The myth that a surplus during the Clinton administration was a myth.

Iriemon

VIP Member
Apr 2, 2009
2,745
99
83
Miami
Ever since I started posting here, I've seen in a number of threads with posts from a number of different people who claim that the budget surplus during the Clinton administration was a "myth," and that in fact there was no surplus.

The "fact" that there was no surplus under Clinton has been "proved" here "over and over and over" according to some like DiamondDave, who as of late taken to neg repping me for even asserting otherwise.

I don't know who was debating this point before I got here, but if it was "proved" over and over that a surplus under Clinton was a "myth" they weren't very knowledgeable. Or they get their information for the Murdoch "news" outlets.

So this thread is to settle the matter once and for all.

Those who claim that the surplus during the Clinton administration was a "myth" can use this opportunity to prove me wrong. And since it apparently has been proved "over and over and over" again to have been a myth it shouldn't be too hard to prove it one more time.

+++

Here' *my* proof that there was in fact a surplus:

The Congressional Budget Office is a non-partisan office that keeps budget records for Congress. You can see CBO reports on historical actual budget information in its website here:

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9957/...bles09-web.XLS

Table 1 reports summary budget information, including two measures of the deficit (or surplus). "Total" includes SS surplus tax receipts (and has commonly been used by the Bush administration to measure deficits), and "on-budget" does not (and is therefore the more accurate measure, IMO, since SS taxes are not supposed to be used for general Govt expenditures). Because SS taxes have produced a surplus (about $200 billion) the last couple years, the on-budget surplus is lower than the "total" surplus (and conversely, the on-budget deficit is greater than the "total" deficit).

Follow the table down to the year "2000" and in the third column you can find that the "on-budget" surplus for 2000 was $86.4 billion. In 1999, there was a $1.9 billion surplus. You can see in the next column that the "total" surplus figures are even larger.

The U.S. budget does not include every expenditure -- for example, it has (prior to Obama taking office excludes "non-permanent" expenditures like the Iraq war. By excluding such things, the Bush administration was able to make the deficits look less severe. In 2006 and 2007, for example, the Bush administration claimed deficits of significantly less than $500 billion, while the US Govt actually had to borrow more than $500 billion in each of those years.

So looking at actual borrowing of the US Govt gives another picture of the deficit. For example, last year, the Govt borrowed over a trillion dollars, which is one way of measuring the size of the deficit Obama inhereted.

Did Clinton have a surplus using this measurement?

You can access the total debt of the US Govt from the Treasury Department's website, here:

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

Total debt of the US Government:

12/31/1999 $5,776,091,314,225.33
12/29/2000 $5,662,216,013,697.37

The total debt of the US Govt decreased by $114 billion during 2000, Clinton's last year in office.

Showing a true surplus.

+++

So to DiamondDave or anyone else who claims the surplus under Clinton was a "myth," here's a chance to present the "proof" that has been shown "over and over and over" that this surplus is a just a "myth".
 
Last edited:
i agree with you, and have also posted CBO as my source...and yes, the budget has been greatly misunderstood....and it is simply not true that Clinton did not have a surplus when measured by the same means every president has been measured on balancing the budget....because he DID have a surplus according to those measures.

He, along with his Congress....reduced the huge deficit he inherited, every year he was in office...
 
i agree with you, and have also posted CBO as my source...and yes, the budget has been greatly misunderstood....and it is simply not true that Clinton did not have a surplus when measured by the same means every president has been measured on balancing the budget....because he DID have a surplus according to those measures.

He, along with his Congress....reduced the huge deficit he inherited, every year he was in office...

The CBO, the official bipartisan agency in Congress reporting on the budget (and that many conservatives have referred to frequently regarding the current budget) reports there were surpluses. And the total debt decreases by over $100 billion in Clinton's last year.

Yet I hear over and over that the surplus was a "myth". So I don't get where the claim there was no "surplus" comes from, other than Murdoch outlets I mean.

Thus this thread.

So far, none of the several people that claimed the surplus was a "myth" which has been according to some proved over and over here have shown up. It's telling.
 
Last edited:
i agree with you, and have also posted CBO as my source...and yes, the budget has been greatly misunderstood....and it is simply not true that Clinton did not have a surplus when measured by the same means every president has been measured on balancing the budget....because he DID have a surplus according to those measures.

He, along with his Congress....reduced the huge deficit he inherited, every year he was in office...

The CBO, the official bipartisan agency in Congress reporting on the budget (and that many conservatives have referred to frequently regarding the current budget) reports there were surpluses. And the total debt decreases by over $100 billion in Clinton's last year.

