Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Debt held by the public reached 49.5% of GDP at the beginning of Clinton's first term. However, it fell to 34.5% of GDP by the end of Clinton's presidency due in part to decreased military spending, increased taxes, and increased tax revenue resulting from the dot com bubble. The budget controls instituted in the 1990s successfully restrained fiscal action by the Congress and the President and together with economic growth contributed to the budget surpluses at the end of the decade" -US Government Accountability Office.
Further...a more relevant number is the federal debt as a % of GDP...pay particular attention to the years of 1999, 2000, and 2001.
The $123 billion surplus in 1999 is the largest dollar surplus in history, even after adjusting for inflation;
The surplus, expected to be about 1.4% of GDP, is the largest surplus as a share of the economy since 1951;
1999 is the second year in a row of surplus, marking the first back-to-back surpluses since 1956-57;
This is the first time in U.S. history that we've experienced seven years in a row of fiscal improvement.
The Largest Debt Reduction in History:
Over the last two years, America has paid down $140 billion in public debt, the largest debt pay-down ever;
The debt held by the public is $1.7 trillion lower than was projected when President Clinton took office;
As a result, in 1999 alone, interest payments on the debt were $91 billion lower than projected.
..................... so if there was an actual "budget surplus", why did the national debt GO UP FOR EVERY YEAR CLINTON WAS PRESIDENT?
Here is why-
Projected spending to revenues, despite still adding to the national debt, was less than predicted. Now in a sane world, everyone else would still cause this a deficit. However, in Washington, when spending was less than predicted, despite being deficit spending, was called a "surplus"!
THERE WAS NO CLINTON "SURPLUS". If anything, it was REDUCED DEFICITS DUE TO GINGRICH, as Clinton was dragged, kicking and screaming, into lower spending.
..................... so if there was an actual "budget surplus", why did the national debt GO UP FOR EVERY YEAR CLINTON WAS PRESIDENT?
Here is why-
Projected spending to revenues, despite still adding to the national debt, was less than predicted. Now in a sane world, everyone else would still cause this a deficit. However, in Washington, when spending was less than predicted, despite being deficit spending, was called a "surplus"!
THERE WAS NO CLINTON "SURPLUS". If anything, it was REDUCED DEFICITS DUE TO GINGRICH, as Clinton was dragged, kicking and screaming, into lower spending.
Let me get this straight......The success during the Clinton years was the fault of congress (Gingrich and his handling) but the fiscal issues we are dealing with now rest on Obama's shoulders and not congress?
If the US Treasury Dept says that we have increased the national debt every single Fiscal Year since 1957, then how did we have a surplus?
By 'borrowing' money from over half a dozen funds like the Civil Service Trust Fund, Social Security, the Military Pension and etc... It may create magical surpluses on paper...yet it is still real money owed.
I challenge you to find a Fiscal Year where the national debt does not increase after the year 1957.....knowing that you can't.....I now challenge you to tell me how we can have a true surplus, while our national debt is rising.
The $123 billion surplus in 1999 is the largest dollar surplus in history, even after adjusting for inflation;
The surplus, expected to be about 1.4% of GDP, is the largest surplus as a share of the economy since 1951;
1999 is the second year in a row of surplus, marking the first back-to-back surpluses since 1956-57;
This is the first time in U.S. history that we've experienced seven years in a row of fiscal improvement.
The Largest Debt Reduction in History:
Over the last two years, America has paid down $140 billion in public debt, the largest debt pay-down ever;
The debt held by the public is $1.7 trillion lower than was projected when President Clinton took office;
As a result, in 1999 alone, interest payments on the debt were $91 billion lower than projected.
You have bought into the hype and BS.
#1 Clinton said that he opposed balanced budgets AFTER the GOP won control of the House of Reps with the Contract With America that promised Balanced Budgets.
#2 Clinton said as late as early 1995 that balanced budgets were not a priority.
#3 Clinton, as president, was required by law to propose a budget and submit it to congress....every single budget that he submitted on paper was by fact not balanced. Clinton passed ZERO of his own budgets after the GOP contract with America. The budgets that passed came from congress.
#4 The National Debt has increased every single Fiscal Year since 1957 - Fact. So there were no true surpluses... The surpluses you speak of are mythical fantasies meant to fool the public.
#5 Clinton fools you when he speaks. Notice he says "Public Debt".....National Debt = Public Debt + Intra-Governmental Debt. The Clinton years so a decrease in "Public Debt" (owed to individuals) while Intra-Governmental Debt (owed to gov. funds like the Military Pension, SS, Civil Service Trust Fund, etc GROW at a fast rate).
#6 Clinton saw the Housing Market Bubble grow, which temporarily helped with revenues...capital gains of home sales....he didn't have to deal with the mess.
#7 Clinton was lucky to be president during the peak spending years of the Boomers.
#8 Clinton was lucky to be president during the internet boom.
#9 Clinton didn't have to deal with the side-effects of the dot-com bubble bursting in 2000 under his watch....more taxes as it grew - less tax revenues after it burst and more write offs under Bush.
#10 Clinton didn't have to live with the consequences of his choice to A) give permanent most favored nation trading status to China, B) NAFTA, C) reduce regulations --- which he did with GOP help, but was an active participant.
Let me get this straight......The success during the Clinton years was the fault of congress (Gingrich and his handling) but the fiscal issues we are dealing with now rest on Obama's shoulders and not congress?
Ah, what would we do without the historical revisionists?
Fortunately, the Internets keep the real record:
Gingrich, said in 1993, "The tax increase will kill jobs and lead to a recession, and the recession will force people out of work and onto unemployment, and actually increase the deficit." Not only didn't they, the economy soared.
So, one can't assign Gingrich credit for the 1990's surplus as he was against the largest reason there was a surplus -- Clinton increasing taxes. Also remember, not a single Republican voted for them -- but that doesn't stop them from taking credit for the results 20 years later.
We aren't going to agree on Clinton's legacy...despite glaring evidence that our performance was stronger (but then again you guys are the ones claiming the stimulus had zero positive impact)...It's pointless to continue this circular argument about it...it isn't even on topic.
What is relevant however is the deficit reduction we are seeing so far.
"Since the start of fiscal year 2011, President Barack Obama has signed into law approximately $2.4 trillion of deficit reduction for the years 2013 through 2022. Nearly three-quarters of that deficit reduction is in the form of spending cuts, while the remaining one-quarter comes from revenue increases. (see Figure 1) As a result of that deficit reduction, the projected rise in debt levels from today through 2022 has decreased by nearly 10 full percentage points of gross domestic product. In fact, under today’s policies, debt levels in 2022—as a share of GDP—will be only slightly higher than they are expected to be by the end of next year. That doesn’t mean there is no more work to be done, but it does show we’ve come a long way already."
You do understand that surpluses in payroll taxes are issued special-securities and from the Treasury and and those go into the intergovernmental debt and are to be paid back with interest in times where SS runs a deficit.
So you still want to claim Clinton left Bush with a surplus? You, know, because that would be silly knowing you owe that money and even more back when it's called to be reimbursed.
You had two years where there was a "surplus." One of those years was <$2 billion and the other was slightly greater than $86 billion. The last year that Clinton was responsible for there was a $32.4 billion dollar deficit.
Sounds great but in reality it was false hope that your economy would grow forever like that. It was, and still is, a lie that Clinton left Bush with a surplus. Well, unless you thought your social safety net is free and the money funding it just falls out of the sky.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnewberry22
So we are supposed to buck common knowledge and objective facts in light of your uncited figures?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
