The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

[MTAtech]

This is where we are in this thread:

 

[Conservative]

This is where we are in this thread:

Which describes what is happening to your liberal ideology

 

[OrphanSlug]

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.

Okay, now it is time to be harsh. You are making a political argument ignoring a few things that are important to this conversation.

Again... Receipts - Outlays = Surplus or Deficit.

You talking about Debt and servicing that Debt is another matter, adding it to this conversation in the manner you have suggests a complete lack of understanding in several key areas of how Federal Budgets work, and frankly even how the government deals with things like Social Security.

What the named years (1998-2001) showed us beyond any debate is that there was a fiscal surplus even though Intergovernmental Debt and Total Debt went up (by the way Debt held by the Public fell those years.)

Also, before you continue to drivel on about "robbing from peter to pay paul" or the other typical Conservative talking point of "raiding the Social Security Trust Fund" there are a few things you should now about how that Fund is managed.

Every single day every single penny of income into Social Security is exchanged for special issued Intergovernmental Debt as a matter of *LAW.* Clinton nor any other President gets to arbitrarily decide to take more or less from this process. What comes in is exchanged. Period. All of that income ends up right into the General Ledger, again as a matter of law. This is calculated so precisely that any day Social Security payments are issued out just the right amount of Intergovernmental Debt is cashed in down to the penny to cover that outlay to those Social Security recipients.

So why am I telling you all this?

Because Social Security was doing so well during the named years that it was taking in far more than it had to pay out, meaning that Intergovernmental Debt went up during those named years because law said it had to. That Intergovernmental Debt had to be issued. It is so important to the discussion because Debt held by the Public fell during those same named years to the point that for a brief moment in time we stopped issuing 30 year notes.

The economy was doing so well that Intergovernmental Debt went up faster than Debt held by the Public could fall, resulting in Total Debt going up *even though* there were budget surpluses for those 4 years you claim were a "myth." To really upset you the biggest area that Debt held by the Public fell was the actual public, Debt held by the Federal Reserve did go up during the named years because it was advantageous for the Fed to hold those notes where the Public was making more money elsewhere.

The ultimate irony here is it took a booming economy, a Democrat as President, and Republicans in Congress for this unique condition to occur.

As I said before the last budget surplus before the Clinton years was 1969. And that budget surplus happened for slightly different reasons because during that one year Total Debt did fall, behind the scenes Debt held by the Public fell further than Intergovernmental Debt went up. And it never happened again. Why? Because the economic conditions in 1969 were different than what we saw from 1998 to 2001.

Regardless, there was a surplus for 1998 to 2001 and the condition of Intergovernmental Debt and Total Debt going up is explainable... law.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

Okay, now it is time to be harsh. You are making a political argument ignoring a few things that are important to this conversation.

Again... Receipts - Outlays = Surplus or Deficit.

You talking about Debt and servicing that Debt is another matter, adding it to this conversation in the manner you have suggests a complete lack of understanding in several key areas of how Federal Budgets work, and frankly even how the government deals with things like Social Security.

What the named years (1998-2001) showed us beyond any debate is that there was a fiscal surplus even though Intergovernmental Debt and Total Debt went up (by the way Debt held by the Public fell those years.)

Also, before you continue to drivel on about "robbing from peter to pay paul" or the other typical Conservative talking point of "raiding the Social Security Trust Fund" there are a few things you should now about how that Fund is managed.

Every single day every single penny of income into Social Security is exchanged for special issued Intergovernmental Debt as a matter of *LAW.* Clinton nor any other President gets to arbitrarily decide to take more or less from this process. What comes in is exchanged. Period. All of that income ends up right into the General Ledger, again as a matter of law. This is calculated so precisely that any day Social Security payments are issued out just the right amount of Intergovernmental Debt is cashed in down to the penny to cover that outlay to those Social Security recipients.

So why am I telling you all this?

Because Social Security was doing so well during the named years that it was taking in far more than it had to pay out, meaning that Intergovernmental Debt went up during those named years because law said it had to. That Intergovernmental Debt had to be issued. It is so important to the discussion because Debt held by the Public fell during those same named years to the point that for a brief moment in time we stopped issuing 30 year notes.

The economy was doing so well that Intergovernmental Debt went up faster than Debt held by the Public could fall, resulting in Total Debt going up *even though* there were budget surpluses for those 4 years you claim were a "myth." To really upset you the biggest area that Debt held by the Public fell was the actual public, Debt held by the Federal Reserve did go up during the named years because it was advantageous for the Fed to hold those notes where the Public was making more money elsewhere.

The ultimate irony here is it took a booming economy, a Democrat as President, and Republicans in Congress for this unique condition to occur.

