How Many Liberal Myths are there?

[Charles_Main]

Debt held by the public went down in 1999 and 2000. That was because the unified US budget was in surplus.

Incorrect sir. While we did run a surplus for a few quarters. Nobody including the Republican or Clinton saw fit to use the surplus for Debt Reduction.

 

[Toro]

Debt held by the public went down in 1999 and 2000. That was because the unified US budget was in surplus.

Incorrect sir. While we did run a surplus for a few quarters. Nobody including the Republican or Clinton saw fit to use the surplus for Debt Reduction.

The budget was in surplus in fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001. The surplus was used to pay down debt. Total debt held by the public declined during that time.

 

[JRK]

Debt held by the public went down in 1999 and 2000. That was because the unified US budget was in surplus.

Incorrect sir. While we did run a surplus for a few quarters. Nobody including the Republican or Clinton saw fit to use the surplus for Debt Reduction.

The budget was in surplus in fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001. The surplus was used to pay down debt. Total debt held by the public declined during that time.

Toro that is in correct

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


As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.

As the thread states, how many myths are out there
in addition


ver 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.

Interestingly, this most likely was not even a conscious decision by Clinton. The Social Security Administration is legally required to take all its surpluses and buy U.S. Government securities, and the U.S. Government readily sells those securities--which automatically and immediately becomes intragovernmental holdings. The economy was doing well due to the dot-com bubble and people were earning a lot of money and paying a lot into Social Security. Since Social Security had more money coming in than it had to pay in benefits to retired persons, all that extra money was immediately used to buy U.S. Government securities. The government was still running deficits, but since there was so much money coming from excess Social Security contributions there was no need to borrow more money directly from the public. As such, the public debt went down while intragovernmental holdings continued to skyrocket.

The net effect was that the national debt most definitely did not get paid down because we did not have a surplus. The government just covered its deficit by borrowing money from Social Security rather than the public.

Consider the following quotes (and accompanying links) that demonstrate how people have known this for years:
The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

 

[JRK]

If you're going to juggle the numbers for the Clinton budgets then you have to juggle every other president's budget numbers as well.

What happens?

Even if you make a case that Clinton's budgets weren't balanced, you still end up with the fact that Clinton came closer to balancing the budget than any other president in the last 30 years.

Or put another way, this is another useless crock of rightwing baloney.

where is your information?
No-one denies that the GOP led congress from 94-01 did a great job on balancing the budget with tax payers wealth

Its a myth that those 8 years had a surplus

My friend all I have done is provide information

I've yet to hear anyone claim that all eight years of the Clinton presidency were in surplus, so stop inventing strawmen to argue against.

I do know for a fact that GW Bush's stated intention of his 2001 tax cuts was to give the surplus to the taxpayers,

instead of using it to pay down the debt.

That's how the cycle of deficit spending resumed.

There is no inventing, read the thread within here on page 3 that claims exactly that Clinton had surpluses and erased the national deficit
The cycle of deficit spending resumed? It never stopped
hell allot of Bushes had to do with 9-11 and the recession Clinton handed GWB and the dot.com bubble bursting as well as the stock market crash, 2 wars
Clinton had none of that and before you go talking about there "W"s wars you might want to read what your Democratic senators where saying in 98.99.00.01.02.03.04 as well as there votes in 99,and October of 02
You Liberals live in a glass house and vote on spun out, spinner spam
The truth about these events mean nothing to you

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


As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.

Keep in mind that President Bush took office in January 2001 and his first budget took effect October 1, 2001 for the year ending September 30, 2002 (FY2002). So the $133.29 billion deficit in the year ending September 2001 was Clinton's. Granted, Bush supported a tax refund where taxpayers received checks in 2001. However, the total amount refunded to taxpayers was only $38 billion . So even if we assume that $38 billion of the FY2001 deficit was due to Bush's tax refunds which were not part of Clinton's last budget, that still means that Clinton's last budget produced a deficit of 133.29 - 38 = $95.29 billion.

Clinton clearly did not achieve a surplus and he didn't leave President Bush with a surplus.

Tax cuts had the deficit within 150 billion dollars without using social security excess of breaking even in 2007
In the middle of 2 wars, Katrina, and the rest of the items I have

 

[mudwhistle]

The debt never decreased... not since 1957

Debt held by the public - which is the only marketable debt backed by the full faith and credit of the US government - decreased.

