Interesting Chart on US Debt history

[PoliticalChic]

To be perfectly honest, the "surplus" that came from Clinton's tenure was a more a result of the multiple tax increases that came from Reagan and Bush. That really was what enabled it, else the money would not have been there.

To be fair, the national debt has gone up under just about every President. The better indicator is debt as a % of the GDP. Which is why I highlighted that particular chart but also linked to the whole wiki. (I find that most people do not read my links so I am trying to post the stuff I think is most important-apologies if it seemed misleading, it wasn't my intention).

I find this info pretty credible: The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton

"Clinton’s large budget surpluses.....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."


Really?


Clinton ran deficits throught all 8 years of his term, and one can go to the US Treasury Department and looking through the history of the total outstanding debt through Clintons term.

Every year Clinton was in office, the total national debt continued to climb.


"...the national debt did not go down one year during the Clinton administration."
How much surplus did the US have when Clinton left office




Would you like to see the actual national debt figures?
1993 4,351,044
1994 4,643,307
1995 4,920,586
1996 5,181,465
1997 5,369,206
1998 5,478,189
1999 5,605,523
2000 5,628,700

Historical Tables | The White House (table 7.1)

The table 7.1 will also show that he inherited a $4 trillion debt.
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999


That means the debt increased 41% under Clinton.
And no wars or military build up to blame it on!




Ever notice that it is only Democrats that are spectacular economic whiz kids.....y'know, like Obama.

Debt and deficit are two different things. Yes, the debt still climbed, and, as I have mentioned before it went up under most every President in history so it is disingenuous when we only point out one party for increasing debt when all parties have done it consistently since the founding of of the country. Hell, we started out in massive debt.

Clinton did create a surplus and he did erase the deficit for a little while but he ALSO increased the debt as most every President past and present has.

Also, I am not sure where you got that 40% increase on Clinton. I'll admit, I am a still a layman on these issues, but if I am reading this correctly it actually went down a tad from previous levels during his second term. According to the chart in the wiki (Federal spending, federal debt, and GDP), Clinton increased the debt by 13.2% in his first term and it went down by .2% in his second but I am not certain if Social Security was included in that figure, in which case you could be right. Reagan, on the other hand, increased the debt by 49% in his first term and 40.2% in his second so if we assume that SS was not included in that figure.......WOW!

"Also, I am not sure where you got that 40% increase on Clinton."

I didn't say that. I said 41%.

He took office with a national debt of $4 trillion.
I proved the source, as well.


He left office with $5.629


The increase was $1.629.

That's 41% more than what he began with.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Debt and deficit are two different things.

Doesn't federal law require any and all surplus to service the national debt?

If so, then if there were a surplus, the debt would drop.

Yes, the debt still climbed, and, as I have mentioned before it went up under most every President in history so it is disingenuous when we only point out one party for increasing debt when all parties have done it consistently since the founding of of the country. Hell, we started out in massive debt.

In order for the debt to increase, expenditure had to exceed income.

Is that your definition of "surplus?" (Must be a theory the Paul Krugman school of Economics and Animal Balloons.)

Clinton did create a surplus and he did erase the deficit for a little while but he ALSO increased the debt as most every President past and present has.

You can tell there was a surplus by the decline in the debt, as the budget surplus was applied to it,

Oh, wait...

Also, I am not sure where you got that 40% increase on Clinton. I'll admit, I am a still a layman on these issues, but if I am reading this correctly it actually went down a tad from previous levels during his second term. According to the chart in the wiki (Federal spending, federal debt, and GDP), Clinton increased the debt by 13.2% in his first term and it went down by .2% in his second but I am not certain if Social Security was included in that figure, in which case you could be right. Reagan, on the other hand, increased the debt by 49% in his first term and 40.2% in his second so if we assume that SS was not included in that figure.......WOW!

The debt increased 1.277 trillion under Clinton.

That is a 29.3% increase over the 4.35 trillion debt he inherited.

