Only 20 percent claim to be Republican

[edthecynic]

I have busted this surplus myth over and over and over and over and over and over and over again... try to understand total government spending, people... and when you understand it you can easily see that not one single year in the past 50+ has there been a surplus

And before we have yet another idiot come in here and try to use something other than the fiscal year... please remember that the fiscal year is the official tracking for government financial accounting

The problem with fiscal years is the run over from one administration to another. So Bush's wasteful spending kills the Clinton surplus.

Now CON$ ignore the fiscal year when they blame Bush's debt on Obama. As CON$ have been blaming the trillion dollar debt of his last fiscal year that ended Sept 30 2009 on Obama, not Bush. Suddenly with Obama, his fiscal year began 2 months BEFORE Obama's election according to CON$. Bush's last fiscal budget is Obama's debt.

Honest people count the economic years from Jan 1 to Dec 31 because it involves only one administration. CON$ rationalize what ever starting point for a year that suits their perverted purposes.

March 2, 2009
RUSH: To say that Obama has been in office only one month is not accurate from an effect on the world and an effect on the country standpoint. Barack Obama has been the controlling political authority on the economy for six months.

 

[NYcarbineer]

OK, even counting 2001 as part of 2000, a debt reduction of $50 billion is STILL a SURPLUS of $50 billion, so Dupe is STILL full of it.

OK...then why won't the Democrats do something about tort reform and malpractice insurance? That'll save us 50 billion dollars too. Why don't the Democrats want to save money? Is it because they would end up screwing their lawyer lobbyist puppetmasters?

Where does that 50 billion figure come from and how does it break down?

 

[DiamondDave]

I have busted this surplus myth over and over and over and over and over and over and over again... try to understand total government spending, people... and when you understand it you can easily see that not one single year in the past 50+ has there been a surplus

And before we have yet another idiot come in here and try to use something other than the fiscal year... please remember that the fiscal year is the official tracking for government financial accounting

The problem with fiscal years is the run over from one administration to another. So Bush's wasteful spending kills the Clinton surplus.

Now CON$ ignore the fiscal year when they blame Bush's debt on Obama. As CON$ have been blaming the trillion dollar debt of his last fiscal year that ended Sept 30 2009 on Obama, not Bush. Suddenly with Obama, his fiscal year began 2 months BEFORE Obama's election according to CON$. Bush's last fiscal budget is Obama's debt.

Honest people count the economic years from Jan 1 to Dec 31 because it involves only one administration. CON$ rationalize what ever starting point for a year that suits their perverted purposes.

March 2, 2009
RUSH: To say that Obama has been in office only one month is not accurate from an effect on the world and an effect on the country standpoint. Barack Obama has been the controlling political authority on the economy for six months.

Government spending/accounting/budgeting is tracked by fiscal year.. period... even if it does get wishy-washy in that transitional year with a new prez, etc

Honest people do not count the calendar year for governmental spending... DISHONEST people do...

The base budget was still Bush and the 2008 congress'... additional spending appropriated by Obama and the 2009 congress are theirs... it is not a hard concept to grasp.. unless, that is, you are trying to play funny with numbers

FACT: NO FEDERAL SURPLUS since 1957

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why is the 20% number that surprising, considering things like this:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-tea-party-folks-dont-back-republicans-6.html

 

[edthecynic]

I have busted this surplus myth over and over and over and over and over and over and over again... try to understand total government spending, people... and when you understand it you can easily see that not one single year in the past 50+ has there been a surplus

And before we have yet another idiot come in here and try to use something other than the fiscal year... please remember that the fiscal year is the official tracking for government financial accounting

The problem with fiscal years is the run over from one administration to another. So Bush's wasteful spending kills the Clinton surplus.

Now CON$ ignore the fiscal year when they blame Bush's debt on Obama. As CON$ have been blaming the trillion dollar debt of his last fiscal year that ended Sept 30 2009 on Obama, not Bush. Suddenly with Obama, his fiscal year began 2 months BEFORE Obama's election according to CON$. Bush's last fiscal budget is Obama's debt.

Honest people count the economic years from Jan 1 to Dec 31 because it involves only one administration. CON$ rationalize what ever starting point for a year that suits their perverted purposes.

March 2, 2009
RUSH: To say that Obama has been in office only one month is not accurate from an effect on the world and an effect on the country standpoint. Barack Obama has been the controlling political authority on the economy for six months.

Government spending/accounting/budgeting is tracked by fiscal year.. period... even if it does get wishy-washy in that transitional year with a new prez, etc

Honest people do not count the calendar year for governmental spending... DISHONEST people do...

The base budget was still Bush and the 2008 congress'... additional spending appropriated by Obama and the 2009 congress are theirs... it is not a hard concept to grasp.. unless, that is, you are trying to play funny with numbers

FACT: NO FEDERAL SURPLUS since 1957

Fact: The year 2000 had a surplus. Every year has a SS/FICA tax surplus. No one is talking about a fiscal year.

 

[saveliberty]

Bottom line, the percentages don't matter. Votes count. We have election commericals here already. They are ALL focusing on spending issues. The Dems own the bailout.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

That's just your worthless opinion. A surplus is still a surplus.

