So you give me an article written in May 2000 that never once actually gives any number merely declares that we ran surpluses from FY 98 to FY 2002... you understand that someone talking, in spring 2000, about a surplus in 2002, is not, in fact, more accurate than historical data from years after 2002?




Hey, this ones from Sept 2000, and the data is Pres. Clinton, renowned for his utter honesty in all things, announcing a surplus. You don't mind, I'll stick with Treasury's values, after the fact data and all:

Public Debt
09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42

Interesting thing about that data of course is that one would expect a surplus year to be denoted by one of those years being smaller than the one below it, can't seem to see one. Of course one would have to take into account inflation and total GDP growth to talk about it fairly, because I'm okay with claiming we ran a surplus if debt as a % of GDP goes down, which it did, but somehow I don't think people in 2000 knew what those values were for 2000, let alone 2002. But hey, I ain't complaining about the spending in that period of time to be sure, nothing but kudos to the people that made that happen, still, you want talk numbers then talk numbers, don't give me old articles of people just saying 'behold, a surplus!' written before the checks were cashed. That's a forecast, a projection, and pretty pointless to show when the real data is at hand



Well, first off, it takes a while before the IRS and CBO actually compiles data from a year, that was 2007 data from a 2010 article, you are welcome to find 2008 data from a 2011 article and who knows, 2009 data might be out by now, 2010 data wouldn't be because we don't have tax data from 2010 yet now do we? Second, 2007 data would be from a period where the tax rates had been stable for some time and a recession hadn't happened yet, do you think it is a particularly wise idea to try to get a meaningful picture of tax% from class distribution immediatly after a major tax change or when the economy it pitching and heaving? And if you don't like the source, present a different citing different data, CNS is definitely a rightwing site, but you might have noticed that were quoting the CBO and linked that... did you bother to follow that link? Would you like to dispute that data?



Then look them up