HELP: debating freeper saying Clinton never reduced national debt once

[upi402]

Did the national debt ever go down during Clinton?

Did Clinton spend more money than any president before him including Reagan.

[Book Lover]

1. Here's the chart

and it's from http://www.centrists.org/, so he can't even complain that the source is biased. Go get 'em!

[Poppyseedman]

8. Not to be picky but the question was about national debt

not deficits

Two different things

[Book Lover]

9. Thank you for the correction

See kids - always read the directions thoroughly.

[dsc]

2. Yes the debt went down for two years under Clinton

that is what the word surplus means. The budget ran a surplus in both 99 and 2000. The debt did go up overall but if you take out the interest payments on previous debt then Clinton wouldn't have added a single, solitary, cent to US national debt. If you factor in inflation there is no way he outspent Reagan. In nominal dollars he did. By the end of the Clinton presidency the government was spending a smaller percentage of GDP than it did under Reagan. On edit it should have been four years.

[babylonsister]

3. Here's some links:

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/05/01/clinton.debt/

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/

[Sanity Claws]

4. That freeper is seriously deceived.

Clinton left office with a SURPLUS. He came in with a serious deficit. Don't you remember Ross Perot talking about the perils posed by the huge deficit run up by Reagan and the first Bush?
A quick google research is all you have to do.
Or better yet, have the freeper come up with something to support his deranged state of mind. You know, nothing you do or say will convince this maniac.

[tuvor]

5. Doesn't look like the debt went down under Clinton

According to this chart, the increases went down, but that's about it.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

6. Is the fweepie...

Trying to state that Dear Leader's fiscal brilliance is, in fact, bring down the national debt?

Wouldn't surprise me in the least. They live in a different reality.

[Poppyseedman]

7. Links..............I hope you didn't bet any money

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opd.htm

[populistdriven]

10. I Like this Chart the Best because it uses WhiteHouse data

www.zfacts.org



the site links to the raw data for independent verification

[Oversea Visitor]

12. Whitewash :rofl:

% of GNP wheee
Chimp use funny figures and method for GNP calculation
Damn good PEANUT economy :rofl:

[creeksneakers2]

11. It depends on how you count debt

How to count money owed to the Social Security Trust Fund, for example. According to the Bureau of the Public Debt, the debt went up every year under Clinton. According to the CBO, it went down.

[upi402]

13. He dismissed all info due to being tied to GDP

Thanks for the quick links folks. I was on the phone with him and couldn't search and talk too. I emailed him the graphs.

He hates Bush and didn't vote for * in '04, but still justifies * misdeeds and buys the corporate media spin 100%.

He's close.
I urged him to listen to Air America Radio or read The Nation.
He doesn't even know about Ohio Vote fraud or the Swiftboat Lairs, and thinks he's better informed than me because I stopped watching TV news.

[ticktockman]

14. Debt Held by the Public did decrease, Gross Federal Debt did not

Did the national debt ever go down during Clinton?

The confusion is due to the fact that there is more than one measure of the debt (and deficit). By the "national debt", I assume that you are talking about the "Gross Federal Debt" which is currently about $8.3 trillion. Another major measure of the debt is the "Debt Held by the Public" which is currently about $4.8 trillion. Both of these measures of debt can be seen listed at http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpdodt.htm . As can be seen, the Gross Federal Debt is equal to the Debt Held by the Public plus Intragovernmental Holdings. This latter category includes funds that have been borrowed from Social Security and other trust funds. Its composition can be seen in the table at the bottom of http://home.att.net/~rdavis2/debt07.html . Regarding the debt under Clinton, following is an excerpt of the first table at this location:

                 FEDERAL DEBT AT THE END OF FISCAL YEAR: 1940-2011
                             (in billions of dollars)
                                                                             Foreign
                                 Federal   Social            Public deficit  as % of
        Gross   Public  Foreign    Gov't Security Medicare  ----------------  Public
Year     Debt     Debt     Debt Accounts     Debt     Debt    Total  Foreign    Debt
----  -------  -------  ------- -------- -------- --------  -------  -------  ------
1992   4001.8   2999.7    535.2   1002.1    319.2    139.2   -310.7    -57.9    17.8
1993   4351.0   3248.4    591.3   1102.6    365.9    149.4   -248.7    -56.1    18.2
1994   4643.3   3433.1    655.8   1210.2    422.7    150.5   -184.7    -64.5    19.1
1995   4920.6   3604.4    800.4   1316.2    483.2    143.4   -171.3   -144.6    22.2
1996   5181.5   3734.1    978.1   1447.4    549.6    152.3   -129.7   -177.7    26.2
1997   5369.2   3772.3   1218.2   1596.9    630.9    151.2    -38.3   -240.1    32.3
1998   5478.2   3721.1   1216.9   1757.1    730.3    157.8     51.2      1.3    32.7
1999   5605.5   3632.4   1281.4   1973.2    855.0    184.1     88.7    -64.5    35.3
2000   5628.7   3409.8   1057.9   2218.9   1006.9    214.0    222.6    223.5    31.0
2001   5769.9   3319.6   1005.5   2450.3   1169.8    239.2     90.2     52.4    30.3
2002   6198.4   3540.4   1200.8   2658.0   1328.9    267.8   -220.8   -195.3    33.9
2003   6760.0   3913.4   1454.2   2846.6   1484.5    275.9   -373.0   -253.4    37.2
2004   7354.7   4295.5   1836.6   3059.1   1635.4    282.0   -382.1   -382.4    42.8
2005   7905.3   4592.2   2070.0   3313.1   1809.0    294.6   -296.7   -233.4    45.1

