Budget Deficits and Federal Spending

I'm sure by now everyone has heard about the current debt ceiling ordeal. With it, spending, and national debt being in the forefront of everyone's mind, I though a bit of historical information on the subject would be useful. So I've tracked down some nifty charts showing government spending and our national debt from 1993 when Clinton was elected up to 2010 since this years totals aren't yet complete.

Please leave your political affiliations and party lines at the door as I highly doubt we need another blame thread, and just take this thread for what it is: informational. We're all adults, right? Right, so let's get on with it then.

Federal Deficit 1993-2010

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8075f9ca1602.png[/atsimg]
Source

Year........Federal Deficit in $ billion
1993........255.18
1994........203.34
1995........164.09
1996........107.56
1997.........22.08
1998........-69.05
1999........-125.41
2000........-235.97
2001........-127.89
2002........158.01
2003........377.81
2004........412.90
2005........318.59
2006........248.57
2007........160.96
2008........458.55
2009........1412.69
2010........1293.49
negative numbers indicate a surplus

As you can see above, while Clinton was in office we built a surplus. While Bush was in office, the surplus dwindled and our deficit fluctuated but never exceeded 458 million and was on the decline after hitting it's peak in 2004. Since Obama has been in office, the deficit rose sharply during 2009 and dropped marginally during 2010.

Keep in mind that our national debt never went down and never disappeared, it was only the deficit that did that. There is a difference between the two even though the terms are often used interchangeably. The former is essentially what we owe, while the latter is essentially whether we have more going out than we have coming in. Think of it in terms of your bank account. You always owe somebody something whether it's your car, house, electric bill, whatever. That's your debt. After paying your bills you probably have some money left over in your account, hopefully anyway. You still owe on that car and house, but you had more coming in for the month than you did going out. That's your surplus. (It's a crude simplification but a sufficient one, I think.)

Federal Spending from 1993-2010

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/e0216b148dcb.png[/atsimg]
Source

Year.......Total Spending in $ billion
1993........2420.95
1994........2507.06
1995........2634.87
1996........2719.43
1997........2813.59
1998........2923.39
1999........3053.51
2000........3240.18
2001........3434.00
2002........3697.75
2003........3930.63
2004........4131.92
2005........4397.34
2006........4698.23
2007........4924.61
2008........5335.24
2009........5896.16 out-year estimate in US fy12 budget
2010........5798.85 'guesstimated' projection by usgovernmentspending.com

In this second graph, notice that federal spending has increased rather steadily since 1993 regardless of which president was in office.

Party Division of Congress 1993-2010

I unfortunately don't have any nifty charts for this one, so the text version alone will have to suffice. I have bolded the numbers for the party in control.

Year................Senate..............House
1993-1995......57D/43R...........258D/176R/1Ind..........Both Dem. controlled
1995-1997......48D/52R...........204D/230R/1Ind..........Both Rep. controlled
1997-1999......45D/55R...........207D/226R/2Ind..........Both Rep. controlled
1999-2001......45D/55R...........211D/223R/1Ind..........Both Rep. controlled
2001-2003......50D/49R/1Ind...212D/221R/2Ind..........Dem Controlled Sen., Rep Controlled House
2003-2005......48D/51R/1Ind...205D/229R/1Ind..........Both Rep. controlled
2005-2007......44D/55R/1Ind...202D/231R/1Ind..........Both Rep. controlled
2007-2009......49D/49R/2Ind...236D/199R..................Both Dem. controlled
2009-2011......57D/41R/2Ind...257D/178R..................Both Dem. controlled

Ind. = Independent

Source


Now this is the part that I found interesting, we always hear how Democrats are responsible for the surplus and how Republicans were the ones who blew it all. (I can't even count how many times Clinton has gotten credit for the surplus when he only submitted a budget request like every other president has and it's Congress who comes up with appropriation bills.) Turns out that's only partially true. Congress was controlled by Republicans when we had surplus and were in control during the downward trend that gave us that surplus. Then our deficit sky-rocketed again once Democrats regained complete control.