As I said before the last budget surplus before the Clinton years was 1969. And that budget surplus happened for slightly different reasons because during that one year Total Debt did fall, behind the scenes Debt held by the Public fell further than Intergovernmental Debt went up. And it never happened again. Why? Because the economic conditions in 1969 were different than what we saw from 1998 to 2001.

Regardless, there was a surplus for 1998 to 2001 and the condition of Intergovernmental Debt and Total Debt going up is explainable... law.

Good write up. I don't think the poster you responded to reads beyond headlines, so it's probably wasted on him.

One other factor during that period of time was the tech bubble.

 

[Conservative]

Okay, now it is time to be harsh. You are making a political argument ignoring a few things that are important to this conversation.

Again... Receipts - Outlays = Surplus or Deficit.

You talking about Debt and servicing that Debt is another matter, adding it to this conversation in the manner you have suggests a complete lack of understanding in several key areas of how Federal Budgets work, and frankly even how the government deals with things like Social Security.

What the named years (1998-2001) showed us beyond any debate is that there was a fiscal surplus even though Intergovernmental Debt and Total Debt went up (by the way Debt held by the Public fell those years.)

Also, before you continue to drivel on about "robbing from peter to pay paul" or the other typical Conservative talking point of "raiding the Social Security Trust Fund" there are a few things you should now about how that Fund is managed.

Every single day every single penny of income into Social Security is exchanged for special issued Intergovernmental Debt as a matter of *LAW.* Clinton nor any other President gets to arbitrarily decide to take more or less from this process. What comes in is exchanged. Period. All of that income ends up right into the General Ledger, again as a matter of law. This is calculated so precisely that any day Social Security payments are issued out just the right amount of Intergovernmental Debt is cashed in down to the penny to cover that outlay to those Social Security recipients.

So why am I telling you all this?

Because Social Security was doing so well during the named years that it was taking in far more than it had to pay out, meaning that Intergovernmental Debt went up during those named years because law said it had to. That Intergovernmental Debt had to be issued. It is so important to the discussion because Debt held by the Public fell during those same named years to the point that for a brief moment in time we stopped issuing 30 year notes.

The economy was doing so well that Intergovernmental Debt went up faster than Debt held by the Public could fall, resulting in Total Debt going up *even though* there were budget surpluses for those 4 years you claim were a "myth." To really upset you the biggest area that Debt held by the Public fell was the actual public, Debt held by the Federal Reserve did go up during the named years because it was advantageous for the Fed to hold those notes where the Public was making more money elsewhere.

The ultimate irony here is it took a booming economy, a Democrat as President, and Republicans in Congress for this unique condition to occur.

As I said before the last budget surplus before the Clinton years was 1969. And that budget surplus happened for slightly different reasons because during that one year Total Debt did fall, behind the scenes Debt held by the Public fell further than Intergovernmental Debt went up. And it never happened again. Why? Because the economic conditions in 1969 were different than what we saw from 1998 to 2001.

Regardless, there was a surplus for 1998 to 2001 and the condition of Intergovernmental Debt and Total Debt going up is explainable... law.

Thank you so much for the explanation none of which explains the 21 trillion dollar debt and the over 550 plus billion in debt service in the budget. If you bothered to even look at the budget you would see the line item for SS and Medicare on that budget which doesn't make a lot of sense because the obligations are long term and that debt is in Inter Government Holdings. What you also don't seem to understand is that an IOU or borrowing from the trust fund has to be repaid in cash and you have yet to explain where that cash is going to come from since we are running short now.

We currently borrow between 30-40 from foreign governments to service the debt. I am waiting for someone on the left to explain to us how that benefits the U.S. taxpayers? Interest on the debt goes to the bond holders of that debt and although that may help the GDP growth it doesn't help those line items that had their money spent on items other than intended when the tax for those line items were created

Anyone who believes the Clinton economy created a surplus ignores Inter Government Holdings and the reality that 1.4 trillion was added to the debt. You cannot have an increase in debt with those surpluses you claim happened. Yes, public debt may have decreased a little but total debt grew and that is what costs taxpayers.

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

What you and no one else has explained is how taking from SS and replacing it with a T-Bill or an IOU benefits the taxpayers. All it does is kick the can down the road which politicians all do. The clock is ticking on that debt and if you truly cared about it you would focus on reducing the 550+ billion in debt service and using that money elsewhere

 

[OrphanSlug]

Thank you so much for the explanation none of which explains the 21 trillion dollar debt and the over 550 plus billion in debt service in the budget. If you bothered to even look at the budget you would see the line item for SS and Medicare on that budget which doesn't make a lot of sense because the obligations are long term and that debt is in Inter Government Holdings. What you also don't seem to understand is that an IOU or borrowing from the trust fund has to be repaid in cash and you have yet to explain where that cash is going to come from since we are running short now.

