Question for jeffy

[Dirty Sanchez]

Strange, how can you have a "budget surplus" yet increase the national debt at the same time.   Go back and look at the numbers, the national debt increased every year Clinton was in office, granted there were several very small increases, but they were increases none the less.   So I am still amazed at the myth of Clinton running budget surpluses, when every year of his presidency the federal government had to borrow money.    In addition, when Clinton left office the U.S. was in recession and the .com bubble had blown up.  The "Budget surplus" was due more with fun with intra governmental holdings and transfers and lots of playing around with the Social Security "lock box". 

I've also found it fascinating how libratards never want to look at reality.  Dems have controlled congress for four years now.  During that dime Federal Budget deficits have exploded.  War Spending just keeps right on going and  under this administration the wars have been expanded.   The U.S. is engaged in war either with regular forces or JSOC/Special forces in at least 5 countries (likely more).   The use of "guns for hire" contractors that liberals wailed and screamed about under Bush . . . has increased dramatically under the Obama administration.   Currently the U.S. is engaged in an illegal drone assassination campaign inside Pakistan, that one legal expert said could technically get the administration tagged with war crimes.   The official explanation from the Barry Administration as to why they have the "legal" right to carry out this campaign . . . "Al Qaeda attacked the United States on 9-11" . . . holy $hit where have I heard that before??  Now Barry and Hillary are running all over the place saying we can't let the terra-ists get nuclear weapons . . . Holy $hit where have I heard all of that before?? (this is becoming a recurring theme).    Strange though, the U.S. is still prosecuting wars all over the world, expanding military bases in South America, NATO continues to encircle Russia, the administration loves the new U.S. tool of hegemony that being the concept of Prompt Global Strike capabilities (look it up) . . . yet the anti war protesters are gone from the street corner they gathered every Sunday when Bush is in office. 

Hey, look... another right wing lunatic that doesn't grasp the difference between the budget and the national debt.  Clinton also created over 20 million jobs.  The guy kept taxes at a reasonable level and emphasized a prospering middle class.  It's really not that difficult to understand.

klinton did not create 20 million jobs.  Bill Gates/Steve Jobs/et al did because of the tech boom in combination with the opening of the markets of the old eastern bloc in the early 90's (Thank you, Ronald Reagan) and their demand for improved capitalist-built goods.

[pike]

Yeah Clinton claims to have created 20 million jobs, however that was at the same time the internet exploded (which had nothing to do with Clinton or any other politician) and coincidentally there was a republican congress. I'll be damned. 

[sonofdaxjones]

Strange, how can you have a "budget surplus" yet increase the national debt at the same time.   Go back and look at the numbers, the national debt increased every year Clinton was in office, granted there were several very small increases, but they were increases none the less.   So I am still amazed at the myth of Clinton running budget surpluses, when every year of his presidency the federal government had to borrow money.    In addition, when Clinton left office the U.S. was in recession and the .com bubble had blown up.  The "Budget surplus" was due more with fun with intra governmental holdings and transfers and lots of playing around with the Social Security "lock box".  

I've also found it fascinating how libratards never want to look at reality.  Dems have controlled congress for four years now.  During that dime Federal Budget deficits have exploded.  War Spending just keeps right on going and  under this administration the wars have been expanded.   The U.S. is engaged in war either with regular forces or JSOC/Special forces in at least 5 countries (likely more).   The use of "guns for hire" contractors that liberals wailed and screamed about under Bush . . . has increased dramatically under the Obama administration.   Currently the U.S. is engaged in an illegal drone assassination campaign inside Pakistan, that one legal expert said could technically get the administration tagged with war crimes.   The official explanation from the Barry Administration as to why they have the "legal" right to carry out this campaign . . . "Al Qaeda attacked the United States on 9-11" . . . holy $hit where have I heard that before??  Now Barry and Hillary are running all over the place saying we can't let the terra-ists get nuclear weapons . . . Holy $hit where have I heard all of that before?? (this is becoming a recurring theme).    Strange though, the U.S. is still prosecuting wars all over the world, expanding military bases in South America, NATO continues to encircle Russia, the administration loves the new U.S. tool of hegemony that being the concept of Prompt Global Strike capabilities (look it up) . . . yet the anti war protesters are gone from the street corner they gathered every Sunday when Bush is in office.  

