• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

Conservative

Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
112,661
Reaction score
10,290
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
When it comes to government spending and the debt, the poster boy according to liberals were the Clinton years and "surplus". It is time to destroy that myth and I know this is going to cause some leftist brains to explode but hate to destroy your love and admiration for Clinton

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

A lot of content and information here so if you are going to address this thread topic address the content
 

Conservative

Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
112,661
Reaction score
10,290
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
When it comes to government spending and the debt, the poster boy according to liberals were the Clinton years and "surplus". It is time to destroy that myth and I know this is going to cause some leftist brains to explode but hate to destroy your love and admiration for Clinton

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

A lot of content and information here so if you are going to address this thread topic address the content

Amazing, 35 views and no comments, must have hit a nerve with the radical left on this issue, Vern??? MTA??? Media??? No comments on the reality that Clinton added 1.4 trillion to the debt in 8 years, 300 billion less than that evil Ronald Reagan? where was that Clinton surplus?
 

JohnfrmClevelan

DP Veteran
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
6,345
Reaction score
4,054
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Amazing, 35 views and no comments, must have hit a nerve with the radical left on this issue, Vern??? MTA??? Media??? No comments on the reality that Clinton added 1.4 trillion to the debt in 8 years, 300 billion less than that evil Ronald Reagan? where was that Clinton surplus?

Maybe there haven't been any comments yet because your source is as clueless as you are when it comes to surpluses, deficits, and debt.

It is possible to increase the debt and run a surplus. All that has to happen is for more bonds to be purchased than mature in any given period. And there was an outcry from investors when bonds were not as available, so more bonds were issued for their sake.

Put more simply, you can still run up credit card debt, even if you spend less than you earn.

You've probably been yakking about the Clinton Surplus for 20 years now, and you never bothered to learn what it actually meant. Typical.






BTW, your boy Trump is outdoing himself these days. He won't have a gold toilet in jail.
 

Conservative

Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
112,661
Reaction score
10,290
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Maybe there haven't been any comments yet because your source is as clueless as you are when it comes to surpluses, deficits, and debt.

It is possible to increase the debt and run a surplus. All that has to happen is for more bonds to be purchased than mature in any given period. And there was an outcry from investors when bonds were not as available, so more bonds were issued for their sake.

Put more simply, you can still run up credit card debt, even if you spend less than you earn.

You've probably been yakking about the Clinton Surplus for 20 years now, and you never bothered to learn what it actually meant. Typical.






BTW, your boy Trump is outdoing himself these days. He won't have a gold toilet in jail.

Right, in the liberal world treasury data is irrelevant and what believe always trumps that data. the article is right on giving data that you haven't and can't refute. You are nothing more than a typical leftwing big govt. liberal who doesn't understand the private sector. How you coming in giving us data showing us how debt owned by foreign countries benefit the U.S.?

Rather sad to see someone totally oblivious to our economy and how the private sector works believing that govt. spending generates the same results. You don't understand the components of GDP and like far too many cult followers here need that European socialist utopia to help you survive
 

JohnfrmClevelan

DP Veteran
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
6,345
Reaction score
4,054
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Right, in the liberal world treasury data is irrelevant and what believe always trumps that data. the article is right on giving data that you haven't and can't refute. You are nothing more than a typical leftwing big govt. liberal who doesn't understand the private sector. How you coming in giving us data showing us how debt owned by foreign countries benefit the U.S.?

Rather sad to see someone totally oblivious to our economy and how the private sector works believing that govt. spending generates the same results. You don't understand the components of GDP and like far too many cult followers here need that European socialist utopia to help you survive

Notice that while the public debt went down in each of those four years, the intragovernmental holdings went up each year by a far greater amount--and, in turn, the total national debt (which is public debt + intragovernmental holdings) went up. Therein lies the discrepancy.

The only people who count intragovernmental debt are morons and hyperpartisans with an axe to grind. Or both.
 

Conservative

Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
112,661
Reaction score
10,290
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The only people who count intragovernmental debt are morons and hyperpartisans with an axe to grind. Or both.