This in no way means that Republicans are more responsible with money or spend less than Democrats, as shown in the second chart spending has been steadily increasing regardless of which party is in power. It's no coincidence that our surplus began to dwindle in 2001 and disappeared in 2002. Wars and a recession will do that. Nor is it shocking that the deficit increased so sharply once Democrats regained control for the 2007-2009 Congressional term. Additional entitlement programs, another recession/depression, and attempts to bail out failing businesses will do that. I think it would be fair to say that Republicans of the 90's knew how to create a surplus in the budget, however.


Related articles for your perusal:
NY Times: How Trillion-Dollar Deficits Were Created

FactCheck.org: The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

Joint Economic Committee Study: Budget Surpluses, Deficits and Government Spending

So basically the only fix is to have Republicans control the House, Senate, and the Presidency.

Let's make it happen in 2012!

They're ALL a bunch of BUMS that are ruining this country and screwing us badly.

They all need to be FIRED or IMPRISONED immediately.

If we need to have a body in office, we can replace them with chimps. The chimps would certainly do a MUCH better job than them, plus we wouldn't have to pay the chimps a RIDICULOUSLY HUGE salary and RIDICULOUS BENEFITS and PENSIONS packages, security staff, etc, etc.

We'd get more accomplished for less by replacing them with chimps.

reply to post by Carseller4


Having one party in complete control of government is a quick route to tyranny. It needs to be balanced to prevent them from running completely wild.

I dunno.

All I can say is that it has become one giant convoluted mess. With the usual finger pointing and blame game. Meanwhile the little guy gets crapped on from the left, right and center

Walks off scratching his head while counting his pennies.....

What I find interesting is we always hear about the deficit, but it seems like the news tends to gloss over the actual reasons for it and instead people are left with this picture of Obama as an out of control spender.

- The US being over in Iraq and Afghanistan is costing well over 300 billion dollars a year.

- More people are unemployed, which means less tax revenue.

- The Bush tax cuts (mostly on the top 2%) will cost trillions of dollars in revenue if they continue to be in place.

- Obama did enact the economy recover plan which cost around 780 billion dollars. And W. signed the bank bailouts which was around 700 billion (although I think most of that has been repaid).

Obama needs to be more pro-active (ie, get us the hell out of the Middle East), he's been largely an extension of W. in a lot of ways. Not much has changed. Someone could easily take the stance that he's inherited most of these problems, as they were in place before he became POTUS and are the main reasons for the deficit.

reply to post by origamiandurbanism

Someone could easily take the stance that he's inherited most of these problems, as they were in place before he became POTUS and are the main reasons for the deficit.

I am afraid that if you are talking economics you have to go all the way back to Reagan and Clinton, not Bush.

In a nutshell Reagan's Admin. allowed all the hostile takeovers/ leveraged buyouts that raped American industry of their assets. I detail what I mean HERE

Clinton then hit the country with a double whammy. The "free trade" agreements like the World Trade Organization and major changes in the banking laws. I detail what I mean HERE

The Free trade agreements are what allowed US companies to easily move off-shore to produce goods and ship them to the USA with out "penalty" (tariffs) It cost America 20 percent of its manufacturing jobs in just 14 years,

Statistics (courtesy of Bridgewater) showed in 1990 ,before the Clinton era and before WTO was ratified, Foreign ownership of U.S. assets amounted to 33% of U.S. GDP. By 2002 this had increased to over 70% of U.S. GDP. www.fame.org...

Clinton's signing of laws that repealed the McFadden Act of 1927, the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 and the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 lead to the Formation of Mega Banks. He is also responsible for the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 that was responsible for marginal mortgage loans doomed to fail and the unregulated CDSs used to insure the banks against foreclosure.

A list of important banking laws can be found here: www.fdic.gov...

The critical part of the Banksters scam was the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. This allowed CDSs to be placed on mortgages. If a bank has a couple of CDSs on your mortgage then the bank WANTS to force you into foreclosure See: How the AIG Bailout Could be Driving More Foreclosures


Taxes are a very minor part of the problem here in the USA. If we do not identify the problem and REPEAL the laws that lead to the problem then we will just continue on the road to third country status.

Unfortunately I do not see this happening. Instead I see an acceleration down that path.

edit to add
Bush's contribution was the expense of WAR and the blasted "Patriot" Act

Personally, I cannot understand why 98% of people put up with the other 2% having everything.