The President's budget is what was in a surplus. The actual debt never decreased.

If you look at your pay stub there are several withholdings being taken out. Your federal tax withholding is the only deduction you have control over.

The withholdings for Social Security and Medicare go in come hell or high water and there is nothing you can do about it. This is the fund that our government is using to increase the debt the most. This is why the debt is going up so greatly, because Congress continues to steal from these funds to pay for other things.

I currently have FEGLI, Medicare, FEHB, FERS, Dental, and OASDI deductions coming out of my paycheck. A full 25% of my pay goes to these funds. Social Security is now called OASDI. Many of these have matching funds paid by the government for me. I don't expect to get Medicare or OASDI because both will be insolvent by the time I reach retirement age, so the matching funds are already spent.

Keep a close eye on your pay-stubs because once Obama care kicks in you most likely will see another deduction from your pay you never saw before.

 

[JRK]

The debt never decreased... not since 1957

Debt held by the public - which is the only marketable debt backed by the full faith and credit of the US government - decreased.

The President's budget is what was in a surplus. The actual debt never decreased.

If you look at your pay stub there are several withholdings being taken out. Your federal tax withholding is the only deduction you have control over.

The withholdings for Social Security and Medicare go in come hell or high water and there is nothing you can do about it. This is the fund that our government is using to increase the debt the most. This is why the debt is going up so greatly, because Congress continues to steal from these funds to pay for other things.

I currently have FEGLI, Medicare, FEHB, FERS, Dental, and OASDI deductions coming out of my paycheck. A full 25% of my pay goes to these funds. Social Security is now called OASDI. Many of these have matching funds paid by the government for me. I don't expect to get Medicare or OASDI because both will be insolvent by the time I reach retirement age, so the matching funds are already spent.

Keep a close eye on your pay-stubs because once Obama care kicks in you most likely will see another deduction from your pay you never saw before.

The most confusing thing to me in life is some women to start with
But all liberals
The women I find them as a blessing, as a man we learn to deal with them as they learn to deal with us
Liberals?
They make no sense what so ever
Somehow the claim is that the Govt spends money better than we can

 

[Toro]

JRK

You do not understand how the government accounts work. The link you post us flat out wrong. The author does not know how the fiscal balances work.

Rising national debt levels does not mean we had a deficit. This is not debatable. You do not understand double-book accounting for the government if you believe this.

During the late 1990s, when there was a surge in payroll taxes, those taxes were debited into the SS accounts, causing assets in the trusts to rise. The only assets the trusts can own are nontradable government liabilities. Thus, when the assets of the trusts rise, by definition, liabilities of the government rises. There is zero change in the net balances of ALL government assets and liabilities because what you are looking at but don't understand is the gross debt of the government.

The mistake these conservatives make - and conservatives who understand government accounting do not make this mistake - is similair to taking out a mortgage then worrying about all the debt you have but completely ignoring the value of your house. You do not look solely at the amount of your mortgage loan. You also need to look at what your house is worth.

The other thing these conservatives don't understand is that simply because your total debt rises doesn't mean you are running a deficit. If you have mo debt and you take out a $100,000 mortgage, does that mean you are running a $100,000 deficit? No, of course not. It just means you took out a loan. But that's what these guys are doing. They are confusing income statements with balance sheets. They would get an F in Accounting 101.

 

[Seawytch]

Don't know how many "liberal myths" there are. We know there is only one conservative myth...Everything on Fox "News".

 

[Sallow]

Debt and deficts are two entirely different things.

The surplus came from the deficit spending. By the time Clinton left office..it was no longer a deficit..or was projected to be a deficit. THAT's where the surplus came from.

Instead of using this surplus to PAY DOWN THE DEBT. Bush used it to make rich people incredibly rich.

 

[JRK]

JRK

You do not understand how the government accounts work. The link you post us flat out wrong. The author does not know how the fiscal balances work.

Rising national debt levels does not mean we had a deficit. This is not debatable. You do not understand double-book accounting for the government if you believe this.

During the late 1990s, when there was a surge in payroll taxes, those taxes were debited into the SS accounts, causing assets in the trusts to rise. The only assets the trusts can own are nontradable government liabilities. Thus, when the assets of the trusts rise, by definition, liabilities of the government rises. There is zero change in the net balances of ALL government assets and liabilities because what you are looking at but don't understand is the gross debt of the government.

