The Night They Dumbed Our Country Down

[FatherTime]

I love how the Repubs want to rewrite history. This is how they find Obama responsible for the financial state of the nation right now.

 

[Gipper]

I love how the Repubs want to rewrite history. This is how they find Obama responsible for the financial state of the nation right now.

Could you please try to prove your point with credible sources instead of just posting silliness?

Big Rob posted a credible source disproving your silly belief that BJ Bubba Clinton generated a surplus. And, we have discussed this issue elsewhere on this forum with numerous credible sources proving you are wrong.

If you are just going to spout Dem talking points, may I suggest you head over to the lib political forums where you will be accepted with open arms? That way you can enjoy living a delusional.

 

[FatherTime]

It's a fact spoken on every mainstream news outlet that Clinton left with a surplus. I don't care about the moderator's fringe stats.

oh so you don't want liberals here ? I did not realize that. Do you speak for everyone then ?

 

[Openmind]

Could you please try to prove your point with credible sources instead of just posting silliness?

Big Rob posted a credible source disproving your silly belief that BJ Bubba Clinton generated a surplus. And, we have discussed this issue elsewhere on this forum with numerous credible sources proving you are wrong.

If you are just going to spout Dem talking points, may I suggest you head over to the lib political forums where you will be accepted with open arms? That way you can enjoy living a delusional.

You are being abusive! This forum is not reserved for Conservatives, especially NOT for extreme conservatives!

I believe that EVERYONE has the right to post in this forum, and if you don't like it, maybe you should go to Fox News opinions and stick with the conservative propaganda with no "opposing points of view" that you seem to want!

I personally believe that being that sectarian and rejecting of other posters should get YOU banned. . .at least for a couple of days

And, by the way, here is a very clear statement from "FACTCHECK.org" contradicting both your and BigRob sources.

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton
Posted on February 3, 2008 , Updated on February 11, 2008

Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.


FULL ANSWER

This chart, based on historical figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, shows the total deficit or surplus for each fiscal year from 1990 through 2006. Keep in mind that fiscal years begin Oct. 1, so the first year that can be counted as a Clinton year is fiscal 1994. The appropriations bills for fiscal years 1990 through 1993 were signed by Bill Clinton’s predecessor, George H.W. Bush. Fiscal 2002 is the first for which President George W. Bush signed the appropriations bills, and the first to show the effect of his tax cuts.

See chart below
The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton’s fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries.

Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.

Update, Feb. 11: Some readers wrote to us saying we should have made clear the difference between the federal deficit and the federal debt. A deficit occurs when the government takes in less money than it spends in a given year. The debt is the total amount the government owes at any given time. So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus. The debt the government owes to the public decreased for a while under Clinton, but the debt was by no means erased.

Other readers have noted a USA Today story stating that, under an alternative type of accounting, the final four years of the Clinton administration taken together would have shown a deficit. This is based on an annual document called the "Financial Report of the U.S. Government," which reports what the governments books would look like if kept on an accrual basis like those of most corporations, rather than the cash basis that the government has always used. The principal difference is that under accrual accounting the government would book immediately the costs of promises made to pay future benefits to government workers and Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries. But even under accrual accounting, the annual reports showed surpluses of $69.2 billion in fiscal 1998, $76.9 billion in fiscal 1999, and $46 billion for fiscal year 2000. So even if the government had been using that form of accounting the deficit would have been erased for those three years.- Brooks Jackson

 

[GenSeneca]

And, by the way, here is a very clear statement from "FACTCHECK.org" contradicting both your and BigRob sources.

If we were running a surplus, why did the national debt increase?

 

[Openmind]

If we were running a surplus, why did the national debt increase?

The surplus wasn't enough to erase the national debt. . .however, the national debt DECREASED in the 8 years of Clinton's presidency and GREATLY INCREASED under the 8 years of Bush presidency

From Wikepedia


Bill Clinton D 1993–1997 66.1% 65.4% +1,018 -0.7%
Clinton2 Bill Clinton D 1997–2001 65.4% 56.4% +401 -9.0%
Bush GW1 George W. Bush R 2001–2005 56.4% 63.5% +2,135 +7.1%
Bush GW2 George W. Bush R 2005–2009 63.5% 84.2% +3,971 +20.7%
Obama1 Barack Obama D 2009–2010 84.2% 93.2% +1,653 +9.0%

p.s., please note that the last percentage number is the decrease *(under Clinton) or increase (under Bush and Obama) of the national debt.

For clarity, I highlighted the increase/decrease in debt in Blue (under Democrat Presidents) and in Red (under Republican President).

 

[GenSeneca]

The surplus wasn't enough to erase the national debt. . .

What surplus?

the national debt DECREASED in the 8 years of Clinton's presidency

According to the treasury dept., the national debt INCREASED all 8 years Clinton was in office. How do you explain that?

 

[Openmind]

What surplus?



According to the treasury dept., the national debt INCREASED all 8 years Clinton was in office. How do you explain that?

How many sources do you need that shows that Clinton's presidency was highly effective in terms of economy, including GREATLY lower national debt?