 

[TheJedi]

"Clinton’s large budget surpluses.....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."


Really?


Clinton ran deficits throught all 8 years of his term, and one can go to the US Treasury Department and looking through the history of the total outstanding debt through Clintons term.

Every year Clinton was in office, the total national debt continued to climb.


"...the national debt did not go down one year during the Clinton administration."
How much surplus did the US have when Clinton left office




Would you like to see the actual national debt figures?
1993 4,351,044
1994 4,643,307
1995 4,920,586
1996 5,181,465
1997 5,369,206
1998 5,478,189
1999 5,605,523
2000 5,628,700

Historical Tables | The White House (table 7.1)

The table 7.1 will also show that he inherited a $4 trillion debt.
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999


That means the debt increased 41% under Clinton.
And no wars or military build up to blame it on!




Ever notice that it is only Democrats that are spectacular economic whiz kids.....y'know, like Obama.

Debt and deficit are two different things. Yes, the debt still climbed, and, as I have mentioned before it went up under most every President in history so it is disingenuous when we only point out one party for increasing debt when all parties have done it consistently since the founding of of the country. Hell, we started out in massive debt.

Clinton did create a surplus and he did erase the deficit for a little while but he ALSO increased the debt as most every President past and present has.

Also, I am not sure where you got that 40% increase on Clinton. I'll admit, I am a still a layman on these issues, but if I am reading this correctly it actually went down a tad from previous levels during his second term. According to the chart in the wiki (Federal spending, federal debt, and GDP), Clinton increased the debt by 13.2% in his first term and it went down by .2% in his second but I am not certain if Social Security was included in that figure, in which case you could be right. Reagan, on the other hand, increased the debt by 49% in his first term and 40.2% in his second so if we assume that SS was not included in that figure.......WOW!

"I have mentioned before it went up under most every President in history so it is disingenuous when we only point out one party for increasing debt...."


You're not really this dense....are you?

Where did you find "we only point out one party for increasing debt."



The specific point was the myth that Clinton had surpluses.

I believe I've put that fable to rest.

But he did create surpluses but he also increased the debt. No need to get testy and I apologize for insinuating that you were singling out one party. That is completely my bad.

 

[Uncensored2008]

But he did create surpluses but he also increased the debt. No need to get testy and I apologize for insinuating that you were singling out one party. That is completely my bad.

Then how did the debt go up?

If we spent less than we took in - and the surplus was applied to the debt - as it must be per federal law - how is it possible for the debt to go up?

Occams razor - there was no surplus.

 

[TheJedi]

Debt and deficit are two different things.

Doesn't federal law require any and all surplus to service the national debt?

If so, then if there were a surplus, the debt would drop.

That's not how it works. It did service the federal debt. Even though it increased overall the surplus was starting to take a chunk out of it. The debt was on track to go down a meager .2%. However, you are not totally wrong either. Unless that surplus goes to pay down the debt, which it did not because neither Clinton nor Bush used that money to pay down debt. Bush just spent it, sent us into two unfunded wars and cut taxes twice.

Yes, the debt still climbed, and, as I have mentioned before it went up under most every President in history so it is disingenuous when we only point out one party for increasing debt when all parties have done it consistently since the founding of of the country. Hell, we started out in massive debt.

In order for the debt to increase, expenditure had to exceed income.

Is that your definition of "surplus?" (Must be a theory the Paul Krugman school of Economics and Animal Balloons.)

A surplus is when expenditures are less than income. He achieved this, and to be fair with a Republican Congress, in his second term. Again, the fallacy is that the extra cash was not used to pay down the debt.

Clinton did create a surplus and he did erase the deficit for a little while but he ALSO increased the debt as most every President past and present has.

You can tell there was a surplus by the decline in the debt, as the budget surplus was applied to it,

Oh, wait...