The mistake these conservatives make - and conservatives who understand government accounting do not make this mistake - is similair to taking out a mortgage then worrying about all the debt you have but completely ignoring the value of your house. You do not look solely at the amount of your mortgage loan. You also need to look at what your house is worth.

The other thing these conservatives don't understand is that simply because your total debt rises doesn't mean you are running a deficit. If you have mo debt and you take out a $100,000 mortgage, does that mean you are running a $100,000 deficit? No, of course not. It just means you took out a loan. But that's what these guys are doing. They are confusing income statements with balance sheets. They would get an F in Accounting 101.

Its not what I believe, the information is from the US treasury as far as the deficit goes
Not the author

If you read his article he talks in great length about that very subject, and the way Clinton used those monies
And as far as the loan goes, borrowing money from the public or borrowing it from social security is discussed in great detail in his article
If you have a budget of 10 dollars in 2001 and you take in 9.00 and borrow 1.00 against social security excess, thats fine
but if that excess and how one funds there debt changes in 2002, that budget is not going to go down
I think we are splitting hairs and as what drives me nuts the most is this very thing
We are not voting on whats right or wrong
we are voting on party lines
Clinton had a GOP congress that never let up
Bush had the most liberal congress ever in his last 2 years that never let up

And yet along comes Obama and where still talking about this
My thread is to prove just that
Myths
That some how the govt can create more wealth for me by talking more wealth from me
thats what the myth really is about Clinton

That those years where caused by Clinton raising taxes in 93, not accounting tricks
and that deficits where caused by tax cuts
not 9-11
not 2 recessions
not Katrina and 5 other major hurricanes
not 2 wars
not Medicare part D

 

[mudwhistle]

JRK

You do not understand how the government accounts work. The link you post us flat out wrong. The author does not know how the fiscal balances work.

Rising national debt levels does not mean we had a deficit. This is not debatable. You do not understand double-book accounting for the government if you believe this.

During the late 1990s, when there was a surge in payroll taxes, those taxes were debited into the SS accounts, causing assets in the trusts to rise. The only assets the trusts can own are nontradable government liabilities. Thus, when the assets of the trusts rise, by definition, liabilities of the government rises. There is zero change in the net balances of ALL government assets and liabilities because what you are looking at but don't understand is the gross debt of the government.

The mistake these conservatives make - and conservatives who understand government accounting do not make this mistake - is similair to taking out a mortgage then worrying about all the debt you have but completely ignoring the value of your house. You do not look solely at the amount of your mortgage loan. You also need to look at what your house is worth.

The other thing these conservatives don't understand is that simply because your total debt rises doesn't mean you are running a deficit. If you have mo debt and you take out a $100,000 mortgage, does that mean you are running a $100,000 deficit? No, of course not. It just means you took out a loan. But that's what these guys are doing. They are confusing income statements with balance sheets. They would get an F in Accounting 101.

A major flaw in this post is that it assumes that conservatives are ether too stupid to understand it or unwilling to understand. I'm sure if somebody explained it they wouldn't be so ignorant. However part of the charm of the isssue is that a dishonest politician finds it very easy to mislead the uninformed. Some use this deception in their party platforms.

 

[mudwhistle]

Debt and deficts are two entirely different things.

The surplus came from the deficit spending. By the time Clinton left office..it was no longer a deficit..or was projected to be a deficit. THAT's where the surplus came from.

Instead of using this surplus to PAY DOWN THE DEBT. Bush used it to make rich people incredibly rich.

Damn. And all this time the left has been saying it was unpaid for military aggression in Iraq.

I need to keep track of all of these conflicting lib talking points.

 

[JRK]

Debt and deficts are two entirely different things.

The surplus came from the deficit spending. By the time Clinton left office..it was no longer a deficit..or was projected to be a deficit. THAT's where the surplus came from.

Instead of using this surplus to PAY DOWN THE DEBT. Bush used it to make rich people incredibly rich.

Sallow those "rich" people earned that wealth
all W did was allow them to keep 4000 dollars more per 100,000.00 they earn
Or they are paying 35,000.00 in taxes for 100,000 instead of 39,000

Sallow think about sitting down with some-one and handing them 350,000 dollars in cash
When you got done they looked at you and said 'thats not enough you incredibly rich person, I need 40,000 more

Thats your mentality of this event for a person who pays income tax on 1 million dollars

 

[JRK]

Don't know how many "liberal myths" there are. We know there is only one conservative myth...Everything on Fox "News".

