Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KyrosL who wrote (61161)	4/23/2008 6:04:23 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543081

If it were that simple, then Clinton never oversaw a surplus. But generally, yes. The national debt is accumulated deficits, properly accounted for. But when most people talk about deficits, they are referring to the balance including social security surpluses. In any case, a decline in the national debt as a percent of GDP is not a surplus and may not even be a smaller nominal or real dollar deficit. So your graph can't be used to refute my points above. You need actual (nominal and/or real) deficit and deficit-to-GDP figures. I'd suggest the OMB website as that's where I got my figures, except that the data is mostly in spreadsheets. Also, you need to consider that a new president's first budget is for the fiscal year ending nearly two years after his election. The president elected this year begins work almost a third of the way through the 2009 budget year, so his (or her) first budget will be for 2010. The dividing lines on your graph appear to be drawn at inauguration.