Lol.. I had forgotten the exact dates set in all these debtceiling deals, and I'm glad you are sort of offering that conservative's use of the debt ceiling to march the country off a cliff and force their insane ideas like shutting down most of the public sector is kind of suicidal. I say just run on a platform, stop trying to hold the country hostage- and if people elect you THEN you can pass the cuts and get your president to sign them. America looked at Romney & Friends and said "No Thanks." The fixed bayonets arent' being held by just little Obama. It's the whole country. Or didn't 9% Congressional approval ratings indicate that? What else did you think it meant? Most of congress got reelected so clearly people aren't unhappy with their individual congressperson- they just want to be left alone and are tired of the GOP/tea bag caucus trying to throw the nation's economy off a cliff every six months. That's what the low approval ratings mean. Obama's approval after the latest round? [link] Not bad- Rasmussen and AP say 54%. Higher than the % that reelected him.
Anyway I hope the GOP decides to dig in and threaten to shut 'er down again March 1st. They'll lose, as they should, and I found out today I have tickets to see Bill Maher when he comes to town on the 3rd- and this political kibuki will make for some awesome comedy!
ok so he did, but doing a little research it seems that surplus was little more then smoke and mirrors, something about borrowing money to make that up, and the national debt still raising durring those years. national vs public debts. I don't know. I just do know we didn't get to 16?.5 Trillion under Bush and Obama alone... it's taken nearly 60 years to get us hear and Obama has accelerated that greatly.
That last link is the interesting part. It talks about intra-governmental debt but the thing about social security is it essentially functions like tax, you pay money into it and then it gets paid out again. If the money was coming from social security then it was coming from the US population, not elsewhere. This means that social security was taking in more money in tax than it was spending. If you then add the money coming in from social security contributions to the federal budget that wipes out the extra intra-governmental debt and you have a surplus again. To highlight the problem I'll create a hypothetical government:
Imagine you have a government where taxes are paid to each respective department (eg transport, health, defence etc) and then spent in that department. Now imagine in this hypothetical government no borrowing is allowed so everything it spends money on MUST come from taxes, hence it cannot run a budget deficit unless it has already built up a surplus. Now what happens if all but one of the deparment take in more in taxes than they spend on themselves and the central government "borrows" money from some funds to re-allocate it to the one that needs more money? On the stats this will look like the government is running a deficit despite the fact that we know it is physically impossible for it to get money from anywhere other than taxes. In your opinion has this hypothetical government actually running a deficit or is it a quirk in the way the statistics are recorded?
As you can see from this situation there are lies, damn lies and statistics. Stats can be manipulated to say whatever you want as long as they aren't scrutinised.