Also, I am not sure where you got that 40% increase on Clinton. I'll admit, I am a still a layman on these issues, but if I am reading this correctly it actually went down a tad from previous levels during his second term. According to the chart in the wiki (Federal spending, federal debt, and GDP), Clinton increased the debt by 13.2% in his first term and it went down by .2% in his second but I am not certain if Social Security was included in that figure, in which case you could be right. Reagan, on the other hand, increased the debt by 49% in his first term and 40.2% in his second so if we assume that SS was not included in that figure.......WOW!

The debt increased 1.277 trillion under Clinton.

That is a 29.3% increase over the 4.35 trillion debt he inherited.

Again, just because the debt goes up, by whatever numbers we use and it seems there a three different sets at this point, does not mean the a surplus in a budget is not possible.

Say you have a total of 20k in debt this year (payments that must be made) and say you make 65k. Discretionary spending aside, you are generating a surplus. You pay down 5k of that debt bringing it down to 15k at the start of the second year. The next year, your car dies so you buy a new one and you build a new deck in your yard. You debt for that year increases to 22k for year two. You still make 65k and you are still generating a surplus but your debt went up. You still make more than you owe.

Now we can play with numbers because that is based on this hypothetical YEARLY budget. You still owe a total of 90k on your home at 4.5% interest. You owe 23k for your new car at 8% interest. Total Credit card debt is 8k at 12% interest. So your total debt, minus revolving payments like home/auto insurance is $121k plus interest then we add in other necessary expenses like food, fuel, utilities and medical expenses.

It is with this hypothetical story that we see, and to PCs point how easily numbers can be played with. Though your yearly budget works out each year as a surplus, your debt can still go up (and most likely will because budgets do not always account for unforeseen expenses) and the reality is that even though your budget is in the green for the year, Overall, you have too much debt for your hypothetical income and therefore cannot really save a lot of money, if any at all, so all you are really paying on most of that debt is interest because you need to make room for revolving expenses.

That short anecdote aside, and to my point, Clinton DID create a surplus and he DID reduce the deficit but the debt keeps increasing because we never pay down the debt but rather maintain it by just paying interest. Even though we took in more that we owed during that TERM, overall our income is not enough to REALLY pay down the debt.

So in essence PC and I are both correct.

 

[Uncensored2008]

That's not how it works.

You are mistaken, that is exactly how it works.

It did service the federal debt.

Then the debt went down. IF the debt didn't go down, either Clinton embezzled the funds, or there was no surplus.

Even though it increased overall the surplus was starting to take a chunk out of it. The debt was on track to go down a meager .2%. However, you are not totally wrong either. Unless that surplus goes to pay down the debt, which it did not because neither Clinton nor Bush used that money to pay down debt. Bush just spent it, sent us into two unfunded wars and cut taxes twice.

Ah, so you are approaching this from a partisan perspective, rather than a factual one.

I thought I smelled the Krugman clown college behind this.

A surplus is when expenditures are less than income. He achieved this, and to be fair with a Republican Congress, in his second term. Again, the fallacy is that the extra cash was not used to pay down the debt.

Had he achieved it, the debt would have gone down. The ONLY place the "surplus" existed is in the partisan press and as urban legend among party sycophants.

Again, just because the debt goes up, by whatever numbers we use and it seems there a three different sets at this point, does not mean the a surplus in a budget is not possible.

In fact it means exactly that.

Deficits increase debt, surplus reduces debt. There is no wiggle room.

Say you have a total of 20k in debt this year (payments that must be made) and say you make 65k. Discretionary spending aside, you are generating a surplus. You pay down 5k of that debt bringing it down to 15k at the start of the second year. The next year, your car dies so you buy a new one and you build a new deck in your yard. You debt for that year increases to 22k for year two. You still make 65k and you are still generating a surplus but your debt went up. You still make more than you owe.

So, you think that borrowing money is generating a surplus?

LOL

Okay then.