We currently borrow between 30-40 from foreign governments to service the debt. I am waiting for someone on the left to explain to us how that benefits the U.S. taxpayers? Interest on the debt goes to the bond holders of that debt and although that may help the GDP growth it doesn't help those line items that had their money spent on items other than intended when the tax for those line items were created

Anyone who believes the Clinton economy created a surplus ignores Inter Government Holdings and the reality that 1.4 trillion was added to the debt. You cannot have an increase in debt with those surpluses you claim happened. Yes, public debt may have decreased a little but total debt grew and that is what costs taxpayers.

Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

What you and no one else has explained is how taking from SS and replacing it with a T-Bill or an IOU benefits the taxpayers. All it does is kick the can down the road which politicians all do. The clock is ticking on that debt and if you truly cared about it you would focus on reducing the 550+ billion in debt service and using that money elsewhere

Again, all you are doing is repeating talking points devoid of what happened then or why.

 

[Fruityfact]

Again, all you are doing is repeating talking points devoid of what happened then or why.

Man is an Olympian at mental gymnastics. Just give him his Pyrite medal and be done with it.

 

[Conservative]

Again, all you are doing is repeating talking points devoid of what happened then or why.

Actual data is all that matters, not why!!

Debt service by year

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm

It is quite interesting how Clinton had a so called service but the debt increased by 1.4 trillion. Credit for a so called surplus means nothing when the debt increased

 

[Conservative]

Man is an Olympian at mental gymnastics. Just give him his Pyrite medal and be done with it.

And you progressives are great at stating opinions backed by nothing other than feelings while ignoring the actual data. You get a medal for winning not for opinions

 

[OrphanSlug]

Actual data is all that matters, not why!!

Debt service by year

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm

It is quite interesting how Clinton had a so called service but the debt increased by 1.4 trillion. Credit for a so called surplus means nothing when the debt increased

It really is unfortunate how little you know about this, even the data you present does not back up your assertions.

 

[Conservative]

It really is unfortunate how little you know about this, even the data you present does not back up your assertions.

Since some here have seemed to claim that the article was written by a fifth grader why don't you get one to explain it to you. Treasury shows 1.4 trillion added to the debt during the Clinton term so how do you have an increase in the debt with surpluses? why don't you tell us what part of the data doesn't support my claim? Do you know what Inter-Government holdings are?

 

[OrphanSlug]

Since some here have seemed to claim that the article was written by a fifth grader why don't you get one to explain it to you. Treasury shows 1.4 trillion added to the debt during the Clinton term so how do you have an increase in the debt with surpluses? why don't you tell us what part of the data doesn't support my claim? Do you know what Inter-Government holdings are?

Rant and rave all you need to, it is clear you have no idea what the difference is between deficits and debt.

 

[Conservative]

Rant and rave all you need to, it is clear you have no idea what the difference is between deficits and debt.

LOL, so explain it to us, how do you have debt without deficits? How does one grow the debt by creating surpluses, where do the surpluses go? Please continue as this is hilarious watching the radical left making fools of themselves as usual?

 

[iguanaman]

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?

That money is going t come from YOUR taxes which hopefully will be raised considerably soon. Income Taxes are far too low on whiners like you. I think that doubling your rate should be a priority. when the Dems take over. Trillion $ deficits are not sustainable and you are socking away far too much too.

 

[Exquisitor]

LOL, so explain it to us, how do you have debt without deficits? How does one grow the debt by creating surpluses, where do the surpluses go? Please continue as this is hilarious watching the radical left making fools of themselves as usual?

Nice topic Conservative, I can see it was stirred up by our previous conversations.

In addition to proving your point did you launch this thread as a inquiry? To learn something?

Sure you can look from some angle and say Clinton had no boom or surplus, but if he did, so what?

Why not admit reality at the great tragedy of Bush, and I'll spare you the description of what he did and then how the Republicans had to treat Obama. I don't hold it against them, I got them back already with Trump, I said, "How do you want your spanking, Clinton or Trump?" and they said, "Trump." If I thought she was going to loose I would have overruled, but as it was they got me too.

Now in two years we get Trump, one way or the other.

He can only win if he repeals his tax bill.

 

[Conservative]

That money is going t come from YOUR taxes which hopefully will be raised considerably soon. Income Taxes are far too low on whiners like you. I think that doubling your rate should be a priority. when the Dems take over. Trillion $ deficits are not sustainable and you are socking away far too much too.

LOL, I feel sorry for class envy, jealous liberals like you who always blame someone else for your poor choices in life and results generated. Interesting how all of a sudden Democrat control of the House is going to make a difference when Republican control of the House in 2010 didn't. You are clueless when it comes to civics

Care to explain how this is going to impact the deficit and debt?

