The Clinton Surplus Myth

[Lonestar_logic]

This isn't correct either. Just because we have a surplus doesn't mean that it is going towards servicing the debt. But mainly, our debt would increase every year even if we had no deficit due to the interest on it. If we don't pay it all then it gets capitalized to the main debt amount.

Have you ever taken out a loan?

A surplus means your taking more money in than your spending. Borrowing money from your savings account to put in your checking account doesn't create a surplus.

Yes I have taken out many loans.

Your point?

Do you understand how interest works?

Do you have a point?

If so then make it and stop with the silly questions.

 

[Mr Natural]

It would appear that some people don't know the difference between deficit and debt.

Obviously you don't understand what SURPLUS means.

I know exactly what surplus means.

In the case of the Clinton era surplus it meant $600 total in my bank account thanks to GW Bush and Co.

And if that money didn't come from a surplus, where did it come from?

 

[Sallow]

Another moron who didn't read the article weighs in.

This is an old meme Lonestar..

It's been debunked before and it's gotten debunked now.

By the way..it's amazingly simplistic of you to post this rubbage.

It's almost like saying "If the government were just run like a household.."

Stay stuck on stupid.

You put this garbage up and post that?

You ever provision for a company or run a business?

Because sometimes you are making payroll with money you haven't taken in yet. Which is why you have to take a loan out from the bank every so often.

You know about that..right?

Or maybe not.

 

[Wildman]

You do know there is a difference between deficit spending and debt..right?

The deficit spending decreased and actually turned around into a surplus during the Clinton administration. Meaning the US was taking in more than was it was spending.

That was the surplus. That surplus COULD HAVE BEEN USED to pay down the debt.

And that's NOT what Bush did.

He USED IT to give a huge tax break to the wealthy.

you mean like these WEALTHY ones:

Sen. John Kerry, $198.8 million, Democrat;
Rep. Jared Polis, $91.1 million, Democrat;
Sen. Mark Warner, $95.9 million, Democrat;
Sen. Jay Rockefeller, $83.1 million, Democrat;
Sen. Richard Blumenthal, $80.1 million, Democrat;
Sen. Frank Lautenberg, $56.9 million, Democrat;
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, $47.2 million, Democrat;

if you want more i can provide a pretty lengthy list

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Explain this graph from the Heritage Foundation

What's missing from the graph is Clinton borrowing money from Social Security, Civil Service Retirement Fund, Federal supplementary medical insurance Trust fund, Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, Unemployment Trust Fund, Military Retirement Fund, Transportation Trust Funds, Employee life insurance & retirement etc....

There is no two ways about it: A real surplus would cause the total national debt to go down.

Had the trust funds contributed $248.7 billion in excess funds and the government had reduced the public debt by $250 billion, that would mean it used all of the trust funds' excess funds to reduce the public debt and also used a real $1.3 billion federal surplus to reduce the public debt. That would've reduced the national debt by $1.3 billion and been a real surplus.

But if intragovernmental debt goes up faster than the public debt goes down (as it did in 2000), it means the government is simply borrowing and spending money from trust funds and will have to pay it back later. That's not a surplus, it's just borrowing money from trust funds instead of the public. The money was still borrowed to make up a deficit in the government's general fund.

The most accurate and useful way to calculate a surplus or deficit is simply to look at net change in the total national debt. It really is that simple. Since the total national debt went up every year under Clinton, there wasn't a real surplus. The government just borrowed money from trust funds instead of from the public, called the borrowed money income, and claimed to have a surplus.

Part II

 

[Avorysuds]

Thanks Clinton for creating generations of mindless bots who have come to accept raiding SS to buy down your annual deficits.

If Clinton could have served a third and fourth term, and if Clinton kept on his path of stealing from SS to pay down his annual deficit spending... would the US had been better off financially? Nope. Clinton would have meant it when he said "I don't know if we'll be able to send out your SS checks this month," unlike how Obama used that line.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

It would appear that some people don't know the difference between deficit and debt.

Obviously you don't understand what SURPLUS means.

I know exactly what surplus means.

In the case of the Clinton era surplus it meant $600 total in my bank account thanks to GW Bush and Co.