Yet I hear over and over that the surplus was a "myth". So I don't get where the claim there was no "surplus" comes from, other than Murdoch outlets I mean.

Thus this thread.

So far, none of the several people that claimed the surplus was a "myth" which has been according to some proved over and over here have shown up. It's telling.

oh, you will get a response, from divecon and diamond dave for certain! patience is a virtue! :)

they just are not online now....!

they honestly believe that clinton didn't have a surplus based on opinions which they have read on the subject, so i don't think you will get far with them on this!!!! hahahahaha!
....even with the OMB statistics... :eek: I don't know what else to tell ya, except that someday, it may sink in with them...???

Because I believe, that they believe, they are being honest on the subject, I usually just agree to disagree on the subject....but that's just me....it took a bit of arguing and debating the subject before i resided to this position and have just resorted to praying that they will see the truth someday! :D

Good luck on your part though....maybe you will succeed?

Care
 
Again

Understand that the budget runs on the fiscal year, not december to december... also understand that total government spending is debt held by the public PLUS INTERGOVERNMENTAL SPENDING... there was no year, whatsoever, where Clinton had a surplus.. when he claimed to have a 200BIL surplus, he in fact had almost a 20BIL total deficit... and that was WITH the huge cuts he had to national defense, etc....

Yes.. he did not have 100's of billions extra spend in those years.. but he did not have the surplus that he, you guys, and other lefties falsely CLAIM to have had....

It is indeed a myth and an outright lie...

The numbers are there.... they are irrefutable
 
They keep changing the way they compute the budget, folks.

We ran the entire Iraqi war OFF budget, for christ's sakes. Doesn't get any weirder than that , does it?

We don't know ANYTHING because we cannot believe anything anyone tells us anymore.

How many years while most of us found our purchaing power evaporating at 10 or 20% a year, while they weretelling us that there was no inflation or a mere 2 or 3%??

How many years have they been lieing to us about the actualy number of people who couldn't find enough work, while they told us there was almost no unemployment?

Nothing we are being told now is not SUSPECT.

NOTHING!
 
Last edited:
The CBO also credits the majority of those surpluses to the 1993 budget reduction act signed into law without one single R vote.
 
They keep changing the way they compute the budget, folks.

We ran the entire Iraqi war OFF budget, for christ's sakes. Doesn't get any weirder than that , does it?

We don't know ANYTHING because we cannot believe anything anyone tells us anymore.

How many years while most of us found our purchaing power evaporating at 10 or 20% a year, while they weretelling us that there was no inflation or a mere 2 or 3%??

How many years have they been lieing to us about the actualy number of people who couldn't find enough work, while they told us there was almost no unemployment?

Nothing we are being told now is not SUSPECT.

NOTHING!

I do not think in any way that Bush or any congress during Bush's administration did a good job with the budget or how they handled the budget with the war budget reporting.... but that is not the point here.. the point and the fact is that there was never any Clinton term surplus PERIOD, even though the false claim is always STILL being brought up
 
Anything wantsoever that is done by Liberals that is GOOD is a MYTH. Just ask any CONSERVATIVE.
 
Fiscal Year End Date
Claimed Surplus
Public Debt
Inter-gov Holdings
Total National Debt
FY1997 09/30/1997 None $3.789667T $1.623478T $5.413146T
FY1998 09/30/1998 $69.2B $3.733864T $55.8B $1.792328T $168.9B $5.526193T $113B
FY1999 09/30/1999 $122.7B $3.636104T $97.8B $2.020166T $227.8B $5.656270T $130.1B
FY2000 09/29/2000 $230.0B $3.405303T $230.8B $2.268874T $248.7B $5.674178T $17.9B
FY2001 09/28/2001 None $3.339310T $66.0B $2.468153T $199.3B $5.807463T $133.3B
 
Indeed, Clinton did achieve a surplus during his eight years in office per the sources posted above!!!

If still you don't believe, The National Debt Clock is kept on Wall Street in New York City continuously counting the nations deficit. This clock was taken down during Clintons administration because.... THERE WAS NO NATIONAL DEBT!!!

Another fun fact..... The national debt clock also had to be taken down in October of 2008...last year of the Bush administration!!! Anybody know why?? The thing ran out of enough digits to record the national debt!!! Google the national debt clock on Wall Street!!
 
Indeed, Clinton did achieve a surplus during his eight years in office per the sources posted above!!!

If still you don't believe, The National Debt Clock is kept on Wall Street in New York City continuously counting the nations deficit. This clock was taken down during Clintons administration because.... THERE WAS NO NATIONAL DEBT!!!