Amazing what kind of parents you must have had who taught you that you didn't have to pay for your personal responsibility issues. You borrow from Inter Govt. holdings and replace them with an IOU that is still an obligation that has to be funded in the future. I feel sorry for people like you
 

JohnfrmClevelan

DP Veteran
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
6,345
Reaction score
4,054
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Amazing what kind of parents you must have had who taught you that you didn't have to pay for your personal responsibility issues. You borrow from Inter Govt. holdings and replace them with an IOU that is still an obligation that has to be funded in the future. I feel sorry for people like you

When your left pocket owes your right pocket money, does that mean you, the owner of both pockets, are in debt?
 

Conservative

Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
112,661
Reaction score
10,290
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
When your left pocket owes your right pocket money, does that mean you, the owner of both pockets, are in debt?

When I am forced to give money to the Federal govt. for a retirement supplement and they borrow that money to spend on programs they want I expect that it is going to be paid back to me. tell me how debt owned by foreign governments help get that money back to the people forced to contribute

For some unknown reason you don't seem to understand that it isn't the government's money, it belongs to the taxpayers who earned it. it comes out of the pockets of taxpayers not out of one federal pocket into another.
 

JohnfrmClevelan

DP Veteran
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
6,345
Reaction score
4,054
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
When I am forced to give money to the Federal govt. for a retirement supplement and they borrow that money to spend on programs they want I expect that it is going to be paid back to me. tell me how debt owned by foreign governments help get that money back to the people forced to contribute

That's not what "intragovernmental debt" is, numbnuts.

For some unknown reason you don't seem to understand that it isn't the government's money, it belongs to the taxpayers who earned it. it comes out of the pockets of taxpayers not out of one federal pocket into another.

You wouldn't have any dollars to pay taxes with if the government didn't spend them into the economy first.

Just give up now. Your little walnut can't comprehend federal finance.
 

Conservative

Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
112,661
Reaction score
10,290
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
That's not what "intragovernmental debt" is, numbnuts.



You wouldn't have any dollars to pay taxes with if the government didn't spend them into the economy first.

Just give up now. Your little walnut can't comprehend federal finance.

What a great little European socialist wannabe you are. How you coming on providing the benefits of foreign ownership of our debt?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intragovernmental_holdings

I find people like you who claim to be education and better than anyone else totally ignorant of civics, economics, and having zero logic or common sense. As a liberal your belief system is that allowing people to keep more of what they earn is wrong because they won't spend their money on the right issues. Now all of a sudden the bond holders do??

Government spending component of GDP ranges from 20-30% in this country, between 40-60% in Europe and other countries. It is consumer spending that creates the most benefit to GDP Growth thus govt. revenue from taxes. You still cannot explain how tax revenue has set records with tax cuts.
 

Jetboogieman

Somewhere in Babylon
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
32,049
Reaction score
35,915
Location
Somewhere in Babylon...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
When it comes to government spending and the debt, the poster boy according to liberals were the Clinton years and "surplus". It is time to destroy that myth and I know this is going to cause some leftist brains to explode but hate to destroy your love and admiration for Clinton

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

A lot of content and information here so if you are going to address this thread topic address the content

Website looks like something I made 15 years ago in computer class.

Nice find :lol:
 

Conservative

Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
112,661
Reaction score
10,290
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Website looks like something I made 15 years ago in computer class.

Nice find :lol:

So 15 years ago actual results resonated in your world? What happened since? How about that Clinton surplus the left continues to claim? Is that what the official data shows?
 

MTAtech

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 4, 2013
Messages
26,202
Reaction score
19,577
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
The Myth of the Clinton Surplus ()Craig Steiner, u.s. Common Sense American Conservatism) Seriously? That's your source? Who the **** is Craig Steiner?



Factcheck.org
has addressed this ages ago:

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.

FULL ANSWER
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.
FederalDeficit(1).jpg
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.
 
Last edited:

Conservative

Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
112,661
Reaction score
10,290
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The Myth of the Clinton Surplus ()Craig Steiner, u.s. Common Sense American Conservatism) Seriously? That's your source? Who the **** is Craig Steiner?



Factcheck.org
has addressed this ages ago:

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.

FULL ANSWER
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.
FederalDeficit(1).jpg
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.

