Context is Everything

Last edited:
Whine whine whine all the time. I wonder how many looked into context as a budget surplus went down the tubes not so long ago. And sometimes you have to start someplace, that would seem like the right thing to do in this context.


"If all economists were laid end to end, they would not reach a conclusion." George Bernard Shaw

Idiot

FOR THE UMPTEEN BILLIONTH TIME... THERE WAS NO FUCKING SURPLUS... THIS HAS BEEN PROVEN OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN

I've never seen it proved once. The fact there was a surplus under Clinton was proved by refenence to US Govt sources in this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...ng-the-clinton-administration-was-a-myth.html

DD doesn't like to admit that because, you know, that would mean acknowledging that something great happened while Clinton was president. That would be a no-no.

There was more tax money in then was spent. However not one penny was used to pay down the Deficit. So for 2 years we took in more tax money then the Government spent but the deficit still GREW. Ohh and the REPUBLICANS created those budgets NOT Clinton.

There was no surplus except for the fact the Government kept money they did not budget for. And did not use it wisely to boot. THAT was what prompted the TAX CUTS. Leaving with the TAXPAYERS their money the Government did not NEED.
 
Idiot

FOR THE UMPTEEN BILLIONTH TIME... THERE WAS NO FUCKING SURPLUS... THIS HAS BEEN PROVEN OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN

I've never seen it proved once. The fact there was a surplus under Clinton was proved by refenence to US Govt sources in this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...ng-the-clinton-administration-was-a-myth.html

DD doesn't like to admit that because, you know, that would mean acknowledging that something great happened while Clinton was president. That would be a no-no.

There was more tax money in then was spent. However not one penny was used to pay down the Deficit. So for 2 years we took in more tax money then the Government spent but the deficit still GREW. Ohh and the REPUBLICANS created those budgets NOT Clinton.

There was no surplus except for the fact the Government kept money they did not budget for. And did not use it wisely to boot. THAT was what prompted the TAX CUTS. Leaving with the TAXPAYERS their money the Government did not NEED.

US Govt data shows the contrary, as demonstrated in this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...ng-the-clinton-administration-was-a-myth.html
 
I showed you the US government date your ignorant motherfucker... OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN

The motherfucking federal budget and the motherfucking reporting of the motherfucking government financials is done during the motherfucking FISCAL YEAR

You are in intellectually dishonest piece of partisan apeshit.... you do not get to twist things away from reality

the facts are there, posted, and in your motherfucking face

YOU LOSE... YOU ARE FUCKING WRONG... it is PROVEN....

There was no fiscal year with any surplus... there was a deficit each and every motherfucking year
http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/75996-context-is-everything-2.html#post1203378
 
The FACTS:
The federal budget and reporting numbers are done in the FISCAL year (10/1 - 9/30 EVERY YEAR.. though the fiscal year dates did change for the year 1977 and for all years after that... The first fiscal year for the U.S. Government started Jan. 1, 1789. Congress changed the beginning of the fiscal year from Jan. 1 to Jul. 1 in 1842, and finally from Jul. 1 to Oct. 1 in 1977 where it remains today.)...
All monetary numbers revolving on yearly governmental spending, debt, interest, etc are calculated within the FISCAL YEAR
The government does not run it's budget in the calendar year
There has been no fiscal year, WHATSOEVER, since 1957 where the yearly economic numbers for the government of the United States have shown a surplus AT ALL

there is no debate that all governmental financials and budgets run in the FISCAL YEAR... except by those trying to portray a myth as truth

What this twit is trying to do is twist around numbers... kind like if someone would try and convince the IRS that they made less in 2007 because they CHOOSE to report or calculate their income from the fiscal year 2007 and not the required dates of the calendar year that the IRS requires.... the rules are the rules for the IRS, just as the rules are the rules for the federal budget and reporting being in the FISCAL year

The facts are there....

09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 * 1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 * 1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 * 1,377,210,000,000.00
09/30/1982 * 1,142,034,000,000.00
09/30/1981 * 997,855,000,000.00
09/30/1980 * 907,701,000,000.00
09/30/1979 * 826,519,000,000.00
09/30/1978 * 771,544,000,000.00
09/30/1977 * 698,840,000,000.00
06/30/1976 * 620,433,000,000.00
06/30/1975 * 533,189,000,000.00
06/30/1974 475,059,815,731.55
06/30/1973 458,141,605,312.09
06/30/1972 427,260,460,940.50
06/30/1971 398,129,744,455.54
06/30/1970 370,918,706,949.93
06/30/1969 353,720,253,841.41
06/30/1968 347,578,406,425.88
06/30/1967 326,220,937,794.54
06/30/1966 319,907,087,795.48
06/30/1965 317,273,898,983.64
06/30/1964 311,712,899,257.30
06/30/1963 305,859,632,996.41
06/30/1962 298,200,822,720.87
06/30/1961 288,970,938,610.05
06/30/1960 286,330,760,848.37
06/30/1959 284,705,907,078.22
06/30/1958 276,343,217,745.81
06/30/1957 270,527,171,896.43
06/30/1956 272,750,813,649.32
06/30/1955 274,374,222,802.62
06/30/1954 271,259,599,108.46
06/30/1953 266,071,061,638.57
06/30/1952 259,105,178,785.43
06/29/1951 255,221,976,814.93
06/30/1950 257,357,352,351.04