And if that money didn't come from a surplus, where did it come from?

And that has what to do with Clinton's mythical surplus?

 

[Sallow]

The government can have a surplus even if it has trillions in debt, but it cannot have a surplus if that debt increased every year. The article( you obviously won't read) is about surplus/deficit, not the debt. However, it analyzes the debt to prove there wasn't a surplus under Clinton.

This isn't correct either. Just because we have a surplus doesn't mean that it is going towards servicing the debt. But mainly, our debt would increase every year even if we had no deficit due to the interest on it. If we don't pay it all then it gets capitalized to the main debt amount.

Have you ever taken out a loan?

A surplus means your taking more money in than your spending. Borrowing money from your savings account to put in your checking account doesn't create a surplus.

Yes I have taken out many loans.

Your point?

The point..as I've pointed out before, is that looking at the complexities of the US budgetary process and trying to compare them to "household spending" via "savings account/checking account" is amazingly simplistic and naive.

But it's done as partisan rabble. So it's really no surprise.

 

[Avorysuds]

Explain this graph from the Heritage Foundation

What's missing from the graph is Clinton borrowing money from Social Security, Civil Service Retirement Fund, Federal supplementary medical insurance Trust fund, Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, Unemployment Trust Fund, Military Retirement Fund, Transportation Trust Funds, Employee life insurance & retirement etc....

There is no two ways about it: A real surplus would cause the total national debt to go down.

Had the trust funds contributed $248.7 billion in excess funds and the government had reduced the public debt by $250 billion, that would mean it used all of the trust funds' excess funds to reduce the public debt and also used a real $1.3 billion federal surplus to reduce the public debt. That would've reduced the national debt by $1.3 billion and been a real surplus.

But if intragovernmental debt goes up faster than the public debt goes down (as it did in 2000), it means the government is simply borrowing and spending money from trust funds and will have to pay it back later. That's not a surplus, it's just borrowing money from trust funds instead of the public. The money was still borrowed to make up a deficit in the government's general fund.

The most accurate and useful way to calculate a surplus or deficit is simply to look at net change in the total national debt. It really is that simple. Since the total national debt went up every year under Clinton, there wasn't a real surplus. The government just borrowed money from trust funds instead of from the public, called the borrowed money income, and claimed to have a surplus.

Part II

You can thank Clinton for the dumbing down of a generation who can't climb off the partisan mountain they live on. There is a reason we know the term "raiding SS" and Clinton is that reason. Thanks Dems, for not trying, but actually spending the middles classes savings for retirement. You're all hero's!

 

[Avorysuds]

This isn't correct either. Just because we have a surplus doesn't mean that it is going towards servicing the debt. But mainly, our debt would increase every year even if we had no deficit due to the interest on it. If we don't pay it all then it gets capitalized to the main debt amount.

Have you ever taken out a loan?

A surplus means your taking more money in than your spending. Borrowing money from your savings account to put in your checking account doesn't create a surplus.

Yes I have taken out many loans.

Your point?

The point..as I've pointed out before, is that looking at the complexities of the US budgetary process and trying to compare them to "household spending" via "savings account/checking account" is amazingly simplistic and naive.

But it's done as partisan rabble. So it's really no surprise.

Did Clinton raid SS or not? Lets see if you can answer the question.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

This is an old meme Lonestar..

It's been debunked before and it's gotten debunked now.

By the way..it's amazingly simplistic of you to post this rubbage.

It's almost like saying "If the government were just run like a household.."

Stay stuck on stupid.

You put this garbage up and post that?

You ever provision for a company or run a business?

Because sometimes you are making payroll with money you haven't taken in yet. Which is why you have to take a loan out from the bank every so often.

You know about that..right?

Or maybe not.

Borrowing money that you have to pay back does not mean you have a surplus of money.

 

[Sallow]

Obviously you don't understand what SURPLUS means.

I know exactly what surplus means.

In the case of the Clinton era surplus it meant $600 total in my bank account thanks to GW Bush and Co.

And if that money didn't come from a surplus, where did it come from?

And that has what to do with Clinton's mythical surplus?