Now we can play with numbers because that is based on this hypothetical YEARLY budget. You still owe a total of 90k on your home at 4.5% interest. You owe 23k for your new car at 8% interest. Total Credit card debt is 8k at 12% interest. So your total debt, minus revolving payments like home/auto insurance is $121k plus interest then we add in other necessary expenses like food, fuel, utilities and medical expenses.

It is with this hypothetical story that we see, and to PCs point how easily numbers can be played with. Though your yearly budget works out each year as a surplus, your debt can still go up (and most likely will because budgets do not always account for unforeseen expenses) and the reality is that even though your budget is in the green for the year, Overall, you have too much debt for your hypothetical income and therefore cannot really save a lot of money, if any at all, so all you are really paying on most of that debt is interest because you need to make room for revolving expenses.

That short anecdote aside, and to my point, Clinton DID create a surplus and he DID reduce the deficit but the debt keeps increasing because we never pay down the debt but rather maintain it by just paying interest. Even though we took in more that we owed during that TERM, overall our income is not enough to REALLY pay down the debt.

So in essence PC and I are both correct.

Clinton created a surplus by spending more than we took in.

Brilliant.

 

[TheJedi]

That's not how it works.

You are mistaken, that is exactly how it works.

It did service the federal debt.

Then the debt went down. IF the debt didn't go down, either Clinton embezzled the funds, or there was no surplus.



Ah, so you are approaching this from a partisan perspective, rather than a factual one.

I thought I smelled the Krugman clown college behind this.



Had he achieved it, the debt would have gone down. The ONLY place the "surplus" existed is in the partisan press and as urban legend among party sycophants.



In fact it means exactly that.

Deficits increase debt, surplus reduces debt. There is no wiggle room.

Say you have a total of 20k in debt this year (payments that must be made) and say you make 65k. Discretionary spending aside, you are generating a surplus. You pay down 5k of that debt bringing it down to 15k at the start of the second year. The next year, your car dies so you buy a new one and you build a new deck in your yard. You debt for that year increases to 22k for year two. You still make 65k and you are still generating a surplus but your debt went up. You still make more than you owe.

So, you think that borrowing money is generating a surplus?

LOL

Okay then.

Now we can play with numbers because that is based on this hypothetical YEARLY budget. You still owe a total of 90k on your home at 4.5% interest. You owe 23k for your new car at 8% interest. Total Credit card debt is 8k at 12% interest. So your total debt, minus revolving payments like home/auto insurance is $121k plus interest then we add in other necessary expenses like food, fuel, utilities and medical expenses.

It is with this hypothetical story that we see, and to PCs point how easily numbers can be played with. Though your yearly budget works out each year as a surplus, your debt can still go up (and most likely will because budgets do not always account for unforeseen expenses) and the reality is that even though your budget is in the green for the year, Overall, you have too much debt for your hypothetical income and therefore cannot really save a lot of money, if any at all, so all you are really paying on most of that debt is interest because you need to make room for revolving expenses.

That short anecdote aside, and to my point, Clinton DID create a surplus and he DID reduce the deficit but the debt keeps increasing because we never pay down the debt but rather maintain it by just paying interest. Even though we took in more that we owed during that TERM, overall our income is not enough to REALLY pay down the debt.

So in essence PC and I are both correct.

Clinton created a surplus by spending more than we took in.

Brilliant.

WE TOOK IN MORE THAN WE SPENT IN THAT BUDGET. PERIOD.

Is it really that impossible to have an impartial discussion here?

 

[Kimura]

In its simplest form, US public debt represents the total savings of the US economy - or the propensity of the private sector to save. Treasuries are basically savings accounts. We should also view public debt and any interest payments as private income, it all boils down to balance sheets.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's not how it works.

You are mistaken, that is exactly how it works.



Then the debt went down. IF the debt didn't go down, either Clinton embezzled the funds, or there was no surplus.



Ah, so you are approaching this from a partisan perspective, rather than a factual one.

I thought I smelled the Krugman clown college behind this.



