- Joined
- Sep 16, 2007
- Messages
- 9,796
- Reaction score
- 2,590
- Location
- out yonder
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Do your own research, your link will provide you with enough information to prove that Clinton lied again. Apparently like all liberals you ignore that the National Debt is comprised of Public Debt and intergovt. holdings. Clinton paid down the public debt by using SS revenue from intergovt. holdings raising that debt so the combined is more each year and thus no pay down of the debt.
Even your information refutes Clinton's statement. Let's see if you can figure out yet that Clinton and the Democrats have made a fool out of you?
In other words what you posted is bull*** as usual…noted. :2wave:
Nah, you call and tell them that treasury direct (one of your links ) that they are posting wrong data. While you at it tell them that that the President of the United States is wrong as well, for telling CNN “that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion.”
September 27, 2000
Web posted at: 4:51 p.m. EDT (2051 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion.
What is the reason they paid no taxes. I did notice in that MS Excel worksheet that .2% of those people making $10 Million or more paid no income tax. I didn't mention it earlier.Oh, don't be so hard on yourself. The first step to a cure though is admitting you have a problem. I keep waiting for you to answer the question, why do you care how much the rich pay in taxes? Also noticed you didn't respond to the article I posted showing that 47% of the people don't pay any taxes yet no outrage on your part?
If you don't believe Obama appeals to class warfare you are ignorant.
I don't know how you define rich and maybe you refer to someone like Bill Gates or the Waltons
I refer to those who are going to bear the brunt of the Obama-Dem-CLinton tax hikes and that is people making 200k to 2 mllion a year. They are the ones who are -in most cases-going to have to make lifestyle changes if all these tax hikes take place.
many of those people are going to see taxes go up 15-25% and if you are mainly getting your income from investments-your taxes could well double.
I believe your explanation of total debt and intergovernmental holdings to be accurate and we can take the Treasury numbers as accurate too.If I posted bs so did you. Your site doesn't show a surplus and apparently you don't understand the debt and deficit. That is ok since most liberals don't understand it either. You can bait me all you want, doesn't work. Clinton lied, your site shows it and now you divert from it. Let's see you do creative math on the Obama 3 trillion deficits.
By the way, you seem to not understand that the fiscal year of the U.S. is October to September, not January to January.
Here is the link for the yearly debt both Public and Intergovt. holdings
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual
Now are you going to admit that Clinton lied to you and the public?
I believe your explanation of total debt and intergovernmental holdings to be accurate and we can take the Treasury numbers as accurate too.
What these charts tell me is that during the later Clinton years the debt increased little, almost flattened out, and that the budget was near balanced. Is this in dispute?
The tax cuts for the wealthy must be extended. Rumor on the street has it that Obammer and the Dems are going to pass a major tax cut for the middle class in October. I'll bet you can figure out why.
It wouldn't look good to delete the wealthy tax cut before granting the new one for the working people.
I believe your explanation of total debt and intergovernmental holdings to be accurate and we can take the Treasury numbers as accurate too.
What these charts tell me is that during the later Clinton years the debt increased little, almost flattened out, and that the budget was near balanced. Is this in dispute?
It is literally impossible for debt held by the public to go down (as it did during the later clinton years) and to have a budget deficit. The government cannot borrow on behalf of itself. The intergovernmental holdings are debts to other programs. It basically takes money that has been garanteed to be used in that program (like SS) and puts it into the general fund for spending. This once again can only happan if the program (like SS for example) has a surplus in the first place.
There was a budget surplus and as a result explicit debt went down. Implicit debt increased due largely to the nature of the SS trust fund.
Debt held by the public:
09/30/1998 3,733,864,472,163.53
09/30/1999 3,636,104,594,501.81
09/29/2000 3,405,303,490,221.20
Government - Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)
Q:
During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?
A:
Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.
