The Clinton Surplus Myth

Lonestar_logic

Republic of Texas
May 13, 2009
24,539
2,233
205
I'm tired of the lying liberals who keep claiming that Clinton left Bush a surplus.

Here is the truth and it can be easily verified by accessing the U.S. Treasury.

The claim is generally made that Clinton had a surplus of $69 billion in FY1998, $123 billion in FY1999 and $230 billion in FY2000 . In that same link, Clinton claimed that the national debt had been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years, presumably FY1998, FY1999, and FY2000--though, interestingly, $360 billion is not the sum of the alleged surpluses of the three years in question ($69B + $123B + $230B = $422B, not $360B).

While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it's curious to see Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.

Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury (see note about this link below) website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:

the_clinton_surplus_myth


As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.

Read the rest here.
 
You do know there is a difference between deficit spending and debt..right?

The deficit spending decreased and actually turned around into a surplus during the Clinton administration. Meaning the US was taking in more than was it was spending.

That was the surplus. That surplus COULD HAVE BEEN USED to pay down the debt.

And that's NOT what Bush did.

He USED IT to give a huge tax break to the wealthy.
 
Sallow pretty much hit the nail on the head. There is a difference between our national debt and the budget deficit and it was in our budget that we ran surpluses.
 
Sallow pretty much hit the nail on the head. There is a difference between our national debt and the budget deficit and it was in our budget that we ran surpluses.

It's a pretty confusing concept to be honest.

I work in the financial field and have actually owned and run a business.

There's always all sorts of screwy ways to look at math in both areas..and mostly to say "Well things aren't as bad as we think they are.."

:lol:
 
Last edited:
Stealing from Peter to pay Paul isn't a surplus. It's budgeting hocus pocus.

You're welcome.

Deficit spending becomes debt. The money to spend beyond what revenue you have is called, wait for it./.....wait for it.....debt.

Deficits lead to debt. I realize this is an extremely complex concept for LOLberals. But it is true. You can not deficit spend without incurring debt.
 
You do know there is a difference between deficit spending and debt..right?

The deficit spending decreased and actually turned around into a surplus during the Clinton administration. Meaning the US was taking in more than was it was spending.

That was the surplus. That surplus COULD HAVE BEEN USED to pay down the debt.

And that's NOT what Bush did.

He USED IT to give a huge tax break to the wealthy.

The government can have a surplus even if it has trillions in debt, but it cannot have a surplus if that debt increased every year. The article( you obviously won't read) is about surplus/deficit, not the debt. However, it analyzes the debt to prove there wasn't a surplus under Clinton.

Keep in mind that President Bush took office in January 2001 and his first budget took effect October 1, 2001 for the year ending September 30, 2002 (FY2002). So the $133.29 billion deficit in the year ending September 2001 was Clinton's. Granted, Bush supported a tax refund where taxpayers received checks in 2001. However, the total amount refunded to taxpayers was only $38 billion . So even if we assume that $38 billion of the FY2001 deficit was due to Bush's tax refunds which were not part of Clinton's last budget, that still means that Clinton's last budget produced a deficit of 133.29 - 38 = $95.29 billion.

Clinton clearly did not achieve a surplus and he didn't leave President Bush with a surplus.

Link
 
Sallow pretty much hit the nail on the head. There is a difference between our national debt and the budget deficit and it was in our budget that we ran surpluses.

Another moron who didn't read the article weighs in.
 
The government can have a surplus even if it has trillions in debt, but it cannot have a surplus if that debt increased every year. The article( you obviously won't read) is about surplus/deficit, not the debt. However, it analyzes the debt to prove there wasn't a surplus under Clinton.

This isn't correct either. Just because we have a surplus doesn't mean that it is going towards servicing the debt. But mainly, our debt would increase every year even if we had no deficit due to the interest on it. If we don't pay it all then it gets capitalized to the main debt amount.

Have you ever taken out a loan?
 
Sallow pretty much hit the nail on the head. There is a difference between our national debt and the budget deficit and it was in our budget that we ran surpluses.

Another moron who didn't read the article weighs in.

This is an old meme Lonestar..

It's been debunked before and it's gotten debunked now.

By the way..it's amazingly simplistic of you to post this rubbage.

It's almost like saying "If the government were just run like a household.."

:lol:
 
It would appear that some people don't know the difference between deficit and debt.
 
The government can have a surplus even if it has trillions in debt, but it cannot have a surplus if that debt increased every year. The article( you obviously won't read) is about surplus/deficit, not the debt. However, it analyzes the debt to prove there wasn't a surplus under Clinton.

This isn't correct either. Just because we have a surplus doesn't mean that it is going towards servicing the debt. But mainly, our debt would increase every year even if we had no deficit due to the interest on it. If we don't pay it all then it gets capitalized to the main debt amount.

Have you ever taken out a loan?

A surplus means your taking more money in than your spending. Borrowing money from your savings account to put in your checking account doesn't create a surplus.

Yes I have taken out many loans.

Your point?
 
Sallow pretty much hit the nail on the head. There is a difference between our national debt and the budget deficit and it was in our budget that we ran surpluses.

Another moron who didn't read the article weighs in.

This is an old meme Lonestar..

It's been debunked before and it's gotten debunked now.

By the way..it's amazingly simplistic of you to post this rubbage.

It's almost like saying "If the government were just run like a household.."

:lol:

Stay stuck on stupid.
 
The government can have a surplus even if it has trillions in debt, but it cannot have a surplus if that debt increased every year. The article( you obviously won't read) is about surplus/deficit, not the debt. However, it analyzes the debt to prove there wasn't a surplus under Clinton.

This isn't correct either. Just because we have a surplus doesn't mean that it is going towards servicing the debt. But mainly, our debt would increase every year even if we had no deficit due to the interest on it. If we don't pay it all then it gets capitalized to the main debt amount.

Have you ever taken out a loan?

A surplus means your taking more money in than your spending. Borrowing money from your savings account to put in your checking account doesn't create a surplus.

Yes I have taken out many loans.

Your point?

Do you understand how interest works?
 

Forum List

Back
Top