The myth that a surplus during the Clinton administration was a myth.

[justabubba]

I can't imagine who you are referring to when you say "partisan asshole", but I've never denied if you look at total debt from a fiscal year basis, the year ending 9/30/00 increased 17 billion.

But "some folks and extreme partisan assholes refuse to acknowledge truth" which is that for the year ending 12/31/00, the total debt in fact decreased by $114 billion.

And of course every federal government agency says there was a budget surplus, as does most the media, unless you want to rely on a blog by a computer programmer for your position.

i am receptive to seeing your explanation for the increases in the federal deficit during the years clinton was claiming a budget surplus
it would seem, using basic math, that the national deficit would actually have declined over that period had there been an actual surplus
based on the fiscal year-end data, offered by dave and steiner and the federal government, there was no decline in the deficit. if the deficit increased it was only because a budget deficit - not a surplus - existed
what have i missed? i anticipate your explanation


and a brief tangent on another approach you have taken. 12/31/XX data is not meaningful for an organization which has a year end of 09/30/XX. the 12/31 data is referred to as interim data by those who analyze financial information; the analysts would find interim data to be much less reliable than year-end data. the federal government operates its fiscal year from 10/01 thru 09/30, thus causing 12/31 information to be questionable ... certainly more so than that provided for fiscal year end
when you compare apples to oranges the result is fruit salad. so let me ask you to explain the discrepancy of data using fiscal year end data ... for accurate comparison and because i am not in the mood for fruit salad

 

[sealybobo]

because the blogs are soooooooooooooo reliable...

who craig steiner is:


About Me & This Website

yep...sounds like an expert all right...

I don't give a shit about the guys interjections or writing... it is simply a place that can be referenced that sums up the numbers that are actually SEEN on the government page, which I linked numerous times... the numbers and calculations are taken DIRECTLY from the government data... no spinning, no leaving shit out, no nothing.. just the pure data

And the data PROVES the point.. CLINTON HAD NO SURPLUS, P-E-R-I-O-D

Only if you predefine "surplus" or "deficit" to only mean comparing whether the total debt increased or decreased for a year ending 9/30.

Which of course few except Diamond Dave and a computer programer's blog do.

But if we do use this test, how big was the "deficit" Obama inhereted?

Can you imagine how mad Clinton is? He did all that work to balance the budget and he forecasted decades worth of surplus' and Bush comes along and fucks it all up?

 

[DiamondDave]

I can't imagine who you are referring to when you say "partisan asshole", but I've never denied if you look at total debt from a fiscal year basis, the year ending 9/30/00 increased 17 billion.

But "some folks and extreme partisan assholes refuse to acknowledge truth" which is that for the year ending 12/31/00, the total debt in fact decreased by $114 billion.

And of course every federal government agency says there was a budget surplus, as does most the media, unless you want to rely on a blog by a computer programmer for your position.

i am receptive to seeing your explanation for the increases in the federal deficit during the years clinton was claiming a budget surplus
it would seem, using basic math, that the national deficit would actually have declined over that period had there been an actual surplus
based on the fiscal year-end data, offered by dave and steiner and the federal government, there was no decline in the deficit. if the deficit increased it was only because a budget deficit - not a surplus - existed
what have i missed? i anticipate your explanation


and a brief tangent on another approach you have taken. 12/31/XX data is not meaningful for an organization which has a year end of 09/30/XX. the 12/31 data is referred to as interim data by those who analyze financial information; the analysts would find interim data to be much less reliable than year-end data. the federal government operates its fiscal year from 10/01 thru 09/30, thus causing 12/31 information to be questionable ... certainly more so than that provided for fiscal year end
when you compare apples to oranges the result is fruit salad. so let me ask you to explain the discrepancy of data using fiscal year end data ... for accurate comparison and because i am not in the mood for fruit salad

The retard cannot understand that the government runs on the fiscal year.. and budgetary numbers in terms of how the 'year' went are also done in the fiscal year....

But no.. the ignorant twit cannot accept this fact.....

