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

[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.

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?

We brought in more tax revenues than we spent.

I think the main reason was the tech bubble. Capital gains tax revenues soared in the final few years of the 90s, and I saw data on this once which showed that this capital gains tax was the reason why we had surpluses.

 

[manu1959]

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?

We brought in more tax revenues than we spent.

I think the main reason was the tech bubble. Capital gains tax revenues soared in the final few years of the 90s, and I saw data on this once which showed that this capital gains tax was the reason why we had surpluses.

agreed ... they were paying down the debt..... i think the nuance is the impression that when he left office that there was no more national debt.....that it it had been paid off....

 

[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?

We brought in more tax revenues than we spent.

I think the main reason was the tech bubble. Capital gains tax revenues soared in the final few years of the 90s, and I saw data on this once which showed that this capital gains tax was the reason why we had surpluses.

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?

We brought in more tax revenues than we spent.

I think the main reason was the tech bubble. Capital gains tax revenues soared in the final few years of the 90s, and I saw data on this once which showed that this capital gains tax was the reason why we had surpluses.

agreed ... they were paying down the debt..... i think the nuance is the impression that when he left office that there was no more national debt.....that it it had been paid off....

toro:

thanks. manu raised the the issue i was thinking. so a surplus is only bringing in more tax revenue than what is spent? how then does the deficit grow bigger in the same year? or did the deficit go down in 2000? what about the year 2001...was there a surplus? i'm talking about the fiscal year, to the year bush got sworn in, was still clinton's budget year.

 

[hipeter924]

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?

We brought in more tax revenues than we spent.

I think the main reason was the tech bubble. Capital gains tax revenues soared in the final few years of the 90s, and I saw data on this once which showed that this capital gains tax was the reason why we had surpluses.

agreed ... they were paying down the debt..... i think the nuance is the impression that when he left office that there was no more national debt.....that it it had been paid off....

----------------
Now playing: ABBA - Take a Chance on Me
via FoxyTunes

 

[manu1959]

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?

We brought in more tax revenues than we spent.

I think the main reason was the tech bubble. Capital gains tax revenues soared in the final few years of the 90s, and I saw data on this once which showed that this capital gains tax was the reason why we had surpluses.

We brought in more tax revenues than we spent.

I think the main reason was the tech bubble. Capital gains tax revenues soared in the final few years of the 90s, and I saw data on this once which showed that this capital gains tax was the reason why we had surpluses.

agreed ... they were paying down the debt..... i think the nuance is the impression that when he left office that there was no more national debt.....that it it had been paid off....

toro:

thanks. manu raised the the issue i was thinking. so a surplus is only bringing in more tax revenue than what is spent? how then does the deficit grow bigger in the same year? or did the deficit go down in 2000? what about the year 2001...was there a surplus? i'm talking about the fiscal year, to the year bush got sworn in, was still clinton's budget year.

i think if you go look earlier in this thread you will see to sets of numbers....fiscal year and calendar year......it is all there....

 

[DiamondDave]

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.

Toro.. a budget surplus is what was claimed and confirmed.. however, it does not take into account all spending by the govt and dipping into other cash pools... the taxes collected for SS are not something the government is supposed to use (except in case of emergency) for it's normal spending

So while the govt DID take in more, it borrowed from an area it was not supposed to, causing intergovernmental debt, because the SS fund is to be paid back...

As stated... it's like saying I spent within budget (spent less than I earned in my reported budget), but borrowed from my kid's college fund to pay for some tings off of my 'official' budget

As for WHY it would do such a thing... hmm.. many reasons... perpetrating a myth like we have now... for not borrowing and being accounted for the normal way.. etc

And as for the numbers.. it is there in the books for the SSA

And our outstanding debt, never, and I do mean never went down during Clinton's term.. the last time we had a smaller outstanding total debt was 1961 under Kennedy, though because of paying down the debt we actually did not run a surplus.. the last time we ran a true surplus (including budget and intergovernmental spending) was 1957

 

[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.

Toro.. a budget surplus is what was claimed and confirmed.. however, it does not take into account all spending by the govt and dipping into other cash pools... the taxes collected for SS are not something the government is supposed to use (except in case of emergency) for it's normal spending

So while the govt DID take in more, it borrowed from an area it was not supposed to, causing intergovernmental debt, because the SS fund is to be paid back...

As stated... it's like saying I spent within budget (spent less than I earned in my reported budget), but borrowed from my kid's college fund to pay for some tings off of my 'official' budget

As for WHY it would do such a thing... hmm.. many reasons... perpetrating a myth like we have now... for not borrowing and being accounted for the normal way.. etc

And as for the numbers.. it is there in the books for the SSA

And our outstanding debt, never, and I do mean never went down during Clinton's term.. the last time we had a smaller outstanding total debt was 1961 under Kennedy, though because of paying down the debt we actually did not run a surplus.. the last time we ran a true surplus (including budget and intergovernmental spending) was 1957

Our liabilities have not gone down, nor will they go down until we fix social security and medicare.

