young people sometimes benefit from: Disability benefits. If you suffer an injury that will keep you out of work for 12+ months, you can get compensation. This is, of course, assuming you've been paying into SS for long enough (which varies based on your age and a whole host of seemingly random factors)

There are a non-trivial number of people that collect SSDI (my dad among them after a series of brain injuries initially caused by an aneurysm. We'll also ignore those born disabled that still collect SSDI even though they'll never work in their lifetime. Further, though there are a lot of people that illegitmately collect benefits as well, but we'll ignore them for purposes of this discussion). That said, you can't really even consider them as much more than statistical noise in a discussion of whether or not you're going to collect benefits because if even a large minority of every 30, 40 or 50 something started collecting early, we would have bankrupted ages ago. Yes, there is a 1 in whatever chance that it'll be you that ends up disabled and you'll actually get back what you pay in, but there's also a 1 in whatever chance that you're going to die early and not receive a single dollar in benefits, save the $250 death benefit, and neither will your kids unless they're under 18. On the other hand, if you die at age 58 of a heart attack, your 19, 25 and 30 year old children could have received the money you would have invested had the government not taken it from you. Of course, that gets us back into the debate about whether or not SSI should exist in the first place - it's something you either believe in or don't and there is plenty of m

These are the numbers (from the treasury) for the years attributed to Clinton in the GP post. Each year the debt increased.

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
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38

Sources:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

These are the numbers (from the treasury) for the years attributed to Clinton in the GP post. Each year the debt increased.

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
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38

Sources:
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

Oh, and because I forgot to quote my source, straight from the horse's mouth.

You sure did your research. For the past 30 years every Republican president has increased the debt while every Democrat has decreased it. Damn those tax and spending Democrats and their lowering of the national debt. Here's a clue: stop repeating unfounded talking points.

The power of the purse is the domain of Congress and more specifically the House of Representatives. This turns your Democratic spend thrift thesis on it's head (excluding G.W. Bush).

Finally, the last Congress (or president if you insist) to lower the national debt was Truman coming out of WWII. Your post is provably false on all levels.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

The IRS would refund the difference. (Assuming they caught the mistake)

As well they should. But since 1996, the generous have had another avenue to help the Treasury: a gift donation. I've sent them money, myself, but that was in happier times when I wasn't in danger of being flat broke.

Wha? I'm not talking about the Fed. I'm talking about treasury securities which are available by public auction. Anyone who chooses to be can be one of the government's creditors. You can sign up here:

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/indiv/products/products.htm

...the $13Trillion in US national debt

The debt is LARGER.

The USA's national deficit in 2009 was $1.4 Trillion. The USA's total (or gross) national debt was, as of July 29, 2010, $13.2 Trillion. The post you replied to was correct.

... we had a real GDP back then.

Real GDP is a relative measure of the economic output of some predefined region in a particular year adjusted for inflation from some base year.

...we monopolize the new gold standard

There is no longer a gold standard (or fixed exchange rate of dollars and goal). When it existed in the USA, it had nothing to do with a monopoly over some good.

...we realistically traded it [gold?] for OIL we didn't have but was sold in dollars...

I don't think that I can help you on this part. I don't even know what you are trying to convey.

You started off strong, though slightly off-topic, with your true comment about people often confusing deficit with debt. But your comment degraded quickly as you continued. Thanks for letting us know that you are confused... I hope I've helped.

You taunt me for allegedly listening to Fox & co, and then quote a Wikipedia article? Hey, I like Wiki as much as the next guy, but for actual data, I prefer to listen to the good folks at the US Treasury.

Goverment spending and total debt went up every year, including during the Clinton "surplus" years. I assume that when the news networks were trumpeting the triumph of Clinton's allegedly balanced budget, you bought it hook, line, and sinker?

The Clinton "surplus" was a myth. Every budget that he signed required the government to borrow money. The total government debt went up every year, even in years when the budget was supposedly balanced. There are basically 2 forms of government debt: what it owes other people (people, institutions, foreign countries), and what it owes itself. The reason for the claim of a surplus is that under Clinton, the intragovernment holdings, or what the government owes itself, went up. Essentially, the funds from the Social Security lockbox, were taken as intragovernment holdings, and were used to pay down debt held by the public (individuals, foreign governments, institutions, etc).

I certainly am no fan of the Republicans either, as I certainly tried to make clear in my other post. Both parties are spending us into the poorhouse.

So does the US. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm

No you are wrong, even using the government's "cooked" accounting. Here is the official US Treasury website showing the government debt for each year. Notice it increases every year of the Clinton presidency: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

but you can take cash, buy T-Bills and resell them quickly for a profit.

Wow, no. How can you buy t-bills for lower than what you sell them for? The buyers can just go straight to the source to buy them.

Try 30 year treasuries @ 4.62%

By definition, no USD dollar bond can be safer than bonds issued by the issuer of the currency. Of course you may prefer to stick to Euro bonds from one of the more fiscally prudent nations such as Germany. YMMV.

Here are the debts to the penny for 31 Aug of the years where budgets signed by Clinton were in effect (1993 is included for debt increase reference):

1993 - $4,403,247,046,170.58
1994 - $4,691,991,360,873.49
1995 - $4,970,755,679,060.21
1996 - $5,208,303,439,417.93
1997 - $5,404,420,294,885.51
1998 - $5,564,553,479,478.04
1999 - $5,672,386,167,530.41
2000 - $5,677,822,307,077.83
2001 - $5,769,875,781,034.48

All numbers were pulled from Debt to the Penny.

Every year, the debt increased, meaning that borrowing increased every year. The smallest increase was $5.4 billion. It was a very good accomplishment, as the debt decreased dramatically that year, but it still meant that the government spent more than it took in. I have difficulty understanding how it could have been balanced, at least insofar as when it's defined by an entity having more in the coffers at the end of the year than at the beginning. And remember: the government does not have to adhere to normal accounting principles, or else its annual losses would be tremendously higher.

And from HERE:

The White House raised the 2009 budget deficit projection to a staggering $1.8 trillion today. For context, it took President Bush more than seven years to accumulate $1.8 trillion in debt.

I don't know where the $1.8 trillion accumulation over seven years comes from, as this Treasury Department utility shows an increase of $1.8 trillion in debt by the end of 2004.

And Politifact shows here that the total debt run up under Bush was around $5 trillion.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm

You too can donate some of your income to supplement the almost 3 million donated this year!

What's that, you don't think the government needs any more of your money? Me neither.

"Sometime between the time Clinton left office and Obama entered office the Federal budget surplus disappeared."

That "budget surplus" was a fraud. The national debt grew by $1.4 trillion during his presidency, and it grew larger every year.

Hiding things off-budget does not make you a financial success.

National Debt - Source: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
2001 5,807,463,412,200.06

The page on TIPS clearly says that it is tied to the Consumer Price Index. Why would you assume that this accurately reflects the purchasing-power fluctuations of the money held by these nuclear power firms as is important to them? It reflects it well for one type of consumer, and that's it (even if a lot of consumers fit that mould). What I mean is, the CPI does not in any way necessarily reflect inflation as it matters to an individual or firm. For example, if a product you spend a significant amount of money on starts costing a lot more because of inflation, yet that item does not factor into the CPI, ceteris paribus, then, just that: The CPI will not reflect inflation as it matters to you.

Woooosh! TIPS

Of course, those didn't exist when the nuclear reactors were built.

.
I know that President Clinton loves to crow about budget surpluses, but given that the US national debt increased EVERY year, the surpluses were figments of his imagination. If there was a surplus, the national debt should have gone down, rather than gone up.