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/de...ograms-to-floor-vote-with-2019-house-takeover

 

[Exquisitor]

That money is going t come from YOUR taxes which hopefully will be raised considerably soon. Income Taxes are far too low on whiners like you. I think that doubling your rate should be a priority. when the Dems take over. Trillion $ deficits are not sustainable and you are socking away far too much too.

Is that his rant?

Do you think it is criminal to bankrupt this Government while you stuff your pockets, and where do you think you will go? Some rich Chinese birth? Going to rule India? How can you be happy as your prospects are dragged into poverty? Are you a Viking, do you enjoy the mayhem?

Is this what it means to be Conservative? To swim like a fish to the top?

Well welcome to guppyland, due to the Reprobate forgetting the whole and ruling most in favor not of their Union, but for themselves and mostly for their pocketbooks; their God, due to that we instead get guppyland and let's see if the guppies don't screw up so that we lie like a pan fish flipping on the pavement.

 

[Conservative]

Good write up. I don't think the poster you responded to reads beyond headlines, so it's probably wasted on him.

One other factor during that period of time was the tech bubble.

What is wasted on the left are the official data and results, why is that such a hard thing for you to address?

Was it ever the intent of FDR when SS was created to borrow from that fund to pay for other govt. services? Interesting how it seems that the greatest supporters for SS are the ones not on SS as the 1-2% annual return isn't even discussed. Had the govt. not borrowed the money it would be in the account and available to provide a greater return to those in the system

All this love for Clinton and total ignorance of the actual deficits generated which created the 1.4 trillion debt during his term

 

[iguanaman]

LOL, I feel sorry for class envy, jealous liberals like you who always blame someone else for your poor choices in life and results generated. Interesting how all of a sudden Democrat control of the House is going to make a difference when Republican control of the House in 2010 didn't. You are clueless when it comes to civics

Care to explain how this is going to impact the deficit and debt?

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/de...ograms-to-floor-vote-with-2019-house-takeover

Despite your incessant whining, you will do just fine paying twice the rate you do now. You can't take it with you and these ridiculously low rates on top earners are not going to last. Perhaps you will even share some with your employees instead of paying it in taxes. Either way your money will be going to a good cause and it will get spent enhancing GDP growth and making the whole nation stronger instead of just your bank account.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

What is wasted on the left are the official data and results, why is that such a hard thing for you to address?

Was it ever the intent of FDR when SS was created to borrow from that fund to pay for other govt. services? Interesting how it seems that the greatest supporters for SS are the ones not on SS as the 1-2% annual return isn't even discussed. Had the govt. not borrowed the money it would be in the account and available to provide a greater return to those in the system

All this love for Clinton and total ignorance of the actual deficits generated which created the 1.4 trillion debt during his term

#31...

 

[Conservative]

Despite your incessant whining, you will do just fine paying twice the rate you do now. You can't take it with you and these ridiculously low rates on top earners are not going to last. Perhaps you will even share some with your employees instead of paying it in taxes. Either way your money will be going to a good cause and it will get spent enhancing GDP growth and making the whole nation stronger instead of just your bank account.

Been retired for 14 years and took responsible unlike you for preparing for that retirement. For some reason you believe it is ok to take from someone else and give to another. Personal choice only matters when it relates to abortions. What percentage of ones income should go to federal, state, and local taxes? You are nothing but a typical liberal always whining about people who have more than you. "Your" President had 8 years to raise taxes and didn't do it but now it is a problem for you. It will always be a problem for the left on what others pay in taxes as it never will be enough for jealous liberals

 

[Conservative]

#31...

So Clinton didn't add 1.4 trillion to the debt? Have you called Treasury to let them know they are wrong?

 

[iguanaman]

Been retired for 14 years and took responsible unlike you for preparing for that retirement. For some reason you believe it is ok to take from someone else and give to another. Personal choice only matters when it relates to abortions. What percentage of ones income should go to federal, state, and local taxes? You are nothing but a typical liberal always whining about people who have more than you. "Your" President had 8 years to raise taxes and didn't do it but now it is a problem for you. It will always be a problem for the left on what others pay in taxes as it never will be enough for jealous liberals

Actually Obama did raise taxes on the top bracket and then cut the deficit by more then half. Under GOP control the deficit is climbing back up to the trillion mark in an all too typical manner. It is unsustainable to have these high deficits in a supposedly "good" economy. What will happen to them if it goes sour?

 

[<alt>doxygen]

Rant and rave all you need to, it is clear you have no idea what the difference is between deficits and debt.

He's also yapping about a year over surplus and a 4 year presidential term in the same breath.

 

[iguanaman]

So Clinton didn't add 1.4 trillion to the debt? Have you called Treasury to let them know they are wrong?

No he added 1.4 trillion to the Social Security trust fund. Money that was paid in withholding by millions of American workers.