The Clinton Surplus Myth

[FireFly]

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?????????

It is an actual reduction in debt & deficit of $1,024,951,060.68 for more than a year.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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?????????

Link

 

[peach174]

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?????????

Yes and you know what he cut but never really do a cut?
Our Military and that is the only thing he actually cut. That is not a real cut, it was a freeze in the increase.
Actual freeze of a little over a million dollars. That's a drop in the bucket when we are trillions in debt.
Now it would have been great if he and actually reduced spending by 1 trillion rather than a small freeze of a little over 1 million in spending.
The debt was not reduced, it went up.
Debt in 98 - over 5.5 Trillion
Debt in 99- over 5.6 Trillion.
Clinton left office in Jan. 2000 not 2001

 

[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?????????

Link

12/31/1999 National Debt = $5,776,091,314,225.33

12/31/2000 National Debt = $5,662,216,013,697.37

Exactly 1 year = $114 Billion dollar debt & deficit reduction.

Source: US Treasury Debt to the Penny

 

[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?????????

Yes and you know what he cut but never really do a cut?
Our Military and that is the only thing he actually cut. That is not a real cut, it was a freeze in the increase.
Actual freeze of a little over a million dollars. That's a drop in the bucket when we are trillions in debt.
Now it would have been great if he and actually reduced spending by 1 trillion rather than a small freeze of a little over 1 million in spending.
The debt was not reduced, it went up.
Debt in 98 - over 5.5 Trillion
Debt in 99- over 5.6 Trillion.
Clinton left office in Jan. 2000 not 2001

Bill Clinton was in office from January 20, 1993 -to– January 20, 2001

12/31/1999 National Debt = $5,776,091,314,225.33

12/31/2000 National Debt = $5,662,216,013,697.37

In the year 2000 for exactly 1 years time under Clinton the debt & deficit reduction = $114 Billion dollars.

Source: US Treasury Debt to the Penny

 

[KissMy]

Bill Clinton was in office from January 20, 1993 -to– January 20, 2001. In that time the National Debt increased exactly $1,539,684,631,121.04

01/20/1993 National Debt = $4,188,092,107,183.60

01/20/2001 National Debt = $5,727,776,738,304.64

George Bush was in office from January 20, 2001 -to– January 20, 2009. In that time the National Debt increased exactly $4,899,100,310,608.44

01/20/2001 National Debt = $5,727,776,738,304.64

01/20/2009 National Debt = $10,626,877,048,913.08

Barack Obama was in office from January 20, 2009 -until today– September 4, 2013. In that time the National Debt increased exactly $6,111,524,286,239.08

01/20/2009 National Debt = $10,626,877,048,913.08

09/04/2013 National Debt = $16,738,401,335,152.16

 

[peach174]

Sorry I was wrong, it was Jan. 2001 that Clinton left office. RED FACE

But I am right about the Debt as it continuous to go up because Government keeps spending rather than actually really cutting.

 

[KissMy]

Sorry I was wrong, it was Jan. 2001 that Clinton left office. RED FACE

But I am right about the Debt as it continuous to go up because Government keeps spending rather than actually really cutting.

That was true for 66+ years up until 2011 when they actually really cut spending.

 

[Toro]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/econo...ng-the-clinton-administration-was-a-myth.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ng-about-the-1990s-budget-surplus-thread.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/310675-social-security-discussion.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ised-to-100-total-marxism-13.html#post7764275

 

[KissMy]

George W. Bush 2000: "Governor Bush believes that roughly one-quarter of the surplus should be returned to the people who earned it through broad tax cuts"

George W. Bush, Feb. 2001: "You see, the growing surplus exists because taxes are too high, and government is charging more than it needs. The people of America have been overcharged, and, on their behalf, I'm here asking for a refund."

 

[Yurt]

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.

he did not give a huge tax break to the wealthy with this so called surplus

man, i'm so sick of this liberal lie, no matter how many times it is debunked, they keep touting it

 

[Yurt]

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.

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus |

 

[Toro]

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.

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus |

^^^^^^
Craig Steiner, software engineer

Eight years ago the federal government faced tremendous, mounting deficits, and not even candidate Bill Clinton had the temerity to promise that he would balance the budget. Today the budget is in surplus, and a major campaign issue facing George W. Bush, John McCain, and Al Gore is what to do with all that extra cash.

^^^^^^^
Greg Mankiw, President Bush's Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers.

http://www.economics.harvard.edu/files/faculty/40_mar00.html

Nobody software engineer with a political axe to grind or Republican Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers.

You pick.

 

[Darkwind]

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?

At no time did the interest exceed the deficit, nor did it solely account for the increase in debt.

Unless you have numbers that show that the interest accrued equaled exactly the amount that the debt increased.....

??

 

[Toro]

Of course, much of this is just petty.

Even if you take the incorrect argument of those who say there wasn't a surplus, the financial condition of the US improved even though total debt rose during that time period.

As a percentage of GDP, total debt declined from roughly 65% in 1996 to 55% in 2000. Compare that to rising from 30% to 50% under Reagan and 55% to 65% under Bush.

FTR it is 100% under Obama.