DiamondDave
Army Vet
You are indeed DENSE
FISCAL YEAR... FISCAL YEAR... the government runs on the fiscal year OCT1 thru SEP30
get it thru your thick ******* skull
The budget and the spending reporting are done in the FISCAL YEAR
The myth that a surplus during the Clinton administration was a myth.
- Thread starter Iriemon
- Start date
You are indeed DENSE
FISCAL YEAR... FISCAL YEAR... the government runs on the fiscal year OCT1 thru SEP30
get it thru your thick ******* skull
The budget and the spending reporting are done in the FISCAL YEAR
- Thread starter
- #22
Please understand that Bush took office in Jan 2001. And immediately upon taking office in Jan 2001, the very first thing is Bush and the Republicans did was pass revenue slashing laws, and gave tens of billions of dollars in rebates to tax payers in the the Summer of 2001, which of course effected the budget for the period ending September 2001.
DiamondDave
Army Vet
United States
For example, the United States government fiscal year for 2009 ("FY09", sometimes written "FY08–09") is as follows:
* 1st Quarter: October 1, 2008 – December 31, 2008
* 2nd Quarter: January 1, 2009 – March 31, 2009
* 3rd Quarter: April 1, 2009 – June 30, 2009
* 4th Quarter: July 1, 2009 – September 30, 2009
The U.S. government's fiscal year begins on October 1 of the previous calendar year and ends on September 30 of the year with which it is numbered. Prior to 1976, the fiscal year began on July 1 and ended on June 30. The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 stipulated the change to allow Congress more time to arrive at a budget each year, and provided for what is known as the "transitional quarter" from July 1, 1976 to September 30, 1976. As stated above, the tax year for a business is governed by the fiscal year it chooses.
Fiscal year - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For example, the United States government fiscal year for 2009 ("FY09", sometimes written "FY08–09") is as follows:
* 1st Quarter: October 1, 2008 – December 31, 2008
* 2nd Quarter: January 1, 2009 – March 31, 2009
* 3rd Quarter: April 1, 2009 – June 30, 2009
* 4th Quarter: July 1, 2009 – September 30, 2009
The U.S. government's fiscal year begins on October 1 of the previous calendar year and ends on September 30 of the year with which it is numbered. Prior to 1976, the fiscal year began on July 1 and ended on June 30. The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 stipulated the change to allow Congress more time to arrive at a budget each year, and provided for what is known as the "transitional quarter" from July 1, 1976 to September 30, 1976. As stated above, the tax year for a business is governed by the fiscal year it chooses.
Fiscal year - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
DiamondDave
Army Vet
You are indeed DENSE
The budget for Obama, his first budget, begins OCT1 of this year..... we are STILL under Bush's budget...
Just as in year 2001, we were under Clinton's budget until Bush's first budget went into effect on OCT1 2001
You are indeed ******* dense
- Thread starter
- #25
So what. I understand you want to use FISCAL because the only convoluted, strained way you can claim there was no surplus is by using *your* way of measuring the budget and for *your* time period.
Everyone uses CBO figures when talking about surpluses and deficits. You don't like that because it shows Clinton in fact had surpluses with both "on-budget" and "total"
You want to look at borrowing?
It is irrefutable that under Clinton the country borrowed less money in 2000.
I'll agree that if you use years ending September 30; you see the deficits falling rapidly every year until Bush took office, and that for the year ending 9/30/00 the Govt borrowed in tiny bit of money. But the "deficits" continued falling, evidence by the fact that for the year ending 12/31/00, the Govt did not have to borrow more money but PAID THE DEBT DOWN. A surplus under your measurement. And irrefutable.
And then Bush took office.
If you don't like Clinton's numbers, you should see GW Bush's real numbers. He didn't even include war spending in his budget.
By GW & Reagan's standards, Clinton had a surplus.
All that matters is Clinton & Carter did better than the 3 Republicans on their budgets. That's all that matters in this argument.
By GW & Reagan's standards, Clinton had a surplus.
All that matters is Clinton & Carter did better than the 3 Republicans on their budgets. That's all that matters in this argument.
DiamondDave
Army Vet
My way?? MY WAY?? It is how things run in the US ******* government you ignorant ****..... it is when budgets run, it is when reporting is run, it is how the government INDEED takes account of what it has done in spending....