As can be seen, the Gross Federal Debt never did go down under Clinton. It's smallest increase was $23.2 billion from 1999 to 2000. The Debt Held by the Public, however, did go down a total of $452.7 billion from 1997 to 2001. Whichever measure of the debt is used, the deficit situation was much better under Clinton. The following graph shows the corresponding measures of the deficit since 1970:



The red line shows the "Gross Deficit" (the change in the Gross Federal Debt) and the blue line shows the "Public Deficit" (the change in the Debt Held by the Public). As can be seen, they both improved greatly under Clinton and have grown much worse under Bush.

Did Clinton spend more money than any president before him including Reagan.

Since the end of World War II, spending has likely increased with every 4-year presidential term, at least when measured in absolute dollars. A much fairer comparison is to look at spending as a percentage of GDP. The following graph shows revenues and spending, as a percentage of GDP, since 1950:



As can be seen, spending as a percentage of GDP decreased fairly sharply under Clinton and has increased under Bush. The numbers and sources for both of the prior graphs can be seen at http://home.att.net/~rdavis2/def07.html .

[upi402]

15. Thank you for that! It makes me wander off topic;

From the M2 chart on your site I imagine inflation is looming. It looks like M2 (supply) leads CPI historically. If that's so, it also seems that a weak dollar, relative to other major currencies, would increase production in the USA as our goods become cheaper.

So the fed (OMBC?) has to raise the prime (overnight) even more if production increases here. But does the bottom drop out as the now-hidden money supply and presumably increased cash input causes US$ devaluation and US$ flight in the forex -all as inflation increases?

It's confusing to me. Especially when I try to understand why forex traders and big players would hold US$ if the debt is actually so large now, on top of it all. Receipts HAVE to increase don't they, or the bottom will fall out. No?

My friend keeps returning to the 30% lower tax rate under Bush. He doesn't want any part of receipts increases.

[ticktockman]

16. Wars, the money supply, and inflation

From the M2 chart on your site I imagine inflation is looming. It looks like M2 (supply) leads CPI historically. If that's so, it also seems that a weak dollar, relative to other major currencies, would increase production in the USA as our goods become cheaper.

So the fed (OMBC?) has to raise the prime (overnight) even more if production increases here. But does the bottom drop out as the now-hidden money supply and presumably increased cash input causes US$ devaluation and US$ flight in the forex -all as inflation increases?

It's confusing to me. Especially when I try to understand why forex traders and big players would hold US$ if the debt is actually so large now, on top of it all. Receipts HAVE to increase don't they, or the bottom will fall out. No?

I'm not an expert on this but I have wondered what causes central banks and other big players to keep holding U.S. dollars during periods when they are experiencing devaluation. It may be that they are receiving some sort of benefit that is not immediately obvious to us but that compensates them for their losses. Or it may just be a lack of alternatives. Whatever the case, I suspect that they are looking for alternatives that they can resort to if necessary. That would seem to create a much less stable situation than would be the case if we had a strong or stable currency.

Regarding the graph showing M2 money supply and the CPI, I agree that it suggests that inflation is largely caused by a too rapid a growth in the money supply. In theory, I believe that the money supply can grow as fast as productivity without causing inflation. A faster growing money-supply, however, will tend to promote inflation. In any case, I noticed an additional event that seems to lead inflation. That event is war. If you look at the following graph and the corresponding table at http://home.att.net/~rdavis2/cpi_m2.html , you'll notice that five major spikes in the 10-year trailing inflation occurred in 1814, 1864, 1920, 1951, and 1982. These years are near or shortly following the end of the War of 1812 (1814), Civil War (1865), World War I (1918), World War II (1945), and the Vietnam War (1973). This is not surprising as wars often lead to large increases in spending which lead to growth in the money supply. The Iraqi War and the corresponding "War on Terror" could likewise do much to promote inflation. This is made even more likely by the fact that, for the first time in American history, we have cut taxes during a war.