 

[Iriemon]

I can't imagine who you are referring to when you say "partisan asshole", but I've never denied if you look at total debt from a fiscal year basis, the year ending 9/30/00 increased 17 billion.

But "some folks and extreme partisan assholes refuse to acknowledge truth" which is that for the year ending 12/31/00, the total debt in fact decreased by $114 billion.

And of course every federal government agency says there was a budget surplus, as does most the media, unless you want to rely on a blog by a computer programmer for your position.

i am receptive to seeing your explanation for the increases in the federal deficit during the years clinton was claiming a budget surplus

Did you read through the thread? The Congressional Budget Office, or CBO is a bi-partisan Congressional office tasked with keeping budget records, including whether there is a surplus or deficit. The CBO is cited all the time by everyone for budget data. The stuff you hear today about Obama tripling the deficit this year comes from the CBO, for example. CBO records show without dispute there was a surplus in 2000 (and other years as well).

It was the CBO that said there were surpluses.

This was set out in the opening post. If the OP wasn't clear let me know and I'll explain it more clearly if I can.

it would seem, using basic math, that the national deficit would actually have declined over that period had there been an actual surplus

based on the fiscal year-end data, offered by dave and steiner and the federal government, there was no decline in the deficit. if the deficit increased it was only because a budget deficit - not a surplus - existed
what have i missed? i anticipate your explanation

What Dave and Steiner show you are not deficits, but the debt level.

A deficit is when expenditures exceed revenues in a given year. Clinton inhereted a $340 billion deficit from Bush1. The deficit decreased every year Clinton was president, until it became a surplus, which is when revenues exceed expenditures.

The deficit/surplus figures are published by the CBO. I gave the cite in the OP, I'll do it again here:

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10014/HistoricalMar09.xls

Table 1 has a column listing the "on-budget" and "total" surplus or deficit. These terms were defined in the OP. The numbers with a minus sign in front of them are deficits. You can see in 1999 and 2000, there was a surplus.

I personally put a lot more weight in the bi-partisan CBO than a blog by a computer programmer. But if you think that blog is a better source than the CBO; not much I can do about that.

and a brief tangent on another approach you have taken. 12/31/XX data is not meaningful for an organization which has a year end of 09/30/XX. the 12/31 data is referred to as interim data by those who analyze financial information; the analysts would find interim data to be much less reliable than year-end data. the federal government operates its fiscal year from 10/01 thru 09/30, thus causing 12/31 information to be questionable ... certainly more so than that provided for fiscal year end
when you compare apples to oranges the result is fruit salad. so let me ask you to explain the discrepancy of data using fiscal year end data ... for accurate comparison and because i am not in the mood for fruit salad

Treasury debt data is not referred to by any Govt agency, or the media in general, or just about anyone except Diamond Dave and the programmer's blog that I have seen, to officially define whether there is a deficit or surplus.

For example, I'm sure you've heard about Obama tripling the deficit, right? His deficit is projected to be around $1.8 trillion, and that would mean the deficit for 2008 would have to be around $600 billion, right?

But if we use the Treasury debt data as you've described, the "deficit" in 2008 was over one trillion dollars. In that case, everyone would be wrong to claim that Obama is tripling the deficit. But no one uses debt data to measure budget deficits or surpluses.

That is probably because the debt information measures borrowing, not spending and revenues, and the debt data may not necessarily reflect what the government spends or collects. For example, the Treasury borrowed over $1 trillion for the year ending 9/30/08, much of it to fund the bailout, but that doesn't mean the Govt had spent it all in that in that time frame to say it should be included in the calculation of a deficit.

But if you want to look at the debt, to see if the Govt is borrowing more money or less to gauge if it is operating with a "surplus" or "deficit" there is no particular reason why you would only have to look at a fiscal year ending 9/30. The Treasury is borrowing money all year long based on need. You could look at any year end date to measure whether the Govt had to borrow more or not in that time period if you want to use that as a gauge to measure the deficit or surplus.