However, you have stated that the Clinton administration borrowed from social security - which would require that the the trust fund collapse non-redeemable government bonds and credit its accounts but not receive actual cash to disburse - to fund its deficits. Here are the accounts of social security. Please show me where this happened. I would truly be interested in seeing this. So far, I don't see any evidence of it, though I'd be more than happy to admit it is the case if you can show me.

Trust Fund Data

 

[Iriemon]

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

Doubt it.

 

[Iriemon]

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?

We brought in more tax revenues than we spent.

I think the main reason was the tech bubble. Capital gains tax revenues soared in the final few years of the 90s, and I saw data on this once which showed that this capital gains tax was the reason why we had surpluses.

We brought in more tax revenues than we spent.

I think the main reason was the tech bubble. Capital gains tax revenues soared in the final few years of the 90s, and I saw data on this once which showed that this capital gains tax was the reason why we had surpluses.

agreed ... they were paying down the debt..... i think the nuance is the impression that when he left office that there was no more national debt.....that it it had been paid off....

toro:

thanks. manu raised the the issue i was thinking. so a surplus is only bringing in more tax revenue than what is spent? how then does the deficit grow bigger in the same year? or did the deficit go down in 2000?

There was no deficit in 2000 according the Govt agency responsible for tracking budgets. Fiscal or otherwise. That is myth. Go to the Congressional Budget Office and check the budget records yourself.

what about the year 2001...was there a surplus? i'm talking about the fiscal year, to the year bush got sworn in, was still clinton's budget year.

I see.

Therefore 2009, the year Obama got sworn in, is Bush's year.

Good point to keep in mind.

 

[Iriemon]

We brought in more tax revenues than we spent.

I think the main reason was the tech bubble. Capital gains tax revenues soared in the final few years of the 90s, and I saw data on this once which showed that this capital gains tax was the reason why we had surpluses.

agreed ... they were paying down the debt..... i think the nuance is the impression that when he left office that there was no more national debt.....that it it had been paid off....

It does seem funny, but I've also seen many who had this misimpression, that the debt was paid off during Clinton's term and that was what was meant by surplus.

Most doen't understand budget operations, much less terminology. I think a lot of people came to that believe from Bush saying the surpluses were your money, as if the govt wasn't using it to pay down the $5 trillion debt at the time.

 

[Iriemon]

DD and others don't address this point, because they want to apply one set of rules against Clinton and another against Bush:

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?

If we use DD's measure, the "deficit" that bush left Clinton was $1 trillion for the year ending 9/30/08; $1.4 trillion for the year ending 12/31/08, and we don't even know what the Bush deficit will be for the year ending 9/30/09 (it's Bush's year, according to Steiner, Yurt and DD) until then.

But none of them ever pipe up to point this out in the threads where folks are saying how Obama will triple the deficit.

Why do you suppose that is?

 

[Iriemon]

And our outstanding debt, never, and I do mean never went down during Clinton's term.. the last time we had a smaller outstanding total debt was 1961 under Kennedy, though because of paying down the debt we actually did not run a surplus.. the last time we ran a true surplus (including budget and intergovernmental spending) was 1957

Is DD just obstinant or a flat out liar? I think he's both.

Total debt of the US Government, from the US Dept of the Treasury.

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

The outstanding debt went down $114 billion during the year ending 12/31/00. It is black and white, proved without dispute that the debt in fact when done during that period.

Last I checked, that was during the Clinton administration.

DD has been shown this multiple times. Yet here he flat says that it never went down.

Pathological.

 

[Toro]

He might be right, I don't know. I have just never seen it before and would like someone to walk me through how Clinton took money from other parts of the government. It seems counter to everything I have ever read before but perhaps I'm reading the wrong stuff. If someone had a link to a post walking through the intergovernmental cash flows, I'd be interested in seeing it.

 

[mash107]

Clinton ran a surplus, definetely. He delved in the Social Security a bit, but all Presidents do. Isn't it all the more reason to aim to run a surplus though? Inflation, the number one creator of poverty, was mostly kept in check, wasn't it? No reason for the government to create inflation, if there's not much debt to monetize. M2's dramatic expansion after 1995 fed its way into creating a stock market bubble, but didn't correlate to higher prices for consumers.

Inflation:

Of course, if limiting debt and spending is a good thing to do, the government will not hear any of it. Bush spent 5x more, in inflation adjusted dollars, than Clinton, and that weakened our economy to the point it is today. Obama, being the ultimate idiot he is, has decided to follow the policies of Bush rather than limiting spending and following the policies of Clinton.