Had he achieved it, the debt would have gone down. The ONLY place the "surplus" existed is in the partisan press and as urban legend among party sycophants.



In fact it means exactly that.

Deficits increase debt, surplus reduces debt. There is no wiggle room.



So, you think that borrowing money is generating a surplus?

LOL

Okay then.

Now we can play with numbers because that is based on this hypothetical YEARLY budget. You still owe a total of 90k on your home at 4.5% interest. You owe 23k for your new car at 8% interest. Total Credit card debt is 8k at 12% interest. So your total debt, minus revolving payments like home/auto insurance is $121k plus interest then we add in other necessary expenses like food, fuel, utilities and medical expenses.

It is with this hypothetical story that we see, and to PCs point how easily numbers can be played with. Though your yearly budget works out each year as a surplus, your debt can still go up (and most likely will because budgets do not always account for unforeseen expenses) and the reality is that even though your budget is in the green for the year, Overall, you have too much debt for your hypothetical income and therefore cannot really save a lot of money, if any at all, so all you are really paying on most of that debt is interest because you need to make room for revolving expenses.

That short anecdote aside, and to my point, Clinton DID create a surplus and he DID reduce the deficit but the debt keeps increasing because we never pay down the debt but rather maintain it by just paying interest. Even though we took in more that we owed during that TERM, overall our income is not enough to REALLY pay down the debt.

So in essence PC and I are both correct.

Clinton created a surplus by spending more than we took in.

Brilliant.

WE TOOK IN MORE THAN WE SPENT IN THAT BUDGET. PERIOD.

Is it really that impossible to have an impartial discussion here?

WE TOOK IN MORE THAN WE SPENT IN THAT BUDGET.

And your proof is that debt increased.

 

[Kimura]

That's not how it works.

You are mistaken, that is exactly how it works.



Then the debt went down. IF the debt didn't go down, either Clinton embezzled the funds, or there was no surplus.



Ah, so you are approaching this from a partisan perspective, rather than a factual one.

I thought I smelled the Krugman clown college behind this.



Had he achieved it, the debt would have gone down. The ONLY place the "surplus" existed is in the partisan press and as urban legend among party sycophants.



In fact it means exactly that.

Deficits increase debt, surplus reduces debt. There is no wiggle room.



So, you think that borrowing money is generating a surplus?

LOL

Okay then.

Now we can play with numbers because that is based on this hypothetical YEARLY budget. You still owe a total of 90k on your home at 4.5% interest. You owe 23k for your new car at 8% interest. Total Credit card debt is 8k at 12% interest. So your total debt, minus revolving payments like home/auto insurance is $121k plus interest then we add in other necessary expenses like food, fuel, utilities and medical expenses.

It is with this hypothetical story that we see, and to PCs point how easily numbers can be played with. Though your yearly budget works out each year as a surplus, your debt can still go up (and most likely will because budgets do not always account for unforeseen expenses) and the reality is that even though your budget is in the green for the year, Overall, you have too much debt for your hypothetical income and therefore cannot really save a lot of money, if any at all, so all you are really paying on most of that debt is interest because you need to make room for revolving expenses.

That short anecdote aside, and to my point, Clinton DID create a surplus and he DID reduce the deficit but the debt keeps increasing because we never pay down the debt but rather maintain it by just paying interest. Even though we took in more that we owed during that TERM, overall our income is not enough to REALLY pay down the debt.

So in essence PC and I are both correct.

Clinton created a surplus by spending more than we took in.

Brilliant.

WE TOOK IN MORE THAN WE SPENT IN THAT BUDGET. PERIOD.

Is it really that impossible to have an impartial discussion here?

The most celebrated achievement of the Clinton era turned out to have been a macroeconomic turd. The dampening of GDP was counterbalanced by massive increases in household debt, decreases in household savings, and the winding up of the Fannie and Freddie debt bonanza which was a huge contributing factor in causing the real estate bubble and subsequent collapse.