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual

FACTS... not myths

Game, set, match, championship... and the proof to back it upThe FACTS:
The federal budget and reporting numbers are done in the FISCAL year (10/1 - 9/30 EVERY YEAR.. though the fiscal year dates did change for the year 1977 and for all years after that... The first fiscal year for the U.S. Government started Jan. 1, 1789. Congress changed the beginning of the fiscal year from Jan. 1 to Jul. 1 in 1842, and finally from Jul. 1 to Oct. 1 in 1977 where it remains today.)...
All monetary numbers revolving on yearly governmental spending, debt, interest, etc are calculated within the FISCAL YEAR
The government does not run it's budget in the calendar year
There has been no fiscal year, WHATSOEVER, since 1957 where the yearly economic numbers for the government of the United States have shown a surplus AT ALL

there is no debate that all governmental financials and budgets run in the FISCAL YEAR... except by those trying to portray a myth as truth

What this twit is trying to do is twist around numbers... kind like if someone would try and convince the IRS that they made less in 2007 because they CHOOSE to report or calculate their income from the fiscal year 2007 and not the required dates of the calendar year that the IRS requires.... the rules are the rules for the IRS, just as the rules are the rules for the federal budget and reporting being in the FISCAL year

The facts are there....

09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 * 1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 * 1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 * 1,377,210,000,000.00
09/30/1982 * 1,142,034,000,000.00
09/30/1981 * 997,855,000,000.00
09/30/1980 * 907,701,000,000.00
09/30/1979 * 826,519,000,000.00
09/30/1978 * 771,544,000,000.00
09/30/1977 * 698,840,000,000.00
06/30/1976 * 620,433,000,000.00
06/30/1975 * 533,189,000,000.00
06/30/1974 475,059,815,731.55
06/30/1973 458,141,605,312.09
06/30/1972 427,260,460,940.50
06/30/1971 398,129,744,455.54
06/30/1970 370,918,706,949.93
06/30/1969 353,720,253,841.41
06/30/1968 347,578,406,425.88
06/30/1967 326,220,937,794.54
06/30/1966 319,907,087,795.48
06/30/1965 317,273,898,983.64
06/30/1964 311,712,899,257.30
06/30/1963 305,859,632,996.41
06/30/1962 298,200,822,720.87
06/30/1961 288,970,938,610.05
06/30/1960 286,330,760,848.37
06/30/1959 284,705,907,078.22
06/30/1958 276,343,217,745.81
06/30/1957 270,527,171,896.43
06/30/1956 272,750,813,649.32
06/30/1955 274,374,222,802.62
06/30/1954 271,259,599,108.46
06/30/1953 266,071,061,638.57
06/30/1952 259,105,178,785.43
06/29/1951 255,221,976,814.93
06/30/1950 257,357,352,351.04

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual

FACTS... not myths

Game, set, match, championship... and the proof to back it up
 
This is exactly why I have the ignore list and it gets turned back on....

You cannot present facts to an ignorant partisan with an obvious agenda

good riddance you ignorant fuck... I can only hope and pray that nobody quotes your ignorant shit so I no longer have to see it
 
US Govt data and facts proving the surplus during Clinton's term contrary to DD's claim are set forth in the thread I cited, if anyone is interested.

He'll throw his childish tantrum again; but if someone is interested in the topic, post your comments in that thread and I'll address them so we don't have to repost the same stuff every week.
 
Last edited:
US Govt data and facts proving the surplus during Clinton's term contrary to DD's claim are set forth in the thread I cited, if anyone is interested.

He'll throw his childish tantrum again; but if someone is interested in the topic, post your comments in that thread and I'll address them so we don't have to repost the same stuff every week.

He just posted the numbers dumb ass. You go on making ignorant claims all you want, most of us know better.
 
US Govt data and facts proving the surplus during Clinton's term contrary to DD's claim are set forth in the thread I cited, if anyone is interested.