What the debt data is showing is that the Govt was needing to borrow less and less money during Clinton's term. For the year ending 9/30/99, the Govt had to borrow and additional $130 billion compared to the previous year. For the year ending 9/30/00, it only had to borrow $17 billion more. This reflects that the Govt is spending less compared to revenues - ie deficits are shrinking if we use this as a measure. And for the year ending 12/31/00, just before Bush took office, the Govt actually paid down the debt by $114 billion, showing that during that time period, it was taking in more revenue than it was spending -- which under the test you described, shows a surplus during that time period.

So either way you look at it -- whether referring to budget data maintained by the CBO, or looking at whether for a given year the government had to borrow more money, there was a surplus during Clinton's term.

 

[Iriemon]

I don't give a shit about the guys interjections or writing... it is simply a place that can be referenced that sums up the numbers that are actually SEEN on the government page, which I linked numerous times... the numbers and calculations are taken DIRECTLY from the government data... no spinning, no leaving shit out, no nothing.. just the pure data

And the data PROVES the point.. CLINTON HAD NO SURPLUS, P-E-R-I-O-D

Only if you predefine "surplus" or "deficit" to only mean comparing whether the total debt increased or decreased for a year ending 9/30.

Which of course few except Diamond Dave and a computer programer's blog do.

But if we do use this test, how big was the "deficit" Obama inhereted?

Can you imagine how mad Clinton is? He did all that work to balance the budget and he forecasted decades worth of surplus' and Bush comes along and fucks it all up?

Dismayed was more how I felt.

 

[Iriemon]

I can't imagine who you are referring to when you say "partisan asshole", but I've never denied if you look at total debt from a fiscal year basis, the year ending 9/30/00 increased 17 billion.

But "some folks and extreme partisan assholes refuse to acknowledge truth" which is that for the year ending 12/31/00, the total debt in fact decreased by $114 billion.

And of course every federal government agency says there was a budget surplus, as does most the media, unless you want to rely on a blog by a computer programmer for your position.

i am receptive to seeing your explanation for the increases in the federal deficit during the years clinton was claiming a budget surplus
it would seem, using basic math, that the national deficit would actually have declined over that period had there been an actual surplus
based on the fiscal year-end data, offered by dave and steiner and the federal government, there was no decline in the deficit. if the deficit increased it was only because a budget deficit - not a surplus - existed
what have i missed? i anticipate your explanation


and a brief tangent on another approach you have taken. 12/31/XX data is not meaningful for an organization which has a year end of 09/30/XX. the 12/31 data is referred to as interim data by those who analyze financial information; the analysts would find interim data to be much less reliable than year-end data. the federal government operates its fiscal year from 10/01 thru 09/30, thus causing 12/31 information to be questionable ... certainly more so than that provided for fiscal year end
when you compare apples to oranges the result is fruit salad. so let me ask you to explain the discrepancy of data using fiscal year end data ... for accurate comparison and because i am not in the mood for fruit salad

The retard cannot understand that the government runs on the fiscal year.. and budgetary numbers in terms of how the 'year' went are also done in the fiscal year....

But no.. the ignorant twit cannot accept this fact.....

Dave, you didn't address my question. I'll give you another chance.

But if we do use Dave's test, how big was the "deficit" Obama inhereted? People say all the time that Obama is tripling the deficit this year. Diamond Dave, is that accurate based on your definition of a "deficit"?

You agree that Obama is not tripling the deficit right? In fact, according to you, Obama probably won't even double it, right?

 

[Toro]

Clinton ran an operating surplus.

I believe that the rise in the intergovernmental debt in Clinton's years was due to meeting increases in liabilities such as social security payments. Generally, governments do not include these liabilities in the operating budget because social security is supposed to be a self-funding program, which of course everyone knows that it is not. The government cannot do anything about these liabilities without reforming the programs.

This is debt that the government owes themselves, and does not necessarily represent actual Treasury bond issuance. For example, in the late-90s, Greenspan testified before Congress that he worried that the retirement of government bonds threatened to hamper the mechanics of monetary policy. Greenspan worried about this because the amount of Treasury bonds outstanding - the debt the government controls through the budgeting process - was falling.