As far as Bush giving money back to the people, it wasn't the people who produced the surplus. The tax surplus came from SS/FICA payroll taxes collected from wage earners making less than $100,000 and businesses who employ Americans.

You see ed...you fucking consumate dumbass.....once again your libtard mouth engaged before your 30 second MoveOn.org sound bite brain considered the veracity of your baseless claims.

Anyone with a 5th grade education knows that CONGRESS BORROWS the entire SS surplus and places it in the general fund and then issues an IOU to the SSA....this part of the national debt is called "Intra-governmental holdings". When Bush gave money back to Americans in 2001 he gave a specific amount to single people and a specific amount to married couples with children.

YOU LIED AGAIN!!!!!!!!

You were busted again!!!

When will you learn.

You're PROJECTING again!

Bush borrowed from the SS/FICA tax SURPLUS to PAY for his tax cuts. That is REDISTRIBUTION of wealth collected from wage earners under $100,000 and given mostly to incomes over $100,000 and Capital gains Tycoons who did not contribute one penny to the SS surplus. You're a LIBERAL Socialist redistributionist!!!!

IT'S NOT THEIR MONEY!!!

The SS surplus should have been returned only to those who paid into the surplus.

You are just toooooooo brainwashed by GOP Hate-Run media to admit the truth.

[L]iberals can't win in an argument against anybody. All they can do is discredit and insult and try to literally destroy their enemies because ideologically they can't win.
Rush Limbaugh

Christ almighty...what a fucking dumb ass!!!!


Lord .... I apologize for saying edthecynic is a dumbass...even though he is....and for the starving pygmies in New Guinea.

 

[Oddball]

He's not even a cynic....He's a party man lemming hack-in-the-box follower.

 

[Zona]

Why is the 20% number that surprising, considering things like this:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...-tea-party-folks-dont-back-republicans-6.html

Good point.

 

[Oddball]

Anyway you cut it, the Grand Old Party is now just the "Old Party"

They have driven themselves away from the mainstream in order to apease the right wing conservative element. While this assures them a solid 25% of the vote, it also repels anyone with a moderate political position.

The republican "Big Tent" gets smaller and smaller each day as they drive out more and more members who don't comply with their strict doctrine

Which strict doctrine?

Those assholes wouldn't know a principled stand if it jumped at them.

 

[Zona]

Bottom line, the percentages don't matter. Votes count. We have election commericals here already. They are ALL focusing on spending issues. The Dems own the bailout.

I wonder if they will remember how close we came to having another depression....

 

[nodoginnafight]

Bottom line, the percentages don't matter. Votes count. We have election commericals here already. They are ALL focusing on spending issues. The Dems own the bailout.

I wonder if they will remember how close we came to having another depression....

Considering the billions of dollars that Americans have regained in retirement funds and investments, the GOP better PRAY unemployment figures stay high or what the Dems might just own is an even bigger majority.

 

[rightwinger]

Anyway you cut it, the Grand Old Party is now just the "Old Party"

They have driven themselves away from the mainstream in order to apease the right wing conservative element. While this assures them a solid 25% of the vote, it also repels anyone with a moderate political position.

The republican "Big Tent" gets smaller and smaller each day as they drive out more and more members who don't comply with their strict doctrine

Which strict doctrine?

Those assholes wouldn't know a principled stand if it jumped at them.

Strict doctrine like abortion, anti gay marriage, guns, tax cuts, healthcare. There is no middle ground allowed

 

[nodoginnafight]

Anyway you cut it, the Grand Old Party is now just the "Old Party"

They have driven themselves away from the mainstream in order to apease the right wing conservative element. While this assures them a solid 25% of the vote, it also repels anyone with a moderate political position.

The republican "Big Tent" gets smaller and smaller each day as they drive out more and more members who don't comply with their strict doctrine

Which strict doctrine?

Those assholes wouldn't know a principled stand if it jumped at them.

Strict doctrine like abortion, anti gay marriage, guns, tax cuts, healthcare. There is no middle ground allowed

the environment, international adventurism, ... the list goes on.
Fail to toe the line and you're a RINO - they've become so accustomed to slinging slurs they had to invent one for their own.

 

[Dr.House]

Bottom line, the percentages don't matter. Votes count. We have election commericals here already. They are ALL focusing on spending issues. The Dems own the bailout.

I wonder if they will remember how close we came to having another depression....

Considering the billions of dollars that Americans have regained in retirement funds and investments, the GOP better PRAY unemployment figures stay high or what the Dems might just own is an even bigger majority.

The stock market is NOT the economy...

If more and more houses are being forclosed, banks reporting that credit cards are defaulting, and businesses continue to layoff/outsource, Mr. & Mrs Average Joe American aren't going to be falling for the HopeChange bullshit a second time...

Hell, if you were smart, the fact that liberal NJ is ready to throw out a liberal democratic because of the ecomomy and bullshit politics would open your eyes wide... But we know your blinders won't allow you to see that, right?

Nobody is praying for more unemployment, doofus... They're praying they have enough money coming in after taxes to pay the fucking bills...

