Originally Posted by Guest

I don't think they are capable of reading the chart. And since it contradicts their preconceived notions, they'll say the information is a lie.

In Clinton's final full fiscal year -- fiscal year (FY) 2000 -- the federal budget surplus was $230 billion. The public debt decreased by this same amount -- $230 billion.
Some claim there was not a surplus because the gross national debt increased by $18 billion in the same year, FY 2000. How could the gross national debt increase while the public debt decrease? The answer is due to trust fund accounting requirements, as is required by law. Trust funds i.e. Social Security for example (unlike the federal government itself) are allowed accumulate money, for purposes of the trust fund's future anticipated spending needs, and so trust fund accounting requires the trust fund money be segregated. This is unlike most people's personal accounting methods, so can cause confusion in interpreting the numbers. To put it simply, the money on hand increased during Clinton's tenure, but since the government owes the social security fund for future needs, accounting shows a national debt increase (as opposed to the public debt).

When Bush was sworn in on January 20, 2001, the national debt was $5,727,776,738,304.64.

When “W” left office on January 20, 2009, the national debt was $10,626,877,048,913.08.

The growth in the national debt during his eight years in office: $4,899,100,310,608.44.

The average yearly growth in the national debt during Bush’s presidency: $612,387,538,826.05.

During much of Bush’s tenure, he had a Republican majority in both the House and the Senate. He claimed that tax cuts would pay for themselves – they did not. He claimed that tax cuts would result in growth – we experienced the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.