Clinton deserves some credit for running a surplus but not entirely. The surplus was partly created by his tax increases but also because of the Tech bubble, which inflated capital gains tax revenues. Had the Tech bubble not occurred, Clinton would not have balanced the budget.

However one defines the operating budget deficit or surplus, it is undeniable that Clinton was a far, far better steward of the nation's books than either Reagan or W. Bush I started the improvements in the budget deficits by raising taxes, and was the most fiscally responsible Republican President since Eisenhower, for which he deserves credit. However, his party rebelled against him. The Republican party has become so depressingly dogmatic about taxes that it has abandoned fiscal responsibility. That's why they have no credibility when they rail against Obama's budgets.

 

[Walt]

But that is not the issue, but whether there was a budgetary surplus -- ie the government took in more revenues than it spent.

Iriemon, are you saying that I can get my check, pay HALF my bills, bills went unpaid and interest accured, but I have a surplus because I took in more than I spent?

Just trying to clarify this logic.

 

[Yurt]

cracks me up that people like iriemon go around saying how the government should simplify the tax code...then they turn around and overly complex clinton's "surplus"....

i haven't seen iriemon address 2001 and clinton at all. i wonder why.

 

[DiamondDave]

Clinton ran an operating surplus.

I believe that the rise in the intergovernmental debt in Clinton's years was due to meeting increases in liabilities such as social security payments. Generally, governments do not include these liabilities in the operating budget because social security is supposed to be a self-funding program, which of course everyone knows that it is not. The government cannot do anything about these liabilities without reforming the programs.

This is debt that the government owes themselves, and does not necessarily represent actual Treasury bond issuance. For example, in the late-90s, Greenspan testified before Congress that he worried that the retirement of government bonds threatened to hamper the mechanics of monetary policy. Greenspan worried about this because the amount of Treasury bonds outstanding - the debt the government controls through the budgeting process - was falling.

Clinton deserves some credit for running a surplus but not entirely. The surplus was partly created by his tax increases but also because of the Tech bubble, which inflated capital gains tax revenues. Had the Tech bubble not occurred, Clinton would not have balanced the budget.

However one defines the operating budget deficit or surplus, it is undeniable that Clinton was a far, far better steward of the nation's books than either Reagan or W. Bush I started the improvements in the budget deficits by raising taxes, and was the most fiscally responsible Republican President since Eisenhower, for which he deserves credit. However, his party rebelled against him. The Republican party has become so depressingly dogmatic about taxes that it has abandoned fiscal responsibility. That's why they have no credibility when they rail against Obama's budgets.

Toro... I usually respect you in financial talk... but I think you are a bit off on this one.,.. Intergovernmental spending is also where the government hides it's little extra spending habits... W did it and yes, Clinton did it to be able to claim this mythical 'surplus'

And We are not just talking about the by the book 'operating' budget, for we all know the government does much more in spending than the planned or operational budget

I can say I did really well last year, only borrowing 15K for a car, 25K for household stuff, 10K for personal needs, 5K for gas, 5K for utilities, on a 61K Salary... sounds like I was in the black.. until you find out I borrowed 10K from my mother to spend on lottery tickets, cosmetic surgery, and a few odds and ends... even though that it is from 'within the family', in actuality I still spent more than I took in... I did not run a surplus... this is the way Clinton hid his bullshit

 

[Toro]

Toro... I usually respect you in financial talk... but I think you are a bit off on this one.,.. Intergovernmental spending is also where the government hides it's little extra spending habits... W did it and yes, Clinton did it to be able to claim this mythical 'surplus'

And We are not just talking about the by the book 'operating' budget, for we all know the government does much more in spending than the planned or operational budget

I can say I did really well last year, only borrowing 15K for a car, 25K for household stuff, 10K for personal needs, 5K for gas, 5K for utilities, on a 61K Salary... sounds like I was in the black.. until you find out I borrowed 10K from my mother to spend on lottery tickets, cosmetic surgery, and a few odds and ends... even though that it is from 'within the family', in actuality I still spent more than I took in... I did not run a surplus... this is the way Clinton hid his bullshit

The amount of debt outstanding is not the same as the amount borrowed. The increase in intergovernmental debt in the last years under Clinton was due primarily to bookkeeping items, such as the crediting of social securities liabilities the government owes to itself. If the amount of government debt outstanding rose because Clinton was hiding spending, at least on a net basis, then we would see net borrowing at the Treasury rise.

