http://news.newsmax.com/?Z6...xLr1tqzDAsHDXrztLRAZ

quote The federal government reached an unhappy milestone with the announcement of the national debt figure for fiscal 2010 — it marked the 53rd straight year the debt had increased over the previous year. As of Sept. 30, the last day of fiscal 2010, the national debt stood at $13,561,623,030,891 — over $13.5 trillion — an increase of $1.65 trillion over fiscal 2009, according to data from the Bureau of the Public Debt, a division of the U.S. Treasury Department. The Bureau’s “total public debt outstanding” includes the portion of the debt held by the public in the form of securities such as Treasury bonds, plus the portion in the form of special government securities held by elements of the federal government itself, such as the Social Security trust fund, according to CNSNews. The Treasury Department has borrowed money from the trust fund to pay government expenses not related to Social Security. Between 1920 and 1930, the federal debt declined every year for 11 years. The last time the federal debt did not increase was in 1957, when Dwight Eisenhower was president. This year the debt stands at around $13.2 trillion more than the debt in 1957. During the federal government’s 53-year run of rising debt, the total has increased by an average of around $250 billion a year. This year’s increase of $1.65 trillion is the second largest rise in the nation’s history. The largest ever? Fiscal 2009’s $1.88 trillion.

Interesting figure.
53 years of increasing debt, yet Dems claim Clinton has a "surplus" during his administration. How is that possible?

(hint: There was no surplus - only a reduction in "public" debt while "intragovernmental" debt increased. So even when the Clinton administration was touting their budget surplus, the national debt continued to rise)

Correct.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Interesting figure. 53 years of increasing debt, yet Dems claim Clinton has a "surplus" during his administration. How is that possible?

Because they're f***ing liars.

I was under the impression that Clinton reduced the amount of the yearly deficit. By doing that, eventually, all things being the same, a surplus in many years time.

For those who like charts and figures, go here:
http://cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm
Here is a Wiki article on this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...._presidential_terms

[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 10-18-2010).]

quote Originally posted by FriendGregory: I was under the impression that Clinton reduced the amount of the yearly deficit. By doing that, eventually, all things being the same, a surplus in many years time.

Actually Clinton had nothing to do with it. Newt Gingrich was the master mind behind the budget deficeit reducing bills of the 1990s. He shoved it under Clinton's nose and said "SIGN IT". To Clinton's credit he did so. Now he takes credit for it as if it was his idea. What a contrast to Ron Reagan who had a slogan on his desk that read, "It is amazing what you can accomplish when you don't care who gets the credit".

You have to keep in mind the difference between "deficit" and "debt."
Deficit is the amount the annual budget is short.
Debt is the total debt accumulated from all annual deficits.

The "surplus" was due to lowering the "deficit" one year. If it had truly been a surplus, the debt would have gone down that year, but it didn't.
What happened was the economy was growing due to the Dot Com boom and Social Security didn't need to pay out as much as it was brining in. Any SS surplus is used to by government bonds, which reduced the "deficit" that year.

Keep in mind all that meant was the debt was shifted from the fiscal budget to SS. Public debt decreased, but intragovernmental debt increased.
Just because the government owes the money to itself doesn't mean the money exists to pay it.

If SS wasn't being added to the general fund to cook the books, you'd have a better idea of what the real debt and deficits are.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: WOW...what utter bullsh***! I've seen some pretty slick twisting of data in my days but this goes beyond the pale! For example, Hoover may have borrowed money to build a dam but that dam more than paid for itself YEARS ago and led to the growth of southern California, Las Vegas, and the entire Agricultural industry of the Coachella Valley. How can you compare that with FDR's Social Security boondoggle? And Eisenhower's Road System, It is safe to say, is the life blood of our modern economic expansion, yet LBJs Medicare bill has saddled us with the Obama care catastrophe we enjoy today. F***ing liberals and their magic math!!

Me thinks you need the blue(calming) pill today.

[This message has been edited by pokeyfiero (edited 10-18-2010).]

quote Originally posted by pokeyfiero: Me thinks you need the blue(calming) pill today.

Here are a bunch of more graphs for those that didn't like the first ones I found. Yeah, those were biased.
http://www.google.com/image...QwAg&biw=891&bih=451