I like your examples
Not sure how to challenge that

 

[Toro]

JRK

You do not understand how the government accounts work. The link you post us flat out wrong. The author does not know how the fiscal balances work.

Rising national debt levels does not mean we had a deficit. This is not debatable. You do not understand double-book accounting for the government if you believe this.

During the late 1990s, when there was a surge in payroll taxes, those taxes were debited into the SS accounts, causing assets in the trusts to rise. The only assets the trusts can own are nontradable government liabilities. Thus, when the assets of the trusts rise, by definition, liabilities of the government rises. There is zero change in the net balances of ALL government assets and liabilities because what you are looking at but don't understand is the gross debt of the government.

The mistake these conservatives make - and conservatives who understand government accounting do not make this mistake - is similair to taking out a mortgage then worrying about all the debt you have but completely ignoring the value of your house. You do not look solely at the amount of your mortgage loan. You also need to look at what your house is worth.

The other thing these conservatives don't understand is that simply because your total debt rises doesn't mean you are running a deficit. If you have mo debt and you take out a $100,000 mortgage, does that mean you are running a $100,000 deficit? No, of course not. It just means you took out a loan. But that's what these guys are doing. They are confusing income statements with balance sheets. They would get an F in Accounting 101.

A major flaw in this post is that it assumes that conservatives are ether too stupid to understand it or unwilling to understand.

Not at all Mud. Conservatives who understand government accounts understand this. The only reason why I reference conservatives is because it is conservative ideologues who are trying to discredit Clinton. But this isn't revisionist history. It's just wrong. Intelligent conservatives can easily learn and understand this.

 

[Toro]

JRK

I know the data comes from the Treasury. But the author doesn't understand how the data is constructed. So he draws the wrong conclusions.

 

[JRK]

JRK

You do not understand how the government accounts work. The link you post us flat out wrong. The author does not know how the fiscal balances work.

Rising national debt levels does not mean we had a deficit. This is not debatable. You do not understand double-book accounting for the government if you believe this.

During the late 1990s, when there was a surge in payroll taxes, those taxes were debited into the SS accounts, causing assets in the trusts to rise. The only assets the trusts can own are nontradable government liabilities. Thus, when the assets of the trusts rise, by definition, liabilities of the government rises. There is zero change in the net balances of ALL government assets and liabilities because what you are looking at but don't understand is the gross debt of the government.

The mistake these conservatives make - and conservatives who understand government accounting do not make this mistake - is similair to taking out a mortgage then worrying about all the debt you have but completely ignoring the value of your house. You do not look solely at the amount of your mortgage loan. You also need to look at what your house is worth.

The other thing these conservatives don't understand is that simply because your total debt rises doesn't mean you are running a deficit. If you have mo debt and you take out a $100,000 mortgage, does that mean you are running a $100,000 deficit? No, of course not. It just means you took out a loan. But that's what these guys are doing. They are confusing income statements with balance sheets. They would get an F in Accounting 101.

A major flaw in this post is that it assumes that conservatives are ether too stupid to understand it or unwilling to understand. I'm sure if somebody explained it they wouldn't be so ignorant. However part of the charm of the isssue is that a dishonest politician finds it very easy to mislead the uninformed. Some use this deception in their party platforms.

I think he is trying to state that some-how the govt has an asset with the money Clinton used from Social Security to fund his deficit?
I do not know
I do know what an asset is
I know that is if you have a surplus of wealth in Social Security and and you invest that in the bond market to fund your debt, look I am at a loss also
If your funding your debt off of the profit that wealth makes then your taking that wealth as it was no different than a tax hike
I mean really
I do not mean any of this to be dis respect, but i may get an F in my day trading ability but not in accounting (I had a shit load of Google yesterday @ 4:30 PM)
Deficit, debt, assets,

 

[Toro]

JRK

I am an insitutional money manager. I've ripped apart the balance sheets of hundreds of companies. I've worked in the pension fund industry. I know a bit about this. I think the author you've linked has made an honest mistake. But he has made a mistake nonetheless.

I'd ask you thus - if Clinton ran deficits, there must be many, many Republican economists and financial analysts who make this argument. Can you link to some? The last guy who made this argument I saw on the Internet was a software engineer.

 

[Toro]

Oh and I hope you make a lot of money day trading.

 

[old navy]

I want to be on the death panel.