The Treasury has all the data on bond issuance here.

U.S. Treasury - Office of Domestic Finance

Here is a screenshot from the Treasury that details the net issuance and redemption of Treasury securities by quarter for the last six years of the 1990s.

You can get this file down at the bottom of the page in the link for February 2000.

As you can see, the net cumulative balance for 1997, 1998 and 1999 was negative, meaning that Treasury bonds were being redeemed and canceled on a net basis. Had Clinton been hiding a deficit, then Treasury bond issuance would have been positive. But, as you can see, that was not the case. Treasury bonds were being retired because Clinton was running a surplus in the budget.

 

[Iriemon]

But that is not the issue, but whether there was a budgetary surplus -- ie the government took in more revenues than it spent.

Iriemon, are you saying that I can get my check, pay HALF my bills, bills went unpaid and interest accured, but I have a surplus because I took in more than I spent?

Just trying to clarify this logic.

That is not an accurate analogy.

If you get your checks, paid *all* your bills, and also paid down the principal on your mortgage a bit, that would analogous to what happened in 2000.

 

[Iriemon]

cracks me up that people like iriemon go around saying how the government should simplify the tax code...then they turn around and overly complex clinton's "surplus"....

Glad I amuse you. But how am I making the surplus overly complex? The CBO keeps budget data. Go to their website and look at historical data for 2000, and you will see they report a surplus.

Simple.

i haven't seen iriemon address 2001 and clinton at all. i wonder why.

Clinton wasn't president in 2001, but I haven't seen a question on it. Maybe I missed it. That's why. What is the issue with 2001?

 

[DiamondDave]

Toro... I usually respect you in financial talk... but I think you are a bit off on this one.,.. Intergovernmental spending is also where the government hides it's little extra spending habits... W did it and yes, Clinton did it to be able to claim this mythical 'surplus'

And We are not just talking about the by the book 'operating' budget, for we all know the government does much more in spending than the planned or operational budget

I can say I did really well last year, only borrowing 15K for a car, 25K for household stuff, 10K for personal needs, 5K for gas, 5K for utilities, on a 61K Salary... sounds like I was in the black.. until you find out I borrowed 10K from my mother to spend on lottery tickets, cosmetic surgery, and a few odds and ends... even though that it is from 'within the family', in actuality I still spent more than I took in... I did not run a surplus... this is the way Clinton hid his bullshit

The amount of debt outstanding is not the same as the amount borrowed. The increase in intergovernmental debt in the last years under Clinton was due primarily to bookkeeping items, such as the crediting of social securities liabilities the government owes to itself. If the amount of government debt outstanding rose because Clinton was hiding spending, at least on a net basis, then we would see net borrowing at the Treasury rise.

The Treasury has all the data on bond issuance here.

U.S. Treasury - Office of Domestic Finance

Here is a screenshot from the Treasury that details the net issuance and redemption of Treasury securities by quarter for the last six years of the 1990s.

You can get this file down at the bottom of the page in the link for February 2000.

As you can see, the net cumulative balance for 1997, 1998 and 1999 was negative, meaning that Treasury bonds were being redeemed and canceled on a net basis. Had Clinton been hiding a deficit, then Treasury bond issuance would have been positive. But, as you can see, that was not the case. Treasury bonds were being retired because Clinton was running a surplus in the budget.

Except for the fact there are more places to hide the sending than bonds.. I.E. the government taking funds from other places... Social Security being 1... Which is why he had the huge intergovernmental spending above the budget itself...