 

[rightwinger]

I wonder if they will remember how close we came to having another depression....

Considering the billions of dollars that Americans have regained in retirement funds and investments, the GOP better PRAY unemployment figures stay high or what the Dems might just own is an even bigger majority.

The stock market is NOT the economy...

If more and more houses are being forclosed, banks reporting that credit cards are defaulting, and businesses continue to layoff/outsource, Mr. & Mrs Average Joe American aren't going to be falling for the HopeChange bullshit a second time...

Hell, if you were smart, the fact that liberal NJ is ready to throw out a liberal democratic because of the ecomomy and bullshit politics would open your eyes wide... But we know your blinders won't allow you to see that, right?

Nobody is praying for more unemployment, doofus... They're praying they have enough money coming in after taxes to pay the fucking bills...

The Stock Market is not the economy. But to millions of Americans who saw their 401K retirement nestegg cut in half...it is.
Most middle class Americans have their money in their houses and their retirement plans, obscure economic metrics mean nothing to them. If they have a job, their house is going up in price and their retirement is safe....they are happy

 

[nodoginnafight]

If unemployment figures are 6.5 or lower and the market keeps growing to say about the 10,500-11,000 range - the folks who have invested their political future in economic failure will be the ones in the unemployment line.

Gotta have some ideas and some vision and someone who can sell them. Just screaming "the-sky-is-falling" ain't gonna cut it. As the numbers clearly reflect.

 

[Meister]

The problem with fiscal years is the run over from one administration to another. So Bush's wasteful spending kills the Clinton surplus.

Now CON$ ignore the fiscal year when they blame Bush's debt on Obama. As CON$ have been blaming the trillion dollar debt of his last fiscal year that ended Sept 30 2009 on Obama, not Bush. Suddenly with Obama, his fiscal year began 2 months BEFORE Obama's election according to CON$. Bush's last fiscal budget is Obama's debt.

Honest people count the economic years from Jan 1 to Dec 31 because it involves only one administration. CON$ rationalize what ever starting point for a year that suits their perverted purposes.

March 2, 2009
RUSH: To say that Obama has been in office only one month is not accurate from an effect on the world and an effect on the country standpoint. Barack Obama has been the controlling political authority on the economy for six months.

Government spending/accounting/budgeting is tracked by fiscal year.. period... even if it does get wishy-washy in that transitional year with a new prez, etc

Honest people do not count the calendar year for governmental spending... DISHONEST people do...

The base budget was still Bush and the 2008 congress'... additional spending appropriated by Obama and the 2009 congress are theirs... it is not a hard concept to grasp.. unless, that is, you are trying to play funny with numbers

FACT: NO FEDERAL SURPLUS since 1957

Fact: The year 2000 had a surplus. Every year has a SS/FICA tax surplus. No one is talking about a fiscal year.

No more than smoke and mirrors, Ed.

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

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




Understanding what happened requires understanding two concepts of what makes up the national debt. The national debt is made up of public debt and intergovernmental holdings. The public debt is debt held by the public, normally including things such as treasury bills, savings bonds, and other instruments the public can purchase from the government. Intergovernmental holdings, on the other hand, is when the government borrows money from itself--mostly borrowing money from social security.

Looking at the makeup of the national debt and the claimed surpluses for the last 4 Clinton fiscal years, we have the following table:


Fiscal
Year End
Date Claimed
Surplus Public
Debt Inter-gov
Holdings Total National
Debt
FY1997 09/30/1997 $3.789667T $1.623478T $5.413146T
FY1998 09/30/1998 $69.2B $3.733864T $55.8B $1.792328T $168.9B $5.526193T $113B
FY1999 09/30/1999 $122.7B $3.636104T $97.8B $2.020166T $227.8B $5.656270T $130.1B
FY2000 09/29/2000 $230.0B $3.405303T $230.8B $2.268874T $248.7B $5.674178T $17.9B
FY2001 09/28/2001 $3.339310T $66.0B $2.468153T $199.3B $5.807463T $133.3B



Notice that while the public debt went down in each of those four years, the intergovernmental holdings went up each year by a far greater amount--and, in turn, the total national debt (which is public debt + intergovernmental holdings) went up. Therein lies the discrepancy.

When it is claimed that Clinton paid down the national debt, that is patently false--as can be seen, the national debt went up every single year. What Clinton did do was pay down the public debt--notice that the claimed surplus is relatively close to the decrease in the public debt for those years. But he paid down the public debt by borrowing far more money in the form of intergovernmental holdings (mostly Social Security).

Update 3/31/2009: The following quote from an article at CBS confirms my explanation of the Myth of the Clinton Surplus, and the entire article essentially substantiates what I wrote.

"Over the past 25 years, the government has gotten used to the fact that Social Security is providing free money to make the rest of the deficit look smaller," said Andrew Biggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

 

[Oddball]

Them media created "balanced budget" and "surplus" myths just refuse to die.

 

[HUGGY]

The republicans haven't been a viable alternative since at least the days of Barry Goldwater.

In the vast desert of your opinion you do offer up a tiny shiny oasis on occasion.