About as much as your "bank account" examples.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

This isn't correct either. Just because we have a surplus doesn't mean that it is going towards servicing the debt. But mainly, our debt would increase every year even if we had no deficit due to the interest on it. If we don't pay it all then it gets capitalized to the main debt amount.

Have you ever taken out a loan?

A surplus means your taking more money in than your spending. Borrowing money from your savings account to put in your checking account doesn't create a surplus.

Yes I have taken out many loans.

Your point?

The point..as I've pointed out before, is that looking at the complexities of the US budgetary process and trying to compare them to "household spending" via "savings account/checking account" is amazingly simplistic and naive.

But it's done as partisan rabble. So it's really no surprise.

So now you're making other peoples points for them?

I haven't compared the US budgetary process to household spending.

But I believe you have compared it to a companies spending.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I know exactly what surplus means.

In the case of the Clinton era surplus it meant $600 total in my bank account thanks to GW Bush and Co.

And if that money didn't come from a surplus, where did it come from?

And that has what to do with Clinton's mythical surplus?

About as much as your "bank account" examples.

I didn't use a "bank account" example. That was Mr. Clean.

But I don't expect any honesty from the likes of you.

 

[oldfart]

Then where did those $300 George Bush rebate checks come from?

Read the article.

Or remain ignorant.

I read the article. You are ignorant. The author is a crook. He recomputed the debt INCLUDING the bonds issued to the trust funds. We stopped doing this under the Reagan administration. Note that the source is the Bureau of the Debt, not the usual budget authorities. The article is intentionally deceptive, and you have either been had or are the same kind of liar as the author.

 

[KissMy]

12/21/1999 National Debt = $5,728,801,689,365.32

01/19/2001 National Debt = $5,727,776,738,304.64 - The day Clinton left office.

Was that a reduction in National Debt?????????

 

[peach174]

The Debt keeps going up because they are not reducing actual spending.

What they do is stop the increases in spending which makes the deficit look like spending is going down.
It just a freeze in increases, that is all it is. They are still spending.
It is not an actual cut in spending at all.
This is why the debt keeps going up.
It's a trick that both parties have used for a very long time to pull the wool over the citizens eyes.
Then they say see we are reducing the deficit.
Reduction in increases is not reducing spending.

Reducing spending means you have to cut back on spending.
That entails actually cuts, like reducing the size of Departments and getting rid of Departments that are not running efficiently or are not useful any longer.
Doing this is actually cuts in spending not just freezing the increase.

 

[chikenwing]

He USED IT to give a huge tax break to the wealthy.


Swallow still stuck on stupid.


The largest tax break was received by ????? NOT THE RICH.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Then where did those $300 George Bush rebate checks come from?

Read the article.

Or remain ignorant.

I read the article. You are ignorant. The author is a crook. He recomputed the debt INCLUDING the bonds issued to the trust funds. We stopped doing this under the Reagan administration. Note that the source is the Bureau of the Debt, not the usual budget authorities. The article is intentionally deceptive, and you have either been had or are the same kind of liar as the author.

Facts are facts.

You're talking about intragovernmental debt which you claim should not be used. But why should it not be used?

One part of the government borrowing money from another part of the government then claiming they have a surplus is what's deceptive.

 

[chikenwing]

This isn't correct either. Just because we have a surplus doesn't mean that it is going towards servicing the debt. But mainly, our debt would increase every year even if we had no deficit due to the interest on it. If we don't pay it all then it gets capitalized to the main debt amount.

Have you ever taken out a loan?

A surplus means your taking more money in than your spending. Borrowing money from your savings account to put in your checking account doesn't create a surplus.

Yes I have taken out many loans.

Your point?

The point..as I've pointed out before, is that looking at the complexities of the US budgetary process and trying to compare them to "household spending" via "savings account/checking account" is amazingly simplistic and naive.

But it's done as partisan rabble. So it's really no surprise.

Like every time you post the rich got tax breaks but nobody else did right??

Why would anyone believe anything you spew out.

Who received the largest break,the poor? the middle or the upper??

Use real numbers they are out there in black and white for the world to see.