Did I say Clinton didn't benefit from the dot.com boom? So shut up Dirk the Dummy. All I'm pointing out is that Trump is now riding the Tech Bubble.
what is that? never heard of it. you trying to start a new narrative of nothing? never a receipt from a demofk.
Wow that was long and wrong.You seem to know very little about any of this, but I don't blame you, you have simply been brainwashed. For example, can you explain to all of us here what 'intergovernment obligations' are? No worries, I didn't think so. Here, I'll help you out, please educate yourself so that we don't have to go thru this again...
The Clinton Surplus Myth
It is obvious that during elections in which the economy is the most important issue to voters, the candidate deemed to be “strongest” on the economy will get elected. As it happens, one of the arguments I most often hear in support of the Obama presidency is citing the budget surplus under the...sbstatesman.com
The fact of the matter is, by looking at publicly available data from the Treasury department, the federal budget under the Clinton years operated at a deficit of $100-200 billion for most years, reaching a low point of $18 billion during 2000, but leaving a deficit budget of $130 billion during Clinton’s departing year, in 2001.
By definition, there could not have been a budget surplus; deficit spending defies the idea of the existence of a budget surplus or balanced budget. However, the lie isn’t so obvious that Clinton wasn’t able to use political maneuvering and clever accounting to sell the surplus idea; it’s probable that Clinton was even fooled himself into believing that he was able to produce a surplus without cutting spending or significantly raising taxes. So where did the surplus myth come from?
While government spending was in a deficit, the U.S. public debt, better known as the national debt, was being paid off. The national debt accounts for money that the federal government owes to states, corporations, individuals, and foreign governments but not what is owed to intragovernment obligations, such as the Social Security trust fund.
So while the public debt was being paid off, the debt from intragovernment holdings skyrocketed while general federal spending was relatively unchanged. Clinton pointed to the national debt as being paid off, but neglected to mention that the source of this money was debt owed to Social Security.
The dot-com bubble provided a temporary economic stimulus during the Clinton era, which allowed the Social Security Administration (SSA) to increase revenue through Social Security taxes, leaving Social Security with a surplus.
The Social Security Administration is legally required to purchase government securities with surplus funds, which results from having more funds than required to pay out Social Security checks. This results in a transfer of funds from Social Security, intragovernment holdings, to the Treasury Deparment, which Clinton used to pay down the national debt.
You may wonder what the problem is. If there is a surplus of funds, does it really matter where it comes from?
There is a difference between debt and surplus, no matter where the funds are coming from. The government doesn’t have unique sources of production, and must rely on external sources from which to extract capital. Therefore, a true surplus can only arise by reducing spending.
Even by raising taxes, this only represents debt owed to the public. Clinton relied on the dot-com bubble by funneling funds through the SSA, which allowed him to mimic a surplus by obscuring the source of his funds. This is a clever accounting game, but it is not a surplus.
So when the dot-com bubble burst, and Social Security was left in debt, the federal government couldn’t give the SSA its surplus back. The money had been put towards the public debt already. By that time, Clinton was already out of office, so the effects of the dot-com crash could be blamed on the Republican George Bush anyway.
The bubble itself, which was caused by overspeculation in Internet-based start-up companies, was, in itself, funded by low interest rates set by the Federal Reserve, giving investors a surplus of capital which to invest in the overvalued Internet companies. Government policy contributed to the unsustainable dot-com bubble which the government took advantage of to temporarily reshuffle its debt to give the appearance of a budget surplus to win political favor.
Understanding what happened requires understanding two concepts of what makes up the national debt. The national debt is made up of public debt and intragovernmental holdings. The public debt is debt held by the public, normally including things such as treasury bills, savings bonds, and other instruments the public can purchase from the government. Intragovernmental holdings, on the other hand, is when the government borrows money from itself--mostly borrowing money from social security.
The Myth of the Clinton Surplus
www.craigsteiner.us
Notice that while the public debt went down in each of those four years, the intragovernmental holdings went up each year by a far greater amount--and, in turn, the total national debt (which is public debt + intragovernmental holdings) went up. Therein lies the discrepancy.
When it is claimed that Clinton paid down the national debt, that is patently false--as can be seen, the national debt went up every single year. What Clinton did do was pay down the public debt--notice that the claimed surplus is relatively close to the decrease in the public debt for those years. But he paid down the public debt by borrowing far more money in the form of intragovernmental holdings (mostly Social Security).
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.
It's like the dot.com bubble. We are in the tech bubble right now. Did you see the news today?
I think the record is being supported by a tax cut for corporations in part responsible for a higher annual budget deficit. It's also being supported by a reduction in regulation that will inevitably result in more harm to the environment and to consumers. Wealth creation is clearly good, but at what cost?
No nothing like those things. Social distancing was better than hosting super spreader parties. We couldn't stop the spread because of idiots like you.
Wait a minute. I thought tariffs were tax hikes against the corporations. That's the opposite of your claim.
Again, you divert, you really don’t care about our 1st Amendment rights, just come out and say it then and when the next president takes away more rights, depending on party, you will agree or disagree. I will always disagree with losing our rights. A big difference between me and you.
Like I said, you ignore and justify, I am against it. Not seeing any reason to discuss it anymore, I believe in free speech and you believe in government controlled speech. I think we both know that.
You are against what? A White House calling a company that's being socially irresponsible and asking them to stop?
Then why did a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction in July 2023, barring certain administration officials from urging, encouraging, or pressuring social media platforms to suppress speech protected by the First Amendment ?
That Trump appointed judge? I wonder.
Like I said, you make excuses and I am against suppression of free speech.
Another reason. The Trump appointed judge loves fake news. That fake news was helping Republicans win and that Trump judge wanted to pass Project 2025. And they are.
Again you divert, suppressing free speech is the issue and the government has no business pressuring media to suppress free speech. I’m good with you wanting government to control free speech, I am not.
