National debt tops $7 trillion for first time
Record high mark may be hot topic during election year



WASHINGTON - The U.S. government’s national debt — the accumulation of past budget shortfalls — totaled more than $7 trillion for the first time as of Tuesday, according to a Treasury Department report.


In its daily financial statement released Wednesday, the Treasury said the U.S. debt subject to a congressionally set limit totaled $7.015 trillion, up from $6.983 trillion Friday. The government was closed Monday for the Presidents Day holiday.

While passing the $7 trillion mark itself has little practical significance, not unlike a car’s odometer rolling over, it may signal some tough political times for President Bush’s administration on fiscal policy.

The government debt ceiling stands only a few hundred billion dollars ahead at $7.384 trillion, and the Treasury would need Congress’s blessing to borrow beyond that. Treasury officials say they expect the limit to be hit sometime between June and October.

And in this election year, Democrats may also use the $7 trillion figure to assail Bush’s tax policy and the federal deficits on his watch. Budget shortfalls are met by borrowing. In 2003, the federal budget gap was a record $374.25 billion and a larger one is expected this fiscal year. Bush blames the deficits on a sluggish economy and needed spending on security and defense.

‘It is simply immoral to run a national debt exceeding $7 trillion, every penny of which our children and grandchildren will be responsible for paying back’

— Rep. Baron Hill
D-Ill.


Rep. Baron Hill of Indiana, part of a centrist group of Democrats said, “It is simply immoral to run a national debt exceeding $7 trillion, every penny of which our children and grandchildren will be responsible for paying back.”

A Treasury spokeswoman said there was “no special significance” to the number.

The last time that debt subject to the limit passed a trillion-dollar milestone was on June 28, 2002, according to Treasury records.

To give some idea of the size of the debt, U.S. gross domestic product -- the sum of goods and services produced inside the United States -- totaled about $11 trillion at the end of 2003, according to the Commerce Department.

The debt includes that held by investors and Treasury securities in trust funds for government programs such as Social Security and Medicare.

Copyright 2004 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.

I do not find it too surprising....shocking that it is, but not surprised.....somehow this country seems to spend the money on the wrong things.....and not the important things......

Its one of the reasons I dont like Bush. The man has no fiscal policy that makes sense. We will be paying that debt down for years and years. We were balanced when he came into office.... WHat the hell happened?

Its one of the reasons I dont like Bush. The man has no fiscal policy that makes sense. We will be paying that debt down for years and years. We were balanced when he came into office.... WHat the hell happened?


Well...since I am in NO way shape or form political, nor do I pretend to know anything about politics......I did not know that we were balanced....but anything over $1 to me is not balanced........IMHO

What happened? He blew the surplus we had on tax cuts,
for the most part for people making over 100 g's a year, instead of using it for something positive, like fixing social security.

I agree with you about bush, I don't like him at all. I believe he has abused his powers as president and altered environmental law to the benefit of his corporate cronys. I don't care for the "no bid contracts" in Iraq, one of the biggest gainers from this policy being Halliburton, Cheneys former company.
He has done more to destroy world relations in his 3 1/2 years than was done positively in the past 30.

His administration continues to stonewall on the release of records concerning their energy policy meetings. This is probably due to the fact that among the people consulted were Ken Lay, a long time bush contributor. Sounds to me that they are covering some hanky panky there also.

I didn't support his rush to war in Iraq, more disturbing is all the info coming out about the fabrication of intel on WMD's that have not been found and probably won't be. He alienated most of our allies with his chest beating and fabbed intel, now he's asking for their support, but who can blame them for not rushing in to help after the way he treated them. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing but respect for the troops that are fighting over in Afghanistan and Iraq. I just don't agree with our being in Iraq, and I hope it doesn't turn into another Vietnam. Bush did not think things through in his rush to war, with no clear vision of what needed to be done once the war was over, and no clear exit strategy. He needs to agree to the UN's terms for their involvement in Iraq, all we are doing now is creating more terrorists that hate america.

I'd vote for Homer Simpson before Bush as well. Bush is to much of a cowboy, and a poor one at that!!
:Bang

Well - I dont blame ot finding the WMD's on bush. Thats a big desert there, and it would not shock me to learn one of saddam's sons took a few crews out in the desert, dug a hole, buried the WMD's and then shot all those who dug the whole to maintain secrecy.