If the government is running a surplus, this means the government is taking in more $$$$ than its spending. This has the exact opposite effect of a stimulus. The trade deficit also massively increased during the 90s, which resulted in a dampening of GDP during this time period. The trade deficit was taking away from GDP, and the government sector was talking more $$$$ away from the private sector than it was sending out so to speak.

This resulted in private consumption compensating for the dampening effects from the trade deficit and government. Household savings also tanked during this time period.

 

[Uncensored2008]

WE TOOK IN MORE THAN WE SPENT IN THAT BUDGET. PERIOD.

A budget which does not reflect actual outlays and income is a fraud. The myth of a Clinton surplus was, is, and always will be a fraud.

Is it really that impossible to have an impartial discussion here?

It is when you blame Bush for Clinton's spending habits.

 

[Kimura]

Debt and deficit are two different things.

Doesn't federal law require any and all surplus to service the national debt?

If so, then if there were a surplus, the debt would drop.

Yes, the debt still climbed, and, as I have mentioned before it went up under most every President in history so it is disingenuous when we only point out one party for increasing debt when all parties have done it consistently since the founding of of the country. Hell, we started out in massive debt.

In order for the debt to increase, expenditure had to exceed income.

Is that your definition of "surplus?" (Must be a theory the Paul Krugman school of Economics and Animal Balloons.)

Clinton did create a surplus and he did erase the deficit for a little while but he ALSO increased the debt as most every President past and present has.

You can tell there was a surplus by the decline in the debt, as the budget surplus was applied to it,

Oh, wait...

Also, I am not sure where you got that 40% increase on Clinton. I'll admit, I am a still a layman on these issues, but if I am reading this correctly it actually went down a tad from previous levels during his second term. According to the chart in the wiki (Federal spending, federal debt, and GDP), Clinton increased the debt by 13.2% in his first term and it went down by .2% in his second but I am not certain if Social Security was included in that figure, in which case you could be right. Reagan, on the other hand, increased the debt by 49% in his first term and 40.2% in his second so if we assume that SS was not included in that figure.......WOW!

The debt increased 1.277 trillion under Clinton.

That is a 29.3% increase over the 4.35 trillion debt he inherited.

We can define a surplus as tax revenue which exceeds spending. This destroys net financial assets within the private sector, unless they can be replaced through running a trade surplus.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Debt and deficit are two different things.

Doesn't federal law require any and all surplus to service the national debt?

If so, then if there were a surplus, the debt would drop.



In order for the debt to increase, expenditure had to exceed income.

Is that your definition of "surplus?" (Must be a theory the Paul Krugman school of Economics and Animal Balloons.)



You can tell there was a surplus by the decline in the debt, as the budget surplus was applied to it,

Oh, wait...

Also, I am not sure where you got that 40% increase on Clinton. I'll admit, I am a still a layman on these issues, but if I am reading this correctly it actually went down a tad from previous levels during his second term. According to the chart in the wiki (Federal spending, federal debt, and GDP), Clinton increased the debt by 13.2% in his first term and it went down by .2% in his second but I am not certain if Social Security was included in that figure, in which case you could be right. Reagan, on the other hand, increased the debt by 49% in his first term and 40.2% in his second so if we assume that SS was not included in that figure.......WOW!

The debt increased 1.277 trillion under Clinton.

That is a 29.3% increase over the 4.35 trillion debt he inherited.

We can define a surplus as tax revenue which exceeds spending. This destroys net financial assets within the private sector, unless they can be replaced through running a trade surplus.

True.

 

[Ernie S.]

What I find telling is where we see the largest increases and it seems to contradict certain long held arguments regarding spending.

National debt by U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your not suppose to show how GOP presidents spent trillions to increase the debt...

Only thing is, Presidents don't spend money. Congresses do.