I'm no expert economist, but could it possibly hurt to have the mega-rich pitch in just a little bit more if for no other reason then to have the boat float a wee-bit longer?

reply to post by Jenna

Thank you for providing some infomation that doesn't fit into a sound bite or a quip against one party or another.

Government will always be able to justify itself and try to grow. It's what government does best. The only option for us is to inhibit that growth as much as possible.

reply to post by Hessling

Personally, I cannot understand why 98% of people put up with the other 2% having everything.

I'm no expert economist, but could it possibly hurt to have the mega-rich pitch in just a little bit more if for no other reason then to have the boat float a wee-bit longer?

OF Course it would hurt! It would spoil all their plans!

striking the Earth to "REMOULD IT NEARER TO THE HEART'S DESIRE,"

When people of this class are stricken by guilt feelings while plotting world wars and economic depressions which will bring misery, suffering and death to millions of the world’s inhabitants, they sometimes have qualms. These qualms are jeered at by their peers as "a failure of nerve". After a bout with their psychiatrists, they return to their work with renewed gusto, with no further digressions of pity for "the little people" who are to be their victims. - Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, Macmillan, New York, p. 326 www.apfn.org...

One of the major principles taught to Quality Engineers is the Pareto Principle - The 80-20 Rule - because it holds true for so many aspects of life. In 1906 an Italian economist, Vilfredo Pareto, discovered that 20% of the Italian population owned 80% of the nation’s wealth. Further studies revealed that The Pareto Principle, as it became known, affects us all in every aspect of life.

Does the Pareto Principle still hold true in the USA???

I normally treat Alex Jones as if he had the plague but this article by "Michael??" that he stole from TheEconomicCollapseBlog.com answers my above question. - (Some one really did their homework.)

Will The Banksters And The Corpocracy Eventually Own It All? 29 Statistics About Extreme Income Inequality In America That Will Blow Your Mind

...Over the past several decades, those with huge amounts of money and power have been busy rigging the game so that the rest of the money and power slowly but surely funnels into their hands.... Today, the big banks, the big corporations and the federal government are all in bed with one another and it is average Americans that always lose out.....

[THIS IS THE SIGNIFICANT STATISTIC: cv]
#1 In the United States today, the richest one percent of all Americans have a greater net worth than the bottom 90 percent combined.....

WHOA, Wait a Second 1% of the population controls over 90% of the wealth ???? What ever happen to the natural distribution of 20% controlling 80% 0f the wealth???

Given that the objective of the scam is to move as much of the wealth of the USA from the people into the hands of the World Power Mongers, it looks like they have done a bang up job of it!


So who are they???
THEIR PROPAGANDA: New World Encyclopedia - Organizing knowledge for happiness, prosperity and world peace.

QUOTES from a FOUNDING MEMBER

History: modernhistoryproject.org...
www.modernhistoryproject.org...

Today: centurean2.wordpress.com...

Originally posted by origamiandurbanism
What I find interesting is we always hear about the deficit, but it seems like the news tends to gloss over the actual reasons for it and instead people are left with this picture of Obama as an out of control spender.

True enough. That's why I stated in the OP that it's not really a surprise that the surplus disappeared or that the deficit skyrocketed. The composition of Congress at the time did have a little bit to do with it, but a decent sized chunk of it was caused by wars and economic recovery efforts from the last two recessions.


reply to post by crimvelvet


Thanks for adding all that info. The more I learn about the whole mess, the more I realize I still don't know.


reply to post by beezzer


My pleasure. I figure there are enough threads around here with nothing but party lines and it was time for something a bit different.

And you are correct. Regardless of which party is in power, there's always a reason for them to justify more growth and more control. My only hope is that enough people will start paying attention and putting their collective feet down when it comes to additional spending by the government without a way to pay for it. We simply cannot sustain the current levels of spending without a massive influx of funds which isn't going to happen with the economy still in the tank.

reply to post by Jenna

My only hope is that enough people will start paying attention and putting their collective feet down when it comes to additional spending by the government without a way to pay for it. We simply cannot sustain the current levels of spending without a massive influx of funds which isn't going to happen with the economy still in the tank.

That is my hope too.