Hey, look... another right wing lunatic that doesn't grasp the difference between the budget and the national debt.  Clinton also created over 20 million jobs.  The guy kept taxes at a reasonable level and emphasized a prospering middle class.  It's really not that difficult to understand.

LOL at the Ben . . . I know the exact differences between the federal budget and national debt.   Simple question, how does the national debt increase during a fiscal year, if you're supposedly running a budget surplus during a FY?? Why isn't the so called surplus being used to pay down the National Debt?  Simple answer really . . . the government was borrowing less money on the bond market, because they were raiding the various "lock boxes" which admittedly were bringing in a lot of money during the .com bubble.    The Social Security Administration is legally required to take all 'surpluses' and do what with it??  Buy U.S. Government Bonds . . . thus creating an intergovernmental holding (thus the lockbox that's full of what??  IOU's). 

But not to worry Clinton wasn't the only president to play money games, and I am no fan of Bush either . . . just tired of the propagation of a myth.

Plus, take a look at Clinton's budget deficits when the Democrats controlled congress, then take a look at Clinton's budgets once the Republican's took over.

Also nice avoidance on the Federal Budget blowout by the Obama Administration in lockstep with the Democratically controlled congress.  

[sonofdaxjones]

Sadly during the years of so called federal budget surpluses, not one penny of the national debt was paid down, in fact the national debt still increased by $1.4 trillion dollars during the entirety of the Clinton presidency.  


    Fiscal
    Year      Year  ending        National Debt             Deficit
FY1993    09/30/1993    $4.411488 trillion   
FY1994    09/30/1994    $4.692749 trillion    $281.26 billion
FY1995    09/29/1995    $4.973982 trillion    $281.23 billion
FY1996    09/30/1996    $5.224810 trillion    $250.83 billion
FY1997    09/30/1997    $5.413146 trillion    $188.34 billion
FY1998    09/30/1998    $5.526193 trillion    $113.05 billion
FY1999    09/30/1999    $5.656270 trillion    $130.08 billion
FY2000    09/29/2000    $5.674178 trillion    $17.91 billion
FY2001    09/28/2001    $5.807463 trillion    $133.29 billion

[OregonSmock]

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html

The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton's fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries.

Clinton's large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn't counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.

[sonofdaxjones]

Let's look at a few things:

In FY 2000, the Clinton Administration raided 8 plus trust funds to the Tune of $246.5 Billion Dollars (U.S. Treasury) essentially loading up those "lock boxes" with $246.5 billion dollars worth of IOU's, it was that raid that lead to the "budget surplus" and despite all of that, they still didn't pay down one dime on the National Debt, and in fact in FY 2000, the National Debt Increased $18 Billion Dollars.   Why did it increase $18 billion dollars DAX??  Because the decrease in the public portion of the national debt, was offset by the increase in the intergovernmental holdings of the national debt, they borrowed $246.5 Billion dollars from those trust funds though the vehicle of U.S. treasuries that have to paid back.   

Let's break it down:

In FY 1998 the Public Portion of the National Debt Decreased $55.5 Billion Dollars (hooray) the Intergovernmental Holdings of U.S. Debt INCREASED $168.98 Billion Dollars . . . outcome, an increase of the National Debt of $113 Billion (boo).

In FY 1999 the public portion of the National Debt Decreased $97.8 Billion Dollars (YEAH), the Intergovernmental holding of U.S. Debt INCREASED by 227.8 Billion Dollars (Boo).    Thus increasing the overall national debt by $130 Billion.

In FY 2000 the public portion of the National Debt decreased $230.8 Billion Dollars, the Intergovernmental Holdings of U.S. Debt increased $248.8 Billion dollars.   Increase in overall National Debt . . . $18 Billion Dollars.

In FY 2001 the public the public portion of the national debt decreased by $66.08 Billion, the Intergovernmental Holdings of U.S. Debt increased by $199.8 Billion.   Thus an increase of total U.S. National Debt of $133 billion dollars. 

Debt held by U.S. Gov't entities still has to be serviced just like all other debt.   

As of this last Friday, the Federal Gov't owes it's own entities $4.517 Trillion Dollars.    It owes "public" entities $8.336 Trillion Dollars. 

