Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
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.
Play all the word games you want with the word "surplus."
Are we better off today as Bush leaves then we were when Clinton left?
The right has been attacking the surplus with whatever arguments they can simply to make Bush look better.
As usual factcheck.org needs to be factchecked. Clinton and factcheck and liberals in general like to play this game of fuzzy liberal math when calculating Clinton's budget years by not including Intergovernmental Holdings. This of course makes it appear that Clinton had surpluses in /98, /99 and /00, when in fact when Intergovernmental Holdings are included in the calculation of the total expenditures by the government each of those three years had deficits and the national debt increased as such:
As usual factcheck.org needs to be factchecked. Clinton and factcheck and liberals in general like to play this game of fuzzy liberal math when calculating Clinton's budget years by not including Intergovernmental Holdings. This of course makes it appear that Clinton had surpluses in /98, /99 and /00, when in fact when Intergovernmental Holdings are included in the calculation of the total expenditures by the government each of those three years had deficits and the national debt increased as such:
1993 - $4.411T
1994 - $4.693T
1995 - $4.974T
1996 - $5.225T
1997 - $5.413T
1998 - $5.526T
1999 - $5.656T
2000 - $5.674T
2001 - $5.807T
If there were any surpluses the National Debt would have decreased, but as is clearly seen it increased every year.
Who's the little faggot in your avatar boy?
Doing nothing? But they took all that time coming up with that nice report that they flew down to Crawford Texas titled, "Bin Ladin Determined To Attack Inside the US Using Planes", and bush told the CIA agent, "ok, you covered your ass"
And why did Chaney have control of NORAD on 9-11? That's never happened before.
You do know Chaney & Rumsfeld worked for Nixon, right? In other words, they are the same people who lied us into Viet Nam.
Don't you see you've been lied to? And to call Ray the dummy? That's
OK genius - explain to me how the National debt went up when there were supposed to be anual surpluses.You have no idea how it works do you.
The national debt is accumlative. Different thing from the surpluses they are talking about.
As usual factcheck.org needs to be factchecked. Clinton and factcheck and liberals in general like to play this game of fuzzy liberal math when calculating Clinton's budget years by not including Intergovernmental Holdings. This of course makes it appear that Clinton had surpluses in /98, /99 and /00, when in fact when Intergovernmental Holdings are included in the calculation of the total expenditures by the government each of those three years had deficits and the national debt increased as such:
1993 - $4.411T
1994 - $4.693T
1995 - $4.974T
1996 - $5.225T
1997 - $5.413T
1998 - $5.526T
1999 - $5.656T
2000 - $5.674T
2001 - $5.807T
If there were any surpluses the National Debt would have decreased, but as is clearly seen it increased every year.
C'mon genius, quit dodging and answer my question:The Tom Delay congress kept giving Bush "descretionary" or "supplimental" spending for Iraq. BILLIONS that were not counted against Bush's record deficit.
Can you imagine if they judged Bush they way you are judging Clinton?
So how big is Bush's deficit REALLY?
OK genius - explain to me how the National debt went up when there were supposed to be anual surpluses.
(This oughta be good...)
damn, read a history book, bobo. it's hard enough to take you seriously and then you pull this crap out of your ass.
What was wrong with what I wrote?
Rumsfeld, a congressman from Ill., helps Nixon win and becomes director of the Office of Economic Opportunity,
frontline: rumsfeld's war: paths to power: nixon administration | PBS
Young Cheney flubs his first job interview with Rumsfeld, but quickly impresses him with a memo on how to run and staff OEO. He becomes Rumsfeld's low-key personal assistant.
Rumsfeld realizes there is no strategy to win Vietnam. He secretly pushes to end the war and tries to get involved with post-war planning. Nixon tells him to concentrate elsewhere.
C'mon genius, quit dodging and answer my question:
How did the National Debt continue to climb if there were surpluses?
The National Debt is the accumulation of annual deficits minus any annual surpluses. If there is a surplus the National Debt goes down. Please notice that the National Debt never went down during Clinton's presidency, therefore there was a deficit every year.They are ANNUAL surpluses ijit. IOW, the govt collected more in taxes than they spent.
The national debt is tied to imports and exports and balance of payments you fucking moron...and it culmunitive. IOW, the govt has nothing to do with it (unless they tariff the hell out of imports, but if you do that, expect the same for your exports).
Please do not broach me on this subject again, unless you have even done a smidgen of research. Hell, I'm crap at finance and even I know this...
Every year Clinton is given a budget. It has nothing to do with the national debt. He balanced his budget. He didn't go over.
All we pay on the national debt is interest on the interest. It is the biggest scam. Utube Freedom to Fascism and see how the rich bankers stole America from us in 1913 with the start of the Federal Reserve.
And even if Clinton found future surplus', Bush found a way to squander/steal/loot that money from the treasury.
And you all know it.
I should not have to explain this, and your question was retarded. Kindergarden.
By the way - you are talking about the trade deficit not the government expenditure deficit.They are ANNUAL surpluses ijit. IOW, the govt collected more in taxes than they spent.
The national debt is tied to imports and exports and balance of payments you fucking moron...and it culmunitive. IOW, the govt has nothing to do with it (unless they tariff the hell out of imports, but if you do that, expect the same for your exports).
Please do not broach me on this subject again, unless you have even done a smidgen of research. Hell, I'm crap at finance and even I know this...
I explained this sleight of hand already:Every year Clinton is given a budget. It has nothing to do with the national debt. He balanced his budget. He didn't go over.
All we pay on the national debt is interest on the interest. It is the biggest scam. Utube Freedom to Fascism and see how the rich bankers stole America from us in 1913 with the start of the Federal Reserve.
And even if Clinton found future surplus', Bush found a way to squander/steal/loot that money from the treasury.
And you all know it.
I should not have to explain this, and your question was retarded. Kindergarden.
As usual factcheck.org needs to be factchecked. Clinton and factcheck and liberals in general like to play this game of fuzzy liberal math when calculating Clinton's budget years by not including Intergovernmental Holdings. This of course makes it appear that Clinton had surpluses in /98, /99 and /00, when in fact when Intergovernmental Holdings are included in the calculation of the total expenditures by the government each of those three years had deficits and the national debt increased as such:
1993 - $4.411T
1994 - $4.693T
1995 - $4.974T
1996 - $5.225T
1997 - $5.413T
1998 - $5.526T
1999 - $5.656T
2000 - $5.674T
2001 - $5.807T
If there were any surpluses the National Debt would have decreased, but as is clearly seen it increased every year.
Please understand that there are 2 types of governmental spending.. interdepartmental spending is not covered on the released budget that Clinton was mythologically attributing his "surplus" to, all the while spending more than what was reported in the public budget
CLINTON HAD NO FUCKING SURPLUS... we were up in total debt close to 2 trillion during Clinton's time in control
And nobody is denying that Bush II went away from fiscal conservatism and piled on even more debt..... but he is not trying to lie thru his teeth and say that there is some mythical surplus
The National Debt is the accumulation of annual deficits minus any annual surpluses. If there is a surplus the National Debt goes down. Please notice that the National Debt never went down during Clinton's presidency, therefore there was a deficit every year.