Another fun fact..... The national debt clock also had to be taken down in October of 2008...last year of the Bush administration!!! Anybody know why?? The thing ran out of enough digits to record the national debt!!! Google the national debt clock on Wall Street!!

You were indeed just shown above, that you are flat out wrong.. I posted the fiscal year numbers for each year Clinton and the Congress claimed to have a surplus... the numbers indeed show that there was no surplus, and at best there was a ~20BIL deficit in Clinton's best fiscal year (where he claimed to have a ~200BIL surplus)
 
Again

Understand that the budget runs on the fiscal year, not december to december... also understand that total government spending is debt held by the public PLUS INTERGOVERNMENTAL SPENDING... there was no year, whatsoever, where Clinton had a surplus.. when he claimed to have a 200BIL surplus, he in fact had almost a 20BIL total deficit... and that was WITH the huge cuts he had to national defense, etc....

Yes.. he did not have 100's of billions extra spend in those years.. but he did not have the surplus that he, you guys, and other lefties falsely CLAIM to have had....

It is indeed a myth and an outright lie...

The numbers are there.... they are irrefutable

The following is irrefutable:

1) The CBO irrefutable shows a surplus. You cannot deny that.

2) The Treasury Dept data irrefutably shows that in 2000 the debt decreased by $114 billion. You cannot deny that.

Now the *only* way you can claim it is "irrefutable" that there was no surplus is by using *your* method of computing the surplus/deficit (which no one uses practically) and using *your* selected time frame.

I can prove anything is "irrefutable" if I'm allowed to choose the defiinitional parameters.

The surplus during the Clinton administration is not myth. Your own data sources irrefutably prove it.
 
Again

Understand that the budget runs on the fiscal year, not december to december... also understand that total government spending is debt held by the public PLUS INTERGOVERNMENTAL SPENDING... there was no year, whatsoever, where Clinton had a surplus.. when he claimed to have a 200BIL surplus, he in fact had almost a 20BIL total deficit... and that was WITH the huge cuts he had to national defense, etc....

Yes.. he did not have 100's of billions extra spend in those years.. but he did not have the surplus that he, you guys, and other lefties falsely CLAIM to have had....

It is indeed a myth and an outright lie...

The numbers are there.... they are irrefutable

The following is irrefutable:

1) The CBO irrefutable shows a surplus. You cannot deny that.

2) The Treasury Dept data irrefutably shows that in 2000 the debt decreased by $114 billion. You cannot deny that.

Now the *only* way you can claim it is "irrefutable" that there was no surplus is by using *your* method of computing the surplus/deficit (which no one uses practically) and using *your* selected time frame.

I can prove anything is "irrefutable" if I'm allowed to choose the defiinitional parameters.

The surplus during the Clinton administration is not myth. Your own data sources irrefutably prove it.

AGAIN.. .understand fiscal year versus dec-dec... you are attempting to manipulate data... you have been caught and exposed... there is no fiscal year (where the full budget runs) where there was any fucking surplus

I have showed you over and over again the actual numbers of both the budget and intergovernmental spending... for each fiscal year where Clinton claimed to have a surplus and shown that in each case it is dead out FALSE

Nice try, asshole.. your manipulations do not fly
 
fiscal year
 
–noun
any yearly period without regard to the calendar year, at the end of which a firm, government, etc., determines its financial condition.

fiscal year

A twelve-month period for which an organization, such as a government or corporation, plans the use of its funds. Commonly, fiscal years run from July 1 to June 30, or, in the case of the U.S. government, from October 1 to September 30.
 
Fiscal Year End Date
Claimed Surplus
Public Debt
Inter-gov Holdings
Total National Debt
FY1997 09/30/1997 None $3.789667T $1.623478T $5.413146T
FY1998 09/30/1998 $69.2B $3.733864T $55.8B $1.792328T $168.9B $5.526193T $113B
FY1999 09/30/1999 $122.7B $3.636104T $97.8B $2.020166T $227.8B $5.656270T $130.1B
FY2000 09/29/2000 $230.0B $3.405303T $230.8B $2.268874T $248.7B $5.674178T $17.9B
FY2001 09/28/2001 None $3.339310T $66.0B $2.468153T $199.3B $5.807463T $133.3B

Your same source shows that the debt in fact DECREASED in the year 2000:

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

12/31/1999 $5,776,091,314,225.33
12/29/2000 $5,662,216,013,697.37 -113.9B

Again, showing there was an ACTUAL SURPLUS when Clinton was president, until Bush was elected and slashed revenes and brought back the fucking Republican record deficits.
 

Forum List

Back
Top