quote:

The deficit was decreasing nicely, and if Clinton had a few more years it probably would have vanished altogether, at which point the debt would have stopped increasing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
And that's reason to complain?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Me

Maybe. Clinton didn't run a surplus though it was getting close to being able to pull one off. (The deficit was about $17 billion his last year in office, which is a far cry better than any since.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

Total National Debt  FY  1997 -  $5.413146 trillion 
                               FY  1998 -  $5.526193 trillion
                               FY  1999  - $5.656270 trillion 
                               FY  2000  - $5.674178 trillion 

Pulled from the Dept. of the Treasury's website.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Nonsense.

We went from runaway deficits and increasing debt to lower deficits and then ALMOST surpluses, but never lowering the debt--which Bush almost immediately trashed with tax cuts---cuts the Fed Chair opposed until Bush gave him a talking-to, then suddenly they "could" work.

Slice it and dice it however you wish. Those are the data.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Adjust for inflation, and even this decreases.

In 2000 dollars:
1997 -- $5.840290 trillion
1998 -- $5.868360 trillion
1999 -- $5.848583 trillion
2000 -- $5.674178 trillion

A common tactic used by those that cling to the myth of the Clinton surplus seems to be showing a bar graph of the total national debt adjusted for inflation, or depicted as a percentage of GDP. When you adjust for inflation or show the debt as a percentage of GDP, it looks like the national debt went down for a year or two under Clinton. However, that does not mean Clinton had a surplus, it simply means inflation was increasing faster than the national debt or the economy was expanding faster than the national debt. That does not change the fact that Clinton never had a surplus. 

Explained another way, adjusting the national debt for inflation is valid for comparing the debt load of the federal government but it has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the federal government had a surplus a given year. If you spend more than you take in in a given year, you have a deficit even if your relative debt load went down because of inflation. Explained numerically, let's say you owe $50,000, earn $30,000, and spend $31,000 (debt load=50,000/30,000=167%)--that leaves you with a deficit of $1000 so that the following year you owe $51,000. The next year inflation is 5% so you now earn $31,500 and spend $32,550 with a deficit of $1,050. $31,500 in earnings with a $51,000 debt is a 162% debt load--so your relative debt load went down thanks entirely to inflation but you still had a deficit of $1,050 that year and your debt continued to grow.

It wouldn't be accurate to claim that you had a surplus because your debt load went down even though you spent more than you earned. That's what people are saying when they try to adjust the national debt for inflation to claim a surplus. 

The bottom line is that the national debt going down as adjusted for inflation or as a percentage of GDP is a valid metric for evaluating the debt load of the government but it says nothing about whether or not there was a surplus. If the total national debt went up, there was a deficit. Those that think a decrease in the debt load of the federal government as a percentage of GDP or adjusted for inflation is equivalent to a same-year surplus don't understand the definitions and purposes of each of these terms.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

Some of us have little need for health insurance. Personally, I take what I would have paid into a policy and save/invest it.

Two problems with this.

First, you do need it. Things happen, and you're gambling. And as you wait, rates rise--waiting until later or until you have serious medical needs can keep you from getting insurance or price it prohibitively.

Second, the average real cost of a policy is $13,000/year. Most people save little or nothing for retirement--the average is just $70,000 at retirement--have no cash cushion, and certainly nothing saved for medical emergencies. Nor could they realistically save enough for catastrophic needs should they arise.

Now, I could see getting a high deductible, say $1000, if you also have significant savings (six figures) you can afford to lose to an emergency. Otherwise, you're gambling, and if you lose, you'll never recover financially.

I'd much rather pay a reasonable insurance premium to ensure this doesn't happen. It's a reasonable expense.

If you're injured, make sure it's in an auto accident, and that it stays under the maximum.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

If you're unaware of the effects of inflation, or why we adjust for it, including changing GDP to Real GDP, then this is only going to be a pointless, patronizing discussion.

If it makes you happier, OK, Clinton got us to this almost point, and then Bush squandered it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Because, especially as you age, paying the first $1000 of every medical bill could run up quickly.

Essentially, you'd be paying all of almost everything, short of crisis care.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Raiikun

Maybe, but that's besides the point.

I don't consider it a strike against Clinton that there was in fact a deficit every year he was in office.  He started with a large deficit and dramatically made it smaller; so small that another couple of years of that direction and the country would have been in the black again.  I think that's a damn good accomplishment.

On the other hand, I also think it's inaccurate the number of times I hear that Bush "squandered the Clinton Surplus", when there never was quite a surplus there to begin with.  Bush's budgeting practices were horrendous enough on their own, without the need to add a "surplus squandering" accusation to it.