Although the DEBT (obviously) increased a little under Clinton (it increased under EVERY President but your own chart demonstrate that the increase under Clinton was very low as compare to prior and after Clinton!) the DEFICIT decreased over the 8 years of his presidency, as demonstrated above. It Sky rocketed in the 8 years of Bush's presidency.
Here is another chart from Wikepedia:

 

[dogtowner]

How many sources do you need that shows that Clinton's presidency was highly effective in terms of economy, including GREATLY lower national debt?

Although the DEBT (obviously) increased a little under Clinton (it increased under EVERY President but your own chart demonstrate that the increase under Clinton was very low as compare to prior and after Clinton!) the DEFICIT decreasgressed over the 8 years of his presidency, as demonstrated above. It Sky rocketed in the 8 years of Bush's presidency.
Here is another chart from Wikepedia:

your chart is stated being measured as a % of GDP which is meaningless to the question.

Gen's (properly linked graphic) shows actual debt. Yes the rise in debt slowed (thanks to the GOP Congress which Clinton was smart enough to go along with) but continued to increase. There is no arguing this point.

The original point was that Clinton eeked out a surplus. And because of the SSA surplus going into the general fund (as it had been doing since Nixon or so) yes income surpassed outlay. Given that there was only the dot com boom and yet to be discovered corp accounting hijinks (remember Enron ?) behind the abnormal revenue, it was bound to and predicted to bust and so it did. All over Bush. Oh and then muslims flew airplanes into buildings just to make things worse. But then Bush did what those before him discovered worked to get the economy going and got effective tax cuts in place.

 

[BigRob]

It's a fact spoken on every mainstream news outlet that Clinton left with a surplus. I don't care about the moderator's fringe stats.

"Fringe stats"...as reported by the US Treasury Department.

 

[BigRob]

You are being abusive! This forum is not reserved for Conservatives, especially NOT for extreme conservatives!

I believe that EVERYONE has the right to post in this forum, and if you don't like it, maybe you should go to Fox News opinions and stick with the conservative propaganda with no "opposing points of view" that you seem to want!

I personally believe that being that sectarian and rejecting of other posters should get YOU banned. . .at least for a couple of days

And, by the way, here is a very clear statement from "FACTCHECK.org" contradicting both your and BigRob sources.

Am I to assume "Factcheck.org" is a more credible source than the United States Treasury Department?

 

[GenSeneca]

How many sources do you need that shows that Clinton's presidency was highly effective in terms of economy, including GREATLY lower national debt?

You're missing the point...

Although the DEBT (obviously) increased a little under Clinton

A surplus would mean that we are NOT adding to the national debt. The national debt only increases when a deficit is added to it.

Just to keep it simple, lets say the national debt is $10 total. We run a deficit of $1 this year. $1 is then added to the debt making it $11. Next year we run a surplus of $1, if we put that surplus towards our debt, our national debt is reduced by $1 and is now $10. If we do not put it towards our debt, the debt remains at $11 and does not go up.

A budget surplus would not add to the debt.

the DEFICIT decreased over the 8 years of his presidency, as demonstrated above.

You have gone from claiming a budget surplus to claiming a decrease in the budget deficit.

It Sky rocketed in the 8 years of Bush's presidency.

Bush is a red herring, we're talking about the supposed "surplus" of the Clinton years, a "surplus" that magically added to the national debt.

 

[BigRob]

The surplus wasn't enough to erase the national debt. . .however, the national debt DECREASED in the 8 years of Clinton's presidency and GREATLY INCREASED under the 8 years of Bush presidency

The actual numbers from the United States Treasury (you know, the group that oversees all of this) directly contradict your above statement...how do you explain that?

Total Debt as of FY1993: $4,411,488,883,139.38
Total Debt as of FY 2000: $5,675,479,560,020.27

So that is a "decrease" of how much?

 

[GenSeneca]

"Fringe stats"...as reported by the US Treasury Department.

You know how partisan those propagandist hacks are over there at the Treasury dept...

 

[Openmind]

You're missing the point...

A surplus would mean that we are NOT adding to the national debt. The national debt only increases when a deficit is added to it.

Just to keep it simple, lets say the national debt is $10 total. We run a deficit of $1 this year. $1 is then added to the debt making it $11. Next year we run a surplus of $1, if we put that surplus towards our debt, our national debt is reduced by $1 and is now $10. If we do not put it towards our debt, the debt remains at $11 and does not go up.


No, dear. . .YOU are missing the point! The fact is that the national debt was decreased in the 8 years when Clinton was in office. . .by the amount of the surplus. . .which LOWERED the deficit!
Remember those figures that I posted just today?

Bill Clinton D 1993–1997 , 66.1% Deficit 65.4% +1,018 -0.7%
Clinton2 Bill Clinton D 1997–2001 65.4% 56.4% +401 -9.0%

A budget surplus would not add to the debt.

Do you think that may be why the national debt went down by 9.7% between 1993 and 2001 (see above figures!)

You have gone from claiming a budget surplus to claiming a decrease in the budget deficit.

NO. I claimed a BUDGET SURPLUS that allowed for a DECREASE IN NATIONAL DEBT of 9.7%


Bush is a red herring, we're talking about the supposed "surplus" of the Clinton years, a "surplus" that magically added to the national debt.[/QUOTE]

Can you read graphs, charts, tables?

Can you tell me what the numbers I provided (twice now) mean?
It demonstrate that there was a surplus, and that the national debt went down under Clinto, while it sky rocketed under Bush.