So anyone want to talk about back loading??







   

[Jeffy]

Again, congress is in charge of spending, not the president.

[OregonSmock]

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html

The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton's fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries.

Clinton's large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn't counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.

These are the facts.  But I repeat myself.

[sonofdaxjones]

Factcheck doesn't even bother to tackle intergovernmental holdings . . . they avoid the issue all together.

Debt is debt . . . there's no way around it, and FactCheck just chooses not to deal with it.  

Fail.

But kudo's to the Clinton team for being able to perpetrate a fraud.

The Bottom Line is this . . . the national debt increased by $1.4 Trillion Dollars under the Clinton Administration, and they put over a half a trillion dollars worth of IOU's into the "lock boxes" of multiple trust funds, and as I said, they didn't pay down the national debt one penny.   They borrowed nearly $250 Billion Dollars from trust fund surpluses in  FY 2000 alone in order to claim they had a budget surplus . . . pathetic.

[sonofdaxjones]

The surplus deception is clearly discernible in the statistics of national debt. While the spenders are boasting about surpluses, the national debt is rising year after year. In 1998, the first year of the legerdemain surplus, it rose from $5.413 trillion to $5.526 trillion, due to a deficit of $112.9 billion... The federal government spends Social Security money and other trust funds which constitute obligations to present and future recipients. It consumes them and thereby incurs obligations as binding as those to the owners of savings bonds. Yet, the Treasury treats them as revenue and hails them for generating surpluses. If a private banker were to treat trust fund deposits as income and profit, he would face criminal charges Prof: Hans F. Sennholz Economics Grove City College and Ludwig Von Mises Institute 

[OregonSmock]

The bottom line is that the Clinton administration was responsible for the largest budget surplus in US history.  It's not up for debate, but as they always say, when the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts. 

[OregonSmock]

http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/new/html/Tue_Oct_3_113400_2000.html

LARGEST DEBT REDUCTION EVER

The President’s plan to eliminate the debt by 2012 remains on track. President Clinton’s budget proposes to reduce the debt held by the public by $2.9 trillion over the next decade and to eliminate it by 2012. The President’s debt reduction comes from saving the entire $2.3 trillion Social Security surplus, the entire $403 billion Medicare surplus, and $192 billion of the on-budget surplus for debt reduction.
Interest payments would be eliminated. Currently, we spend 12 cents of every Federal dollar on interest payment. These payments, which were once projected to grow to 25 percent of all federal spending in 2012, would be eliminated under the President’s plan by that time.
On track to pay down more than $360 billion in debt over three years. In 1998 and 1999, the debt held by the public was reduced by $140 billion. The government paid down an additional $223 billion in debt held by the public this fiscal year alone. That will bring the total debt pay down to more than $360 billion – the largest three-year debt pay-down in American history. In contrast, under the 12 year tenure of Presidents Reagan and Bush, the debt held by the public quadrupled
The debt held by the public is on track to be $2.4 trillion lower in 2000 than was projected when the President took office. In 1993, the debt held by the public was projected by the Office of Management and Budget to balloon to $5.85 trillion by 2000. Instead, shrinking deficits, and growing surpluses in the last three years are projected to bring the debt down to $3.4 trillion in 2000 – $2.4 trillion less than expected. In 1993, the debt held by the public was 50 percent of GDP and projected to rise to 65 percent of GDP in 2000. Instead, it has been slashed to a projected 35 percent of GDP under the President’s plan and would be completely eliminated by 2012.

More explanation on how Clinton helped our country reach its highest budget surplus ever:

