Why don't we used updated data from the Treasury Department
FY 2001 (Deficit/Surplus)
Oct: 11,321
Nov: 23,690
Dec: −32,66
Jan: −76,379
Feb: 48,168
Mar: 50,662
Apr: −189,796
May: 27,919
Jun: −31,862
Jul: −2,820
Aug: 79,990
Sep: −35,271
YTD: -127,045
https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/file...ts/mts0302.pdf (Table 1, p.2)
There was a deficit for six month of the FY2001 fiscal year. This shows a deficit for the entire year, but whatever annual figure we choose it is obvious the 2001 recession of 8 months affected the deficit/surplus and there was no surplus for much of the year.
Debt:
1996: 5,224,810,939,135.73
1997: 5,413,146,011,397.34
1998: 5,526,193,008,897.62
1999: 5,656,270,901,615.43
2000: 5,674,178,209,886.86
2001: 5,807,463,412,200.06
Despite this "surplus" even before 2001 the debt continued to increase every year. It is only a "surplus" if we don't count some of the spending. Claiming a surplus while your debt is increasing is good PR but not an accurate picture. People use publicly held debt or intergovernmental debt when convenient.
Bookmarks