 

[DiamondDave]

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.

Toro.. a budget surplus is what was claimed and confirmed.. however, it does not take into account all spending by the govt and dipping into other cash pools... the taxes collected for SS are not something the government is supposed to use (except in case of emergency) for it's normal spending

So while the govt DID take in more, it borrowed from an area it was not supposed to, causing intergovernmental debt, because the SS fund is to be paid back...

As stated... it's like saying I spent within budget (spent less than I earned in my reported budget), but borrowed from my kid's college fund to pay for some tings off of my 'official' budget

As for WHY it would do such a thing... hmm.. many reasons... perpetrating a myth like we have now... for not borrowing and being accounted for the normal way.. etc

And as for the numbers.. it is there in the books for the SSA

And our outstanding debt, never, and I do mean never went down during Clinton's term.. the last time we had a smaller outstanding total debt was 1961 under Kennedy, though because of paying down the debt we actually did not run a surplus.. the last time we ran a true surplus (including budget and intergovernmental spending) was 1957

Our liabilities have not gone down, nor will they go down until we fix social security and medicare.

However, you have stated that the Clinton administration borrowed from social security - which would require that the the trust fund collapse non-redeemable government bonds and credit its accounts but not receive actual cash to disburse - to fund its deficits. Here are the accounts of social security. Please show me where this happened. I would truly be interested in seeing this. So far, I don't see any evidence of it, though I'd be more than happy to admit it is the case if you can show me.

Trust Fund Data

Monthly treasury statements show it clearly.... about 250 BIL from 2000 alone that were a result of 'borrowing' from governmental trust funds including SS, Military Retirement fund and even of all things the unemployment fund... and more...

On the 'budget' is where Clinton reported and bragged about his mythical surplus.. it is the off budget expenditures, funded by the governmental trust funds, where the lie is caught.. and it is held within the intergovernmental spending records shown so many times before

It was a game of smoke and mirrors.. that blind partisans preach like gospel, and that many other overlook...

"When an actual budget surplus occurs, the annual excess funds are
then used to reduce debt held by the public."

Right from http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/feddebt/feddebt_ann2000.pdf.. .a blatant misdirection... because our total debt is not just the debt held by the people, but by the government as well... as stated, like borrowing from your kids college fund for your cosmetic surgery, and saying you were still on budget because your 'official' budget was less than your salary income

Social Security and other governmental trust funds are not part of the President's budget

http://fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0900.pdf

You look close enough and you find more and more (the more you look) funky ways the Prez (And NO, not just Clinton) hid crap and gave misleading numbers

And please not to the person above... It has been well documented that I NEVER claimed Bush to be better on spending or on reporting accurately... this is PURELY about the myth of the Clinton Surplus

 

[Yurt]

We brought in more tax revenues than we spent.

I think the main reason was the tech bubble. Capital gains tax revenues soared in the final few years of the 90s, and I saw data on this once which showed that this capital gains tax was the reason why we had surpluses.

toro:

thanks. manu raised the the issue i was thinking. so a surplus is only bringing in more tax revenue than what is spent? how then does the deficit grow bigger in the same year? or did the deficit go down in 2000?

There was no deficit in 2000 according the Govt agency responsible for tracking budgets. Fiscal or otherwise. That is myth. Go to the Congressional Budget Office and check the budget records yourself.

what about the year 2001...was there a surplus? i'm talking about the fiscal year, to the year bush got sworn in, was still clinton's budget year.

I see.

Therefore 2009, the year Obama got sworn in, is Bush's year.

Good point to keep in mind.

funny...you didn't answer the question, you just got all partisan. of course part of 2009 is bush's budget year, how that is a good point i have no idea, but i think you believe you just got some "gotcha" moment and are all giddy...

lame

 

[Iriemon]

toro:

thanks. manu raised the the issue i was thinking. so a surplus is only bringing in more tax revenue than what is spent? how then does the deficit grow bigger in the same year? or did the deficit go down in 2000?

There was no deficit in 2000 according the Govt agency responsible for tracking budgets. Fiscal or otherwise. That is myth. Go to the Congressional Budget Office and check the budget records yourself.

what about the year 2001...was there a surplus? i'm talking about the fiscal year, to the year bush got sworn in, was still clinton's budget year.

I see.

Therefore 2009, the year Obama got sworn in, is Bush's year.

Good point to keep in mind.

funny...you didn't answer the question, you just got all partisan. of course part of 2009 is bush's budget year, how that is a good point i have no idea, but i think you believe you just got some "gotcha" moment and are all giddy...

lame

Your question was answered earlier in the thread. there was a small deficit (depending upon how you measure it in 2001, largely caused by the tax rebates the Bush administration gave out that year.