Didn't read the article did you? You obviously have no idea what makes up the deficit and debt which is just another subject you know nothing about. Treasury data obviously is wrong and Clinton never added 1.4 trillion to the debt. obviously as well IOU's in the SS fund are NOT liabilities and thus shouldn't be treated as liabilities and debt, right?

Stunning how every subject regarding the economy finds you on the wrong side of history, facts, logic, and common sense. There are two parts to the deficit, figure that out and stop letting the left make a fool out of you
 

MTAtech

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 4, 2013
Messages
26,202
Reaction score
19,577
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Didn't read the article did you? You obviously have no idea what makes up the deficit and debt which is just another subject you know nothing about. Treasury data obviously is wrong and Clinton never added 1.4 trillion to the debt. obviously as well IOU's in the SS fund are NOT liabilities and thus shouldn't be treated as liabilities and debt, right?

Stunning how every subject regarding the economy finds you on the wrong side of history, facts, logic, and common sense. There are two parts to the deficit, figure that out and stop letting the left make a fool out of you

Your link Craig Steiner hardly qualifies as an "article." It's just a website from some guy on the internet. We've been reading that type of drivel for decades about how Clinton's surplus wasn't really a surplus. The fact is, more money was in receipts than expenditures, and that makes a surplus. Now, if you use the same "reasoning" that you use to belittle the Clinton surplus to Trump's deficits/debt, those are much much worse.
 

Pedestrian

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 23, 2018
Messages
1,901
Reaction score
340
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
When it comes to government spending and the debt, the poster boy according to liberals were the Clinton years and "surplus". It is time to destroy that myth and I know this is going to cause some leftist brains to explode but hate to destroy your love and admiration for Clinton

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

A lot of content and information here so if you are going to address this thread topic address the content

Then explain how it was that for 3 years, the US debt limit was not increased and how billion$ in treasuries were actually redeemed ?

This is a parsing of current account revenues vis-a-vis the operating budget without mentioning Soc. sec.

What Clinton left in place was the the regime of Reagan/Greenspan Soc. Sec 'reform' being a tripling of the payroll tax with

resulting over payment spent, creating a US treasury debt to that trust fund.

So the link deliberately obscure the effect of spending Soc. Sec. money that in fact increased US total debt.

This was done since 1983 and is done today. So Clinton did in fact create an operating fund surplus but allowed

the congress to continue to spend the soc. sec. money and thus the link is as usual...incorrect.
 

Conservative

Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
112,661
Reaction score
10,290
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Your link Craig Steiner hardly qualifies as an "article." It's just a website from some guy on the internet. We've been reading that type of drivel for decades about how Clinton's surplus wasn't really a surplus. The fact is, more money was in receipts than expenditures, and that makes a surplus. Now, if you use the same "reasoning" that you use to belittle the Clinton surplus to Trump's deficits/debt, those are much much worse.

Craig Steiner isn't the issue, the data in the article is which came from Treasury. You seem to really have a problem with the official treasury data. seems rather hard for you to admit when wrong. There are two parts to the deficit, you focus on the budget and ignore Inter-Government Holdings
 

Conservative

Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
112,661
Reaction score
10,290
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Then explain how it was that for 3 years, the US debt limit was not increased and how billion$ in treasuries were actually redeemed ?

This is a parsing of current account revenues vis-a-vis the operating budget without mentioning Soc. sec.

What Clinton left in place was the the regime of Reagan/Greenspan Soc. Sec 'reform' being a tripling of the payroll tax with

resulting over payment spent, creating a US treasury debt to that trust fund.

So the link deliberately obscure the effect of spending Soc. Sec. money that in fact increased US total debt.

This was done since 1983 and is done today. So Clinton did in fact create an operating fund surplus but allowed

the congress to continue to spend the soc. sec. money and thus the link is as usual...incorrect.

That is your opinion and not surprising the reality of the SS trust fund is ignored. Borrowing from SS to make the budget deficit look better has been ongoing for years and the fact remains, IOU's are debt and have to be paid for. they are secured debt but still the money has to be created to pay for those debts when the bonds come due. Since we continue to run a budget deficit where is that money going to come from?? When you borrow money does that create debt in your personal finances?
 