REDUCING SPENDING WHILE CUTTING TAXES FOR MIDDLE-INCOME FAMILIES

Federal spending as a share of the economy is the lowest since 1966. Spending restraint under President Clinton has brought spending down federal spending from 22 percent of GDP in 1992 to a projected 18 percent of GDP in 2000 – the lowest since 1966. At the same time, President Clinton has increased strategic investments in education, technology and other areas that are vital to growth.
The smallest Federal civilian workforce in 40 years. The Federal civilian workforce increased from the time when President Reagan took office to the time when President Bush left office. In contrast, since President Clinton and Vice President Gore took office, the Federal workforce has been cut by 377,000—by nearly a fifth – and is now lower than at any time since 1960.
While balancing the budget, running large surpluses and paying down the debt, the Clinton-Gore Administration has provided tax relief for working families. The tax cuts signed into law by the President in 1993 and 1997 – for example, the expanded Earned Income Tax Credit, the $500 child tax credit, the $1,500 HOPE Scholarship Tax Credit, and expanded IRAs have reduced taxes for American working families. The total Federal tax rate for middle-income families has dropped from 24.5 percent in 1992 to 22.8 percent in 1999 – that’s the lowest tax rate since 1978. For families at one-half the median income, the effective Federal tax rate has been slashed from 19.8 percent in 1992 to 14.1 percent in 1999 – that’s the lowest tax rate since 1968.

President Clinton:  an economic conservative/social liberal 



 

[pike]

Good thing Clinton had help from the Republicans 

[OregonSmock]

Good thing Clinton had help from the Republicans 

Maybe so, but we all saw what the Republicans did when they had total control.  They racked up the largest budget deficit in US history and bankrupted the US treasury.
 

[Sugar Dick]

Good thing Clinton had help from the Republicans 

Maybe so, but we all saw what the Republicans did when they had total control.  They racked up the largest budget deficit in US history and bankrupted the US treasury.

I missed that, was it Chapter 11? 

[pike]

Good thing Clinton had help from the Republicans 

Maybe so, but we all saw what the Republicans did when they had total control.  They racked up the largest budget deficit in US history and bankrupted the US treasury.
 

Now that the new "Change" has occurred I think it's safe to say the Dems will only make things worse

[OregonSmock]

Good thing Clinton had help from the Republicans  

Maybe so, but we all saw what the Republicans did when they had total control.  They racked up the largest budget deficit in US history and bankrupted the US treasury.
 

Now that the new "Change" has occurred I think it's safe to say the Dems will only make things worse

President Obama's tax policies resemble President Clinton's.  He's also reforming the health care industry and promoting various technological advances, such as stem cell research and alternative energy sources, for example.  How about we give the guy a chance?  He's taking over in the midst of the worst economic recession since the Great Depression.  Do they teach economics at K-State, and if so, do they teach you guys that basically the only way for the government to generate revenue is through taxes?  How do you expect the government to decrease the national debt without raising taxes?

[pike]

Lower taxes and then get extra tax revenue from higher output, duh. The reason it didn't work under Bush and the Reps is because they started two illegal wars that have now cost hundreds of billions of dollars.On the other hand you could just put the burden on businesses and just kill the economy through higher taxes, which seems to be what we're headed to under health care reform and God forbid cap and trade

[OregonSmock]

Lower taxes and then get extra tax revenue from higher output, duh. The reason it didn't work under Bush and the Reps is because they started two illegal wars that have now cost hundreds of billions of dollars.On the other hand you could just put the burden on businesses and just kill the economy through higher taxes, which seems to be what we're headed to under health care reform and God forbid cap and trade

Are you still trying to pimp the "trickle down" economic approach?  You really are clueless.  The Clinton administration proved that raising taxes on the upper fringe and lowering taxes on the middle class is the way to go.  The middle class drives the economy and has the most influence on domestic consumption.  Not sure if you've noticed, but the corporations and the insanely rich have been outsourcing jobs to countries like India and China.  They're not creating any jobs or investing in domestic goods.  Trickle down economics is a washed up approach that has never worked and will never work. 

[pike]

Lower taxes and then get extra tax revenue from higher output, duh. The reason it didn't work under Bush and the Reps is because they started two illegal wars that have now cost hundreds of billions of dollars.On the other hand you could just put the burden on businesses and just kill the economy through higher taxes, which seems to be what we're headed to under health care reform and God forbid cap and trade

Are you still trying to pimp the "trickle down" economic approach?  You really are clueless.  The Clinton administration proved that raising taxes on the upper fringe and lowering taxes on the middle class is the way to go.  The middle class drives the economy and has the most influence on domestic consumption.  Not sure if you've noticed, but the corporations and the insanely rich have been outsourcing jobs to countries like India and China.  They're not creating any jobs or investing in domestic goods.  Trickle down economics is a washed up approach that has never worked and will never work. 

Reagan proved that trickle down does work. Facts are facts.