 

[Toro]

Except for the fact there are more places to hide the sending than bonds.. I.E. the government taking funds from other places... Social Security being 1... Which is why he had the huge intergovernmental spending above the budget itself...

OK, show us how this happened. Show us where the funds were drawn from. Show us from what government agencies actual monies were borrowed and diverted into the budgeting process. I would be interested in knowing.

Also, why would the government secretly borrow internally when it can tap the borrow in the bond market?

 

[garyd]

Irie boy the Social security Admin disagrees with you and says so on their web sight.

 

[Toro]

See, here's the problem I have with this argument.

I never knew anyone who denied that Clinton ran surpluses until I came here. Over the years, I have read many books and papers that have discussed the budget surplus, sometimes directly but often tangentially. The following are institutions and people who have acknowledged that Clinton ran surpluses, not deficits - economists at the US Treasury, the members of the Federal Open Market Committee, the Federal Reserve Banks, the IMF, the OECD, every Wall Street firm discussing funding needs of the US government that I have ever read, many academic economists at the most prestigious universities in the world as well as less prestigious institutions, Republican economists who served under President Bush like Greg Mankiw, and so on. And those who argue that Clinton did not run surpluses? Generally, people who really, really don't like Bill Clinton and/or the Democrats. This is not something I have ever read about in the mainstream discussion, or even heard about until I read it here.

 

[Chris]

See, here's the problem I have with this argument.

I never knew anyone who denied that Clinton ran surpluses until I came here. Over the years, I have read many books and papers that have discussed the budget surplus, sometimes directly but often tangentially. The following are institutions and people who have acknowledged that Clinton ran surpluses, not deficits - economists at the US Treasury, the members of the Federal Open Market Committee, the Federal Reserve Banks, the IMF, the OECD, every Wall Street firm discussing funding needs of the US government that I have ever read, many academic economists at the most prestigious universities in the world as well as less prestigious institutions, Republican economists who served under President Bush like Greg Mankiw, and so on. And those who argue that Clinton did not run surpluses? Generally, people who really, really don't like Bill Clinton and/or the Democrats. This is not something I have ever read about in the mainstream discussion, or even heard about until I read it here.

That's because the people here are idiots.

 

[Yurt]

See, here's the problem I have with this argument.

I never knew anyone who denied that Clinton ran surpluses until I came here. Over the years, I have read many books and papers that have discussed the budget surplus, sometimes directly but often tangentially. The following are institutions and people who have acknowledged that Clinton ran surpluses, not deficits - economists at the US Treasury, the members of the Federal Open Market Committee, the Federal Reserve Banks, the IMF, the OECD, every Wall Street firm discussing funding needs of the US government that I have ever read, many academic economists at the most prestigious universities in the world as well as less prestigious institutions, Republican economists who served under President Bush like Greg Mankiw, and so on. And those who argue that Clinton did not run surpluses? Generally, people who really, really don't like Bill Clinton and/or the Democrats. This is not something I have ever read about in the mainstream discussion, or even heard about until I read it here.

so the... a billion china men can't be wrong theory...

what is your opinion. you seem quite knowledgeable concerning economic issues...how did he have a surplus?

 

[Yurt]

See, here's the problem I have with this argument.

I never knew anyone who denied that Clinton ran surpluses until I came here. Over the years, I have read many books and papers that have discussed the budget surplus, sometimes directly but often tangentially. The following are institutions and people who have acknowledged that Clinton ran surpluses, not deficits - economists at the US Treasury, the members of the Federal Open Market Committee, the Federal Reserve Banks, the IMF, the OECD, every Wall Street firm discussing funding needs of the US government that I have ever read, many academic economists at the most prestigious universities in the world as well as less prestigious institutions, Republican economists who served under President Bush like Greg Mankiw, and so on. And those who argue that Clinton did not run surpluses? Generally, people who really, really don't like Bill Clinton and/or the Democrats. This is not something I have ever read about in the mainstream discussion, or even heard about until I read it here.

That's because the people here are idiots.

you do realize dumbass....that you're one of the "people" here