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.