He'll throw his childish tantrum again; but if someone is interested in the topic, post your comments in that thread and I'll address them so we don't have to repost the same stuff every week.

He just posted the numbers dumb ass. You go on making ignorant claims all you want, most of us know better.

Walter, how's the job at Walmart coming?
 
The U.S. Treasury website that tracks the U.S. National Debt proves there was never a surplus because the national debt increased every year. This article simply explains why/how people claim otherwise for political reasons.

For those that want a more detailed explanation of why a claimed $236 billion surplus resulted in the national debt increasing by $18 billion, please read this follow-up article.



Time and time again, anyone reading the mainstream news or reading articles on the Internet will read the claim that President Clinton not only balanced the budget, but had a surplus. This is then used as an argument to further highlight the fiscal irresponsibility of the federal government under the Bush administration.

The claim is generally made that Clinton had a surplus of $69 billion in FY1998, $123 billion in FY1999 and $230 billion in FY2000 . In that same link, Clinton claimed that the national debt had been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years, presumably FY1998, FY1999, and FY2000--though, interestingly, $360 billion is not the sum of the alleged surpluses of the three years in question ($69B + $123B + $230B = $422B, not $360B).

While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it's curious to see Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.

Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury (see note about this link below) website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:

Fiscal Year -Year Ending- National Debt- Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion

As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.


The Myth of the Clinton Surplus
 
~ sigh ~ I guess we are going to repost it again. Oh well, its not my bandwidth.

The Congressional Budget Office is a non-partisan office that keeps budget records for Congress. You can see CBO reports on historical actual budget information in its website here:

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9957/...bles09-web.XLS

Table 1 reports summary budget information, including two measures of the deficit (or surplus). "Total" includes SS surplus tax receipts (and has commonly been used by the Bush administration to measure deficits), and "on-budget" does not (and is therefore the more accurate measure, IMO, since SS taxes are not supposed to be used for general Govt expenditures). Because SS taxes have produced a surplus (about $200 billion) the last couple years, the on-budget surplus is lower than the "total" surplus (and conversely, the on-budget deficit is greater than the "total" deficit).

Follow the table down to the year "2000" and in the third column you can find that the "on-budget" surplus for 2000 was $86.4 billion. In 1999, there was a $1.9 billion surplus. You can see in the next column that the "total" surplus figures are even larger.

The U.S. budget does not include every expenditure -- for example, it has (prior to Obama taking office excludes "non-permanent" expenditures like the Iraq war. By excluding such things, the Bush administration was able to make the deficits look less severe. In 2006 and 2007, for example, the Bush administration claimed deficits of significantly less than $500 billion, while the US Govt actually had to borrow more than $500 billion in each of those years.

So it can be argued that looking at actual borrowing of the US Govt gives another picture whether there is a "deficit" (though few if any use this test when talking about the budget in the media).

Did Clinton have a surplus using this measurement?

You can access the total debt of the US Govt from the Treasury Department's website, here:

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Total debt of the US Government:

12/31/1999 $5,776,091,314,225.33
12/29/2000 $5,662,216,013,697.37

The total debt of the US Govt decreased by $114 billion during 2000, Clinton's last year in office.

Showing a surplus even using the "measure the debt" method.

Folks can rely on US Govt data for this evidence, or Yurt's cite to Craig Steiner, whoever the hell he is.
 
Last edited:
Context to leftists is only something to be ignored, twisted, or abused, as it suits their agendas.

Of course the the righies would never do this. What a stupid fucking partisan remark.

I wish god was on our side like he is on yours.:lol::cuckoo:
 
The U.S. Treasury website that tracks the U.S. National Debt proves there was never a surplus because the national debt increased every year. This article simply explains why/how people claim otherwise for political reasons.

For those that want a more detailed explanation of why a claimed $236 billion surplus resulted in the national debt increasing by $18 billion, please read this follow-up article.



Time and time again, anyone reading the mainstream news or reading articles on the Internet will read the claim that President Clinton not only balanced the budget, but had a surplus. This is then used as an argument to further highlight the fiscal irresponsibility of the federal government under the Bush administration.

The claim is generally made that Clinton had a surplus of $69 billion in FY1998, $123 billion in FY1999 and $230 billion in FY2000 . In that same link, Clinton claimed that the national debt had been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years, presumably FY1998, FY1999, and FY2000--though, interestingly, $360 billion is not the sum of the alleged surpluses of the three years in question ($69B + $123B + $230B = $422B, not $360B).

While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it's curious to see Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.

Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury (see note about this link below) website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:

Fiscal Year -Year Ending- National Debt- Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion

As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.


The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

So using this test, how big was the deficit that Bush left Obama?
 

Forum List

Back
Top