I am not arguing Bush, nor am I defending the budgets/spending of Bush (and never did)... but nice typical leftist ploy
The debt was not paid down, whatsoever... just as there was no surplus, whatsoever....
Did Clinton cut numbers in the reported budget? Yes.... but his entire spending also was greater than his entire intake each and every ******* FISCAL YEAR....
You have been exposed, as others before you have been exposed.. for putting forth the continual lie....
My truthful contention is that there was no 200BIL surplus as Clinton reported... his mythical surplus never included his increased intergovernmental spending which is INDEED part of how total surplus or deficit is calculated.... I hold Bush in contempt for how he handled all of his spending as well, and I agree he was worse in how he spent and did nothing to ook to curb total spending....
but
CLINTON HAD NO ******* SURPLUS
Stop spreading the myth
- Thread starter
- #28
That is not accurate and is a popular misunderstanding.
There was still a national debt when Clinton was president. However, under Clinton, the record deficit he inhereted was eliminated and the Govt was running a surplus and was paying down the debt. They debt clock actually started running backwords. Yet more evidence that the Govt was indeed running a surplus.
But there was still a debt, of about $5.7 trillion when Bush took office.
In 2000, due to a then-improving debt situation, the clock started to run backwards.[3] With the original purpose of the clock being to highlight the rising debt and the reverse giving a mixed message, and with the clock not being designed to run backwards[6], the clock was unplugged and covered with a red, white and blue curtain in September 2000, with the national debt standing at roughly 5.7 trillion dollars.[4] The clock was not dismantled however, and in July 2002 the curtain was raised and the clock once again picked up tracking a rising debt, starting at 6.1 trillion dollars.
National Debt Clock - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Thread starter
- #29
Yes, your way, YOUR WAY. Unless you want to show us where the CBO or any other reliable source says the budget surplus or deficit is measured by looking at the debt.
Now we have a typical response of a poster frustrated because he's been proven wrong and can't prove his arguement with facts or logic and made to look foolish -- start the flaming and infantile name calling, just like we saw when we were 6th graders ...
Now the resort to sheer fabrication. The fact that debt was paid down $114 billion dollars in 2000 has been irrefutably proven by your own source. But deny away...
Yes, and in calendar year 2000, his last before Bush took office the following January, the budget was paid down, proving a SURPLUS using your own methodology.
Others can decide that for themselves. The evidence from your own source is irrefutable.
Clinton never reported anything. The CBO reports a $236 billion SURPLUS in 2000 using the methodology the Bush administration used for years reporting the deficit. What's good for the goose ...
It's been proved there was a surplus in this thread in black and white for all to see.
Stop spreading the lie there was not.
Last edited:
You're right let's pretend they didn't cover up the national debt clock in Sept. 2000 ----that whole ceremony where they draped it with the American Flag that we all watched on the news.... nah, that didn't happen!!!! In that world, I would be flat out wrong but not in reality!!
- Thread starter
- #31
There's nothing in there that says you measure deficits or supluses by looking at the debt, or that you have to use a fiscal year calendar ending Sept 30 if you do.
DiamondDave
Army Vet
It is when how the budgets are crafted.. it is how the government runs on financial issues....
But nice try
It is how it is....
And again.. I never defended or supported Bush's spending ways... but nice try.. you keep trying to sneak it in as some winning point, as a typical lefty move
You have proven nothing except that you wish to try and change criteria to suit your argument... everyone with any shred of an idea of how the government works and reports knows that financials are done in the fiscal year and not the calendar year.... there was NEVER and I do mean NEVER any surplus in any fiscal year during Clinton's administration.. .PERIOD... P-E-R-I-O-D
You are flat out wrong.... and that is the only thing that you have proven with your absolute ******* drivel... well, that and you are a complete left-wing partisan hack
DiamondDave
Army Vet
A little blurb that shows the true deficit each FISCAL year (yes, the time period that all government budget and spending is gauged and set up by) for every President since Carter
The True Federal Deficit
Every one of them claimed to be better in spending than they truly were
The True Federal Deficit
Every one of them claimed to be better in spending than they truly were
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #34
Good for Craig Steiner. I posted the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office for proof there were surpluses. You post Craig Steiner. Whoever the hell he is. Folks can decide for themselves whether the CBO or Craig Steiner is the more accurate source for budget data. My obervation is that many foks, liberal and conservative alike, cite to the CBO for information about the budgets, deficts and surpluses. I've never seen anyone cite to Craig Steiner before, or ever heard of him for that matter.