I can not believe this thread has not seen more action. It is certainly THE most important topic for Americans to be discussing at this time.

i am really tired of people quoting the clinton so called surplus

hell if bush robbed social security like clinton did he would have had a surplus except there is nothing left in there.

when half this country pays taxes the other half is on welfare and we are spending too much on entitlements and foreign aid and wars that we do not need to be in.

you will have a deficit alot of things need to change and raising the debt limit will not change the end result.

even if by some miracle the debt was wiped out it would not change anytthing we are still spending more than we take in.

while i will get flamed for this but the best thing that can happen to this country is if washington dissappeared in one day.

they dont get it and too many people in this country just dont get it.

reply to post by Jenna

Thanks for adding all that info. The more I learn about the whole mess, the more I realize I still don't know.

BOY isn't that the truth!

In desperation I m snuggling down in bed at night with a 900 page book on economics Now if I only understood half the words! I feel like I am reading a foreign language without the dictionary

reply to post by Jenna


This is the very reason I do not believe any one political party.

People have to step back and quit looking at the problem with narrow-minded perspectives.

One political party is not to blame, both of them are to blame, in a two-party system.

Our jobs have been outsourced, or moved elsewhere, or even downsized.

Meanwhile other countries products are flowing in.

Too much spending is going on in the Federal Government and far too much borrowing.

Put us back on the Gold Standard so our fiat money is no longer worthless.

reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas

Put us back on the Gold Standard so our fiat money is no longer worthless.

AMEN to that. Also kick the blasted bankers out. They should not have control of the money supply.

Even if we do not go on the gold standard quit printing money! We have gone from a nickel a loaf of bread and a nickel for a coke to over a dollar or more. Therefore is PLENTY of "money" for business purposes.

Heck you want to give a real boost to the economy??? Declare all those FRAUDULENT loans illegal since that is what they are ILLEGAL!

97% of the money supply is fraudulent loans... imagine what would happen if the leeches stopped sucking our lifeblood!

Also get rid of the World Trade Organization and the rest of the job exporting treaties. Remember a STATE can nullify a treaty....

But first we have to find some honest politicians and hope they are not shot or poisoned.

reply to post by neo96

i am really tired of people quoting the Clinton so called surplus....

Do you have any GOOD links for that??? I would like to add it to my collection.

reply to post by crimvelvet


i use to do links but i have given them up way to many people cherrypick the ones that matter and dismiss anything they dont agree with.

a google search that takes all of 2 seconds will give the information you want.

believe if you want or dismiss it at your lesiure theres an old saying you can lead a horse to water but you cant make them drink.

reply to post by Jenna


I went over to U.S. National Debt Clock FAQ who pointed me to Federal Debt

It lists the "information on agency securities and on investments of Federal Government accounts in Federal securities" in table form. TABLE FD-3. lists the Government Account Series in millions of dollars for 2010

TABLE FD-3
Airport and Airway Trust Fund ........................... 7,045
Deposit Insurance Fund .....................................37,441
Employees Life Insurance Fund ......................... 37,605
Exchange Stabili-zation Fund ............................ 20,436
Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund...... 187,222 down from 207,932
Federal employees retirement funds................. 785,988
Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund ............ 279,475
Federal Housing Administration ......................... 4,194
Fed.Old-Age & Survivors Ins. Trust Fund... 2,399,111
Fed. Savings & Loan Corp., Resolution Fund.......... 3,388
Fed. Supplementary Medical Ins. Trust Fund........ 70,982
Highway Trust Fund ......................................... 24,455
National Service Life Insurance Fund .................... 8,161
Postal Service Fund ............................................ 1,142
Railroad Retirement Account .................................. 506
Unemployment Trust Fund ................................. 18,703
Other ............................................................. 759,426

(reorganized to fit vertical instead of horizontal cv)
www.fms.treas.gov...

Look like they raided every piggy bank in sight and then spent it all!

reply to post by neo96


Neo, how can you say that?

You're saying the Clinton Admin reducing the deficit is a farse, and yet the charts are right there in the OP.

The country was taking in more than it was spending. There was no deficit. How is that a falsehood to you? The deficit has nothing to do with stealing monies from funds. The deficit is when the gov outspends its revenue. The Clinton administration was very financially sound. Like the man or not, the country flourished.