[OregonSmock]

Lower taxes and then get extra tax revenue from higher output, duh. The reason it didn't work under Bush and the Reps is because they started two illegal wars that have now cost hundreds of billions of dollars.On the other hand you could just put the burden on businesses and just kill the economy through higher taxes, which seems to be what we're headed to under health care reform and God forbid cap and trade

Are you still trying to pimp the "trickle down" economic approach?  You really are clueless.  The Clinton administration proved that raising taxes on the upper fringe and lowering taxes on the middle class is the way to go.  The middle class drives the economy and has the most influence on domestic consumption.  Not sure if you've noticed, but the corporations and the insanely rich have been outsourcing jobs to countries like India and China.  They're not creating any jobs or investing in domestic goods.  Trickle down economics is a washed up approach that has never worked and will never work. 

Reagan proved that trickle down does work. Facts are facts.

You are absolutely clueless.



      

[pike]

Lower taxes and then get extra tax revenue from higher output, duh. The reason it didn't work under Bush and the Reps is because they started two illegal wars that have now cost hundreds of billions of dollars.On the other hand you could just put the burden on businesses and just kill the economy through higher taxes, which seems to be what we're headed to under health care reform and God forbid cap and trade

Are you still trying to pimp the "trickle down" economic approach?  You really are clueless.  The Clinton administration proved that raising taxes on the upper fringe and lowering taxes on the middle class is the way to go.  The middle class drives the economy and has the most influence on domestic consumption.  Not sure if you've noticed, but the corporations and the insanely rich have been outsourcing jobs to countries like India and China.  They're not creating any jobs or investing in domestic goods.  Trickle down economics is a washed up approach that has never worked and will never work. 

Reagan proved that trickle down does work. Facts are facts.

You are absolutely clueless.



      

This coming from a tard that doesn't even think 9/11 was an inside job.

But keep your head up your ass. Reaganomics provided the greatest economic boom in history.

[wetwillie]

Good thing Clinton had help from the Republicans  

Maybe so, but we all saw what the Republicans did when they had total control.  They racked up the largest budget deficit in US history and bankrupted the US treasury.
 

Now that the new "Change" has occurred I think it's safe to say the Dems will only make things worse

President Obama's tax policies resemble President Clinton's.  He's also reforming the health care industry and promoting various technological advances, such as stem cell research and alternative energy sources, for example.  How about we give the guy a chance?  He's taking over in the midst of the worst economic recession since the Great Depression.  Do they teach economics at K-State, and if so, do they teach you guys that basically the only way for the government to generate revenue is through taxes?  How do you expect the government to decrease the national debt without raising taxes?

Reduce spending, although I can't imagine that anyone would be willing to commit career suicide by actually proposing and following through with the cuts necessary. Especially in regards to the defense budget.

[OregonSmock]

Four basic reasons why cutting taxes for the richest of the rich doesn't work:

1.  Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to economic (real GDP) growth:



2.  Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to income growth:



3.  Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to wage growth:



4.  Cutting the top tax rate does not lead to job creation:

[OregonSmock]

Lower taxes and then get extra tax revenue from higher output, duh. The reason it didn't work under Bush and the Reps is because they started two illegal wars that have now cost hundreds of billions of dollars.On the other hand you could just put the burden on businesses and just kill the economy through higher taxes, which seems to be what we're headed to under health care reform and God forbid cap and trade

Are you still trying to pimp the "trickle down" economic approach?  You really are clueless.  The Clinton administration proved that raising taxes on the upper fringe and lowering taxes on the middle class is the way to go.  The middle class drives the economy and has the most influence on domestic consumption.  Not sure if you've noticed, but the corporations and the insanely rich have been outsourcing jobs to countries like India and China.  They're not creating any jobs or investing in domestic goods.  Trickle down economics is a washed up approach that has never worked and will never work.  

Reagan proved that trickle down does work. Facts are facts.

You are absolutely clueless.



   

This coming from a tard that doesn't even think 9/11 was an inside job.

But keep your head up your ass. Reaganomics provided the greatest economic boom in history.

 







Also, you are wrong about Reaganomics.  The federal debt from his economic policies tripled from $930 billion in 1981 to $2.6 trillion in 1988.  The real economic growth took place during the "dot com" boom of the 1990's, which we all know happened during the Clinton adminstration.