Pedestrian

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 23, 2018
Messages
1,901
Reaction score
340
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
That is your opinion and not surprising the reality of the SS trust fund is ignored. Borrowing from SS to make the budget deficit look better has been ongoing for years and the fact remains, IOU's are debt and have to be paid for. they are secured debt but still the money has to be created to pay for those debts when the bonds come due. Since we continue to run a budget deficit where is that money going to come from?? When you borrow money does that create debt in your personal finances?

OK but that has been and continues to this day and why Soc. Sec. is our largest creditor. So that debt is not part of the 'budget deficit.'

The operating budget (general revenues) did in fact enjoy a surplus and did not require a debt-limit increase.

The congress never needs to include soc. sec and this tax/revenue regime goes back to the 83 Soc. Sec reform.

So again, the link it incorrect.
 

Conservative

Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
112,661
Reaction score
10,290
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
OK but that has been and continues to this day and why Soc. Sec. is our largest creditor. So that debt is not part of the 'budget deficit.'

The operating budget (general revenues) did in fact enjoy a surplus and did not require a debt-limit increase.

The congress never needs to include soc. sec and this tax/revenue regime goes back to the 83 Soc. Sec reform.

So again, the link it incorrect.

We don't pay interest on the budget deficit we pay interest on the total debt and that debt is made up of both budget and Inter-Government holdings. Those are financial obligations to the taxpayers and why we have a 21 trillion dollar debt and over 550 BILLION per year in debt service/Interest expense

No the link isn't incorrect as it accurately points out DEBT not deficit in a particular category/budget deficit
 

Pedestrian

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 23, 2018
Messages
1,901
Reaction score
340
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
We don't pay interest on the budget deficit we pay interest on the total debt and that debt is made up of both budget and Inter-Government holdings. Those are financial obligations to the taxpayers and why we have a 21 trillion dollar debt and over 550 BILLION per year in debt service/Interest expense

No the link isn't incorrect as it accurately points out DEBT not deficit in a particular category/budget deficit

Once again, you and the link need to parse the accounting and thus know full well that under Clinton, the US

created what's called current account operating budget surplus and thus did not require any congressional debt limit increase.

The rest is partisan bull****.
 

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
25,495
Reaction score
22,197
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
When it comes to government spending and the debt, the poster boy according to liberals were the Clinton years and "surplus". It is time to destroy that myth and I know this is going to cause some leftist brains to explode but hate to destroy your love and admiration for Clinton

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

A lot of content and information here so if you are going to address this thread topic address the content

You clearly do not know what a deficit or a surplus is based on (and your source is not original in its intention in any sense.)
 

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
25,495
Reaction score
22,197
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent

You second link confirms it, you are confusing two different issues (at least.)

Receipts - Outlays = Surplus or Deficit.

That is it.

Dealing with all the influences into Debt held by the Public, Intergovernmental Debt, or Total Debt is an entirely different matter. For fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001 there was a fiscal surplus meaning for those years receipts were greater than outlays. It is so rare that prior to 1998 the last time that happened was 1969, and it has not happened since 2001.

Now the reasons that Total Debt increased for every one of those years is another matter, but there is no "myth." For the named years receipts were greater than outlays and as such there was a surplus. Short lived, but it existed.
 

Conservative

Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
112,661
Reaction score
10,290
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
You second link confirms it, you are confusing two different issues (at least.)

Receipts - Outlays = Surplus or Deficit.

That is it.

Dealing with all the influences into Debt held by the Public, Intergovernmental Debt, or Total Debt is an entirely different matter. For fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001 there was a fiscal surplus meaning for those years receipts were greater than outlays. It is so rare that prior to 1998 the last time that happened was 1969, and it has not happened since 2001.

Now the reasons that Total Debt increased for every one of those years is another matter, but there is no "myth." For the named years receipts were greater than outlays and as such there was a surplus. Short lived, but it existed.

My link proves you have no idea what you are talking about and robbing from peter to pay paul increases total debt but makes Paul look better. Long term obligations don't seem to matter to people like nor does the over 550 BILLION in debt service which is now the fourth largest budget item. Please explain how there was 1.4 trillion added to the debt during the Clinton term with budget surpluses??

Receipts greater than outlays happened because money was borrowed from SS and Medicare to make the budget look better and good little leftists like you bought that information totally ignoring that not only did debt grow but so did debt service.
 
Top Bottom