Look at the chart. It proves what I've been saying here for 4 years. Democrat Congresses cannot be trusted with the national purse. Look at just Clinton Bush and obama administrations. Deficits increase slower when Congress is controlled by the GOP. The only reason our economy has improved a bit in the last 3 years is the ability of the House of Representatives to prevent passage of some massive spending bills.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Debt and deficit are two different things. Yes, the debt still climbed, and, as I have mentioned before it went up under most every President in history so it is disingenuous when we only point out one party for increasing debt when all parties have done it consistently since the founding of of the country. Hell, we started out in massive debt.

Clinton did create a surplus and he did erase the deficit for a little while but he ALSO increased the debt as most every President past and present has.

Also, I am not sure where you got that 40% increase on Clinton. I'll admit, I am a still a layman on these issues, but if I am reading this correctly it actually went down a tad from previous levels during his second term. According to the chart in the wiki (Federal spending, federal debt, and GDP), Clinton increased the debt by 13.2% in his first term and it went down by .2% in his second but I am not certain if Social Security was included in that figure, in which case you could be right. Reagan, on the other hand, increased the debt by 49% in his first term and 40.2% in his second so if we assume that SS was not included in that figure.......WOW!

"I have mentioned before it went up under most every President in history so it is disingenuous when we only point out one party for increasing debt...."


You're not really this dense....are you?

Where did you find "we only point out one party for increasing debt."



The specific point was the myth that Clinton had surpluses.

I believe I've put that fable to rest.

But he did create surpluses but he also increased the debt. No need to get testy and I apologize for insinuating that you were singling out one party. That is completely my bad.

Wait....let me count to ten.....

OK....



"But he did create surpluses but he also increased the debt."


If you owe $10,000 a month ....but one month, don't buy the Starbuck's Sexagintuple Vanilla Bean Mocha Frappuccino, for $47.30......

...is it accurate to say that you had a surplus????



The term 'surplus' when combined with 'Clinton' is an illusion, a term of art.

Such terms are regularly and exclusively reserved for Democrats.




"Term of Art. A word or phrase that has special meaning in a particular context."
Term of Art legal definition of Term of Art. Term of Art synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

 

[Ernie S.]

Both Bushs were Big Spending job loss disasters. Massive price increases during their terms. Clinton & Democrat congress CUT Spending. Obama has also slashed deficit spending.

Clinton & Obama administrations have the best job creation records. Employment of working age population consistantly rose at faster rates than at any of the best time under either Bush administration. Bushs destroyed massively destroyed more jobs than they ever created. Notice the steepest job growth occurred under the Clinton Administration with Democrat House & Senate.

Do you see where in obama's term the first graph starts heading down?

Please tell me what happened in 2009.

 

[KissMy]

Amazing how you can play with numbers, isn't it.

Under Bill Clinton, the fabulous 'surplus' myth was born.

Actually, over the rapist Bill Clinton's term, the national debt went up 41%.

Bill Clinton was in office from January 20, 1993 -to– January 20, 2001

12/31/1999 National Debt = $5,776,091,314,225.33

12/31/2000 National Debt = $5,662,216,013,697.37

In the year 2000 for exactly 1 years time under Clinton the debt & deficit reduction = $114 Billion dollars.

Source: US Treasury Debt to the Penny

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In 1993 Democrat President, House & Senate CUT Government Spending & the Deficit creating a Surplus to cover Baby-Boomers retirement because most of Government Revenue comes from Payroll Taxes.

In 2001 Republican President, House & Senate EXPLODED Government Spending & took the Payroll Tax Surplus from Workers & Gave it to Wall-Street Billionaires. Caused Massive Deficit Spending resulting in Skyrocketing Inflation.

Dick Cheney "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due."

In 1993 Democrat President, House & Senate CUT Government Spending

They cut spending from what to what?

In 1993 Democrat President, House & Senate CUT Government Spending

Are you still looking for one that shows they cut spending?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So are deficits good or bad?

 

[KissMy]

So are deficits good or bad?

deficits = inflation.
debt has only small inflationary effect unless too much deficit inflation or missed debt payment spikes interest rates.