It isn’t very obvious but the entire problem is in the very small upper right hand column. Where total spendng jumped dramatically in 2008 and stayed high in spite of decreasing revenues. The problem spending, pure and simple.
I would also disagree with labeling the period of no deficits in 1999 and 2000 the “Dot com bubble”. The Dot Com bubble was on wall street not in the federal budget. This very brief period of saving and not borrowing was thanks to Newt Gingrich who forced Clinton to keep spending down. It had nothing at all to do with the Dot Com bubble.
Actually, it did have something to do with the Dot.com bubble. Capital gains taxes soared during the latter half of the 90s.
Revenues went up and would have gone up even if the Dot Coms succeeded or failed. The point is that the president and congress usually/always spend every cent they get and even more as is obvious from looking at the chart. But in this instance they held spending down. That is Newt Gingrich and the Republicans in the house kept spending down. Clinton wanted to spend more but the house prevented it. They didn’t prevent it BECAUSE there was a dot com bubble and they didn’t even know at the time there was a dot com bubble. The two things simply coincidently occurred at the same time. There was not a cause and effect.
Your Email (will not be shown):
Please notify me in case of further comments!