I don't have a problem with comparing the growth in debt as one type of measure of a deficit or surplus. And I agree that in FY2000 ending 9/30/00 there was a tiny growth in the debt (17 billion), which using this measure indicates a tiny deficit.
But Clinton's term didn't end 9/30/00. Your data also shows that during Clintons term the "deficit" measured by the debt was decreasing rapidly. Which continued thru the end of the calendar year while Clinton was still president. And the Treasury data shows irrefutably that for the 12 months ending 12/31/00, just before Bush took office the following January, the Govt debt decreased, showing the Govt operated with a surplus in 2000.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #35
You are flat out wrong. No matter how many P-E-R-I-O-D-S you want to add.
In the year 2000 the debt decreased. The evidence is in black and white. Everyone can see it. It is irrefutable.
The CBO shows a surplus and for the last full year Clinton was in office the debt went down. The record is clear where the drivel is here.
Last edited:
Looks like a surplus to me Dave.
YOur surplus is on paper only and was gained largely through the subterfuge of listing all of the Social secrity receipts as a plus while listing none of the SS funds liabilities as a debit.
Any business that kept its books the way the Federal government does would be hauled before the courts for fraud.
Any business that kept its books the way the Federal government does would be hauled before the courts for fraud.
- Thread starter
- #38
I certainly agree that the way the Govt keeps records is a crime, and particular the way it has stolen about $3 trillion from the SS (plus other pension funds) to finance its deficits! It has essentially robbed the boomers of decades of paying extra high SS taxes so that SS would have money to pay their SS pensions, and its all been stolen. Dems and Repubs alike have allowed this!
But the CBO numbers do include both SS receipts and expenditures.
If you look at the Historical Budget figures here:
http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10014/HistoricalMar09.xls
You will see SS revenues accounted for in Table F-3, and SS expenditures accounted for in table F-9.
What you may be thinking about is the difference between the "on-budget" deficit (or surplus) and the more commonly referred to "total" deficit (or surplus). See table F-1.
The "total" deficit is the one you usually hear about. But it includes the extra SS tax revenues which are supposed to be saved for SS pensions. The more accurate measure (IMO) is the "on-budget" figure, which excludes SS income and expenditures.
In table 1 you can see the "on-budget" figure, which then adds in the extra SS taxes and post office profit (or loss) to get to the "total" figure.
Thus, when politicians and the press talk about a deficit "only" $160.7B in 2007, they are including SS revenues. The actual deficit without the excess SS revenues was $342.2B.
Going back to 2000, the "total" surplus was a whopping $236B. But that included SS excess revenues. However, even if you exclude SS, there was still an $86B surplus in 2000.
Last edited:
Not every SS liability is an expenditure. 90% of what the SS takes in every years gos right back out in benefits to retirees, another 5 or 6% (which I can't remember) by statute goes to cover administrative costs. The rest is invested and has earned something on the order of 1% per annum. This rate of return doesn't even keep up with inflation.
- Thread starter
- #40
No, the rest has been taken by the Govt to finance the debt and replaced with "IOU's". They IOUs are worthless because the Govt has to come up with the money to pay for SS benefits anyway - they are not an asset the Govt can use to pay SS benes.
Thus, trillions of dollars in extra SS taxes the working poorer have largely paid have essentially be stolen to finance tax cuts that mostly benefitted the wealthiest.
Last edited:
Similar threads
New Topics
-
No BBC: Islamist Terror Hezbollah's attacks on Israel were not and are not "Retaliatory."- Started by Pastelli
- Replies: 0
-
This follows a pattern of the insidious way the regime does things.- Started by berg80
- Replies: 4
-
Trump slams fake news Barak Ravid ex Haaretz, currently @ axios
- Started by Pastelli
- Replies: 9
-
BREAKING : 🇨🇺 The Cuban Bolshevik dictatorship has just announced PERESTROIKA on national television.- Started by Litwin
- Replies: 4
-