Or that they ended up in syria or jordan.

Many things are possible. This isnt to justify his running off to war to avange the plot to assinate 'Daddy'........ Wish I could get away with such an act.

WHat bothers me the most, aside from economics, is how the rest of the world perceives us. He basically trampled the concept of diplomacy and said, we're going....... come with us or dont ever bother us again. good way to encourage Europe countries to join together and create a new superpower for us to compete against.

It's hard to find a balance between too forceful and too lenient when it comes to foreign policy especially. During the time directly after 9-11, I personally feel that too forceful is better than too lenient. I don't like how Iraq is turning out, so don't get me wrong. But I don't like living in fear, either.

And that is the point -- there has to be a middle ground.



It's hard to find a balance between too forceful and too lenient when it comes to foreign policy especially. During the time directly after 9-11, I personally feel that too forceful is better than too lenient. I don't like how Iraq is turning out, so don't get me wrong. But I don't like living in fear, either.

You asked what happened to our budget surplus? 9/11 happened to it. The war in afghanistan, Iraq, increased military spending, increaed homeland sucurity, federal grants to stricken areas, slumping economy, decreased tax revenue. You may not want to belive it, but bush has a pretty darn good policy for keeping the economy going, but he's also a republican, which we all know they spend spend spend. Bush's wars are keeping our economy down at the moment, so is the high cost of oil. Our country's economy is fueled on cheap oil, and stability. Right now theres not to much stability, and there aint cheap oil anywhere.

Im a bush supporter, but the war is getting long in the tooth, and his eviro policys are lacking, and The energy/oil sector of our country is out of control. I hate to say this, but i think kerry in 04 is going to help us. But hurt us in a few ways too. We just have tooo many homeland issues, that we need to worry about everyone else, unless they are a direct threat to use. ( NORTH KOREA )

What is bad about the dem coming to office? I hope you like your low intrested loans now, Better get a fixed rate. Because very soon you'll be seeing 8% again. Its the only way to Make the American dollar stronger then the euro.

I dont like bush 1 bit....

In fact, I think hes a terd.

I'm not from the states but I am going to have to say my favorite president so far has been Clinton. He was alot more likeable, but didn't know enough about politics to judge his decisions at that time.

I'm not from the states but I am going to have to say my favorite president so far has been Clinton. He was alot more likeable, but didn't know enough about politics to judge his decisions at that time.


Clinton was a moron... plain and simple. I will give him credit though... he could dodge a question like none other "what exactly do you mean by sexual relations?" lol

Nysbadmk8, I agree with you 100% except with the whole Kerry thing... I just have severe doubts in his ability to run the country in the shape it is in at this time. I may be wrong, but I just highly doubt he would be able to get a good grasp on things.... too much fence sitting instead of saying what he REALLY thinks IMO.

One of the biggest reasons why I like Bush... he tells it like it is and does what he believes is right, even if it isnt the most popular. Also the reason why I actually kind of liked Dean... sure he was portrayed by the media as an idiot, but he was the same way. He didn't go out in public and put his "game" face on... he wasn't acting (well... not nearly as much as alot of candidates atleast)

I only wish Clinton could serve another term. No matter what ya say about him he sure didnt have us with massive deficit and ppl wishing they could find a decent job.

Clinton was smooth, that's for sure. He could smile to your face, shake your hand and stab you in the back as you walked away. He was the beneficiary of some good economic times, not of his doing. The over-inflated stock market had to come down sooner or later. Our military was at a very low point under his watch. I think we would be in a fragile, scared, introverted and defensive posture if he were president now, just waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Clinton was smooth, that's for sure. He could smile to your face, shake your hand and stab you in the back as you walked away. He was the beneficiary of some good economic times, not of his doing. The over-inflated stock market had to come down sooner or later. Our military was at a very low point under his watch. I think we would be in a fragile, scared, introverted and defensive posture if he were president now, just waiting for the other shoe to drop.

zackly... the economy was going into a recession BEFORE GWB even took office(and we all know what happened sept. 11th which severly crippled our economy) because Clinton just rode the wave. He didn't really touch anything (well... excluding monica lol) and as a result... the economy thrived, especially with the boom of the internet.

and I agree 110%... the military was WEAK under clinton... ask any armed service member (granted... everyone has their own opinions, but a majority of the US armed services supports GWB from the people I've talked with)