This chart, based on historical figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, shows the total deficit or surplus for each fiscal year from 1990 through 2006. Keep in mind that fiscal years begin Oct. 1, so the first year that can be counted as a Clinton year is fiscal 1994. The appropriations bills for fiscal years 1990 through 1993 were signed by Bill Clinton's predecessor, George H.W. Bush. Fiscal 2002 is the first for which President George W. Bush signed the appropriations bills, and the first to show the effect of his tax cuts.
Read entire article at Factcheck.orghttp://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html
Q:
During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?
A:
Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.
This chart, based on historical figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, shows the total deficit or surplus for each fiscal year from 1990 through 2006. Keep in mind that fiscal years begin Oct. 1, so the first year that can be counted as a Clinton year is fiscal 1994. The appropriations bills for fiscal years 1990 through 1993 were signed by Bill Clinton's predecessor, George H.W. Bush. Fiscal 2002 is the first for which President George W. Bush signed the appropriations bills, and the first to show the effect of his tax cuts.
Read entire article at Factcheck.orghttp://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html
Q:
During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?
A:
Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.
This chart, based on historical figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, shows the total deficit or surplus for each fiscal year from 1990 through 2006. Keep in mind that fiscal years begin Oct. 1, so the first year that can be counted as a Clinton year is fiscal 1994. The appropriations bills for fiscal years 1990 through 1993 were signed by Bill Clinton's predecessor, George H.W. Bush. Fiscal 2002 is the first for which President George W. Bush signed the appropriations bills, and the first to show the effect of his tax cuts.
Read entire article at Factcheck.orghttp://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html
Ok, that is a good first question. Budgeting is shared responsibility between Congress and the President, though. Clinton does deserve some credit, though, for agreeing to GOP's demands and signing the budget into law. Now I'm wondering who was the GOP leader responsible for reducing spending, what happened to that leader and in general what happened to the GOP in the next 6 years during Bush's term when spending increased? I would just like to see a balanced budget, and coming within range to a balanced budget and then progressing to large deficits is not good.Clinton had a GOP Congress so the question is did Clinton sign bills with higher or lower spending than he proposed? Clinton benefited from the dot.com bubble but when it burst the economy tumbled and he left us a recession.
Now can I ask why we are reliving the Clinton/Bush Presidencies when the current President has added 3 trillion to the debt in two years and 4 million to the unemployment roles?
The problem is any SS surplus really isn't a surplus at all, it is money that will be required for future retirees so what happened is public debt went down because of SS funds being used and those SS funds were replaced by IOU's that will come due and thus are future debt thus part of the total national debt. The fact remains Clinton didn't have a Budget surplus because the combination of Public Debt and Govt. holdings combined went up each year of his Administration
There was a budget surplus. It is literally impossible to pay down the debt owned by the public with a budget deficit. It goes by definition.
National debt = public debt + intragovernmental holdings
We have already identified that public debt went down. Intragovernmental holds rose by more than the public debt went down, therby increasing the national debt.
Conservative, if the SS trust fund purchases a treasury, where does the money come from? Can the government have a budget deficit without issuing debt to the public?
Not sure why you guys are torturing yourselves. Something like 25 years ago congress passed what they called a "unified" budget. That is to make things look better they took the SS surplus and added it to the budget to less less of a deficit or in the case you are talking about a surplus.
As to whether the government can have debt that is not publicly held. My sense is the answer is yes. The money in the SS trust, that was paid for with the insurance money people had taken away as a pension should not be confused with other monies. If you remember, Gore talked about a "lock box". People scuffed at him. Now it looks like the government may actually steal those dollars from retirees so yes it should be considered debt in my view.
I realize it is still debt, but how can it possibly be financed without first recieving it from revenues from somewhere? It is only possible if the government or some other agency had a surplus. It is impossible for the government in its entirety to have a deficit (as conservative implies) but still pay down the public debt. If it took the money from SS for example, it was because SS was already in surplus for that year.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?