So how's the Bush deficit going so far this year?

 

[Iriemon]

Clinton ran a surplus, definetely. He delved in the Social Security a bit, but all Presidents do. Isn't it all the more reason to aim to run a surplus though? Inflation, the number one creator of poverty, was mostly kept in check, wasn't it? No reason for the government to create inflation, if there's not much debt to monetize. M2's dramatic expansion after 1995 fed its way into creating a stock market bubble, but didn't correlate to higher prices for consumers.

Inflation:

Of course, if limiting debt and spending is a good thing to do, the government will not hear any of it. Bush spent 5x more, in inflation adjusted dollars, than Clinton, and that weakened our economy to the point it is today. Obama, being the ultimate idiot he is, has decided to follow the policies of Bush rather than limiting spending and following the policies of Clinton.

Obama is only following Bush in spending to avert an economic disaster.

It's a little too early to tell if we've turned the corner, but hopefully we are seeing the bottom.

If so, we have both the Bush adminstration and Obama administration to thank for taking decisive action and ignoring the partisans.

 

[Yurt]

so if you don't believe in bush's or obama's spendulus plan, you're partisan...

more lameness

 

[Iriemon]

Toro.. a budget surplus is what was claimed and confirmed.. however, it does not take into account all spending by the govt and dipping into other cash pools... the taxes collected for SS are not something the government is supposed to use (except in case of emergency) for it's normal spending

So while the govt DID take in more, it borrowed from an area it was not supposed to, causing intergovernmental debt, because the SS fund is to be paid back...

As stated... it's like saying I spent within budget (spent less than I earned in my reported budget), but borrowed from my kid's college fund to pay for some tings off of my 'official' budget

As for WHY it would do such a thing... hmm.. many reasons... perpetrating a myth like we have now... for not borrowing and being accounted for the normal way.. etc

And as for the numbers.. it is there in the books for the SSA

And our outstanding debt, never, and I do mean never went down during Clinton's term.. the last time we had a smaller outstanding total debt was 1961 under Kennedy, though because of paying down the debt we actually did not run a surplus.. the last time we ran a true surplus (including budget and intergovernmental spending) was 1957

Our liabilities have not gone down, nor will they go down until we fix social security and medicare.

However, you have stated that the Clinton administration borrowed from social security - which would require that the the trust fund collapse non-redeemable government bonds and credit its accounts but not receive actual cash to disburse - to fund its deficits. Here are the accounts of social security. Please show me where this happened. I would truly be interested in seeing this. So far, I don't see any evidence of it, though I'd be more than happy to admit it is the case if you can show me.

Trust Fund Data

Monthly treasury statements show it clearly.... about 250 BIL from 2000 alone that were a result of 'borrowing' from governmental trust funds including SS, Military Retirement fund and even of all things the unemployment fund... and more...

On the 'budget' is where Clinton reported and bragged about his mythical surplus.. it is the off budget expenditures, funded by the governmental trust funds, where the lie is caught.. and it is held within the intergovernmental spending records shown so many times before

Actually, it was the Congressional Budget Office - the same Congress controlled by Republicans in 2000 - that reported a surplus.

It was a game of smoke and mirrors.. that blind partisans preach like gospel, and that many other overlook...

"When an actual budget surplus occurs, the annual excess funds are
then used to reduce debt held by the public."

Right from http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/feddebt/feddebt_ann2000.pdf.. .a blatant misdirection... because our total debt is not just the debt held by the people, but by the government as well... as stated, like borrowing from your kids college fund for your cosmetic surgery, and saying you were still on budget because your 'official' budget was less than your salary income

Social Security and other governmental trust funds are not part of the President's budget

http://fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0900.pdf

You look close enough and you find more and more (the more you look) funky ways the Prez (And NO, not just Clinton) hid crap and gave misleading numbers

And please not to the person above... It has been well documented that I NEVER claimed Bush to be better on spending or on reporting accurately... this is PURELY about the myth of the Clinton Surplus

If you take SS out of the picture, the budget surplus was smaller. But there still was one. You can see the difference between the "total" (includes SS) and "on-budget" figures in the CBO reports cited in the OP.

But it was no game of smoke and mirrors. The only smoke and mirrors are the Bush apologists who can't stand the fact that Clinton accomplished a tremendous feat by inhereting record deficits from Bush Sr and creating a surplus, which Bush Jr quickly turned into $5 trillion in debt.

The won't acknowledge that tax cuts caused deficits and tax increases reduced them, because that would be admitting (the number one sin) that tax increases can be beneficial.

So they make up shit like the surplus under Clinton was a "myth" as if Clinton was just like Ron George and George in running deficits and piling up $11 trillion in debt. Nothing could be further from the truth and there is no smoke and mirrors about it.