The myth that a surplus during the Clinton administration was a myth.

[Iriemon]

Dave does bring up a point to keep in mind.

From now on, when you hear someone complaining that Obama is supposedly tripling the deficit, we will use Dave's system of measuring the deficit instead of the office CBO guage of deficits:

Total debt:

12/31/2007 9,229,172,659,218.31
12/31/2008 10,699,804,864,612.13

During Bush's last 12 months in office, the debt increase (and therefore deficit, according to Dave) was $1,440.6B or more than $1.4 trillion dollars.

Obama's projected deficit this year is $1.8 trillion, not triple, not even double. Up $500 billion for this year, though that is no worse than Bush did to Clinton's surplus.

 

[Iriemon]

I came across this little blurb from the CBO in its 2000 budget forecast:

Under CBO's baseline assumptions, the first total budget surplus since 1969 will be followed by even larger surpluses in the next 11 years.

But what the hell does the Congressional Budget Office know compared to Diamond Dave and Craig Steiner, eh?

Also interesting:

The surplus grows from $70 billion (0.8 percent of GDP) in fiscal year 1998 to $107 billion (1.2 percent of GDP) in 1999 (see Summary Table 3). Those projections assume that discretionary spending will equal the statutory caps of the Deficit Control Act and that policies affecting other spending and revenues will remain unchanged. If discretionary spending increases at the rate of inflation after the caps expire in 2002, the surplus will reach $381 billion (2.8 percent of GDP) in 2009, compared with $514 billion (3.8 percent of GDP) if discretionary spending is instead held to the dollar level of the 2002 caps after that year.

Of course, "policies affecting other spending and revenues" did not "remain unchanged".

 

[manu1959]

during the dot com economic boom......

congress produced a budget that clinton signed that was paying down the debt.......

but there was never a surplus......

in other words they never fully paid off the credit cards and started saving money.....

 

[sealybobo]

Fiscal year is where the budget runs asshole.. FISCAL YEAR... get it thru your thick fucking skull

You want to go with the ACTUAL numbers bitch, then you got to apply them to Bush too you little bitch. Erieman punked you out bitch! What you got to say. He's a numbers guy. I think/know you are full of shit. Erie PROVES it.

 

[sealybobo]

during the dot com economic boom......

congress produced a budget that clinton signed that was paying down the debt.......

but there was never a surplus......

in other words they never fully paid off the credit cards and started saving money.....

Sheeeaaaattttt!!! Go look at how much of Bush's success was in the mortgage and bank scandals. The success Bush enjoyed when corporations had record profits from like 2005-2007, was all bullshit! And they knew it. And in the end, they let the economy crash and told us either give them $700 or they will take the country down with them!

Talk about an October Surprise. Remember Rove said he had a surprise for us? How surprised were you when Bush looked into the camera and said, "this is a stick up, don't anybody move. nobody move, nobody get hurt, turn over $700 bill and don't ask where it is going, we want it unmarked...."

You know the rest. Or do you?

 

[justabubba]

props to dave
from what i have read ... and especially the steiner article he referenced ... your challenge was not only accepted but was met

The myth that a surplus during the Clinton administration was a myth.
Ever since I started posting here, I've seen in a number of threads with posts from a number of different people who claim that the budget surplus during the Clinton administration was a "myth," and that in fact there was no surplus.

The "fact" that there was no surplus under Clinton has been "proved" here "over and over and over" according to some like DiamondDave, who as of late taken to neg repping me for even asserting otherwise.

I don't know who was debating this point before I got here, but if it was "proved" over and over that a surplus under Clinton was a "myth" they weren't very knowledgeable. Or they get their information for the Murdoch "news" outlets.

So this thread is to settle the matter once and for all.

Those who claim that the surplus during the Clinton administration was a "myth" can use this opportunity to prove me wrong. And since it apparently has been proved "over and over and over" again to have been a myth it shouldn't be too hard to prove it one more time.

and it appears that some on the left fringe now recognize that clinton surplus story to be a myth, too, because the goalposts were subsequently moved from 'prove the clinton surplus was a myth' to 'acknowledge that clinton was not as bad a spendthrift as the shrub'
but dave had anticipated that earlier in the thread and acknowledged that it was disappointing the republicans were pitiful fiscal stewards

and thanks for the thread, because until reading it, i was one of those who accepted - whole hog - the myth that clinton gave us budget surpluses

 

[Iriemon]

during the dot com economic boom......

congress produced a budget that clinton signed that was paying down the debt.......

but there was never a surplus......

in other words they never fully paid off the credit cards and started saving money.....

A "suprlus" in budgetary terms means that more revenues were taken in than went out, not that the entire debt was paid off.

I agree that confusion of those terms is common and a lot of people mistakenly believe that the debt was paid off, far from it.

But that is not the issue, but whether there was a budgetary surplus -- ie the government took in more revenues than it spent.

 

[manu1959]

during the dot com economic boom......

congress produced a budget that clinton signed that was paying down the debt.......

but there was never a surplus......

in other words they never fully paid off the credit cards and started saving money.....

Sheeeaaaattttt!!! Go look at how much of Bush's success was in the mortgage and bank scandals. The success Bush enjoyed when corporations had record profits from like 2005-2007, was all bullshit! And they knew it. And in the end, they let the economy crash and told us either give them $700 or they will take the country down with them!

Talk about an October Surprise. Remember Rove said he had a surprise for us? How surprised were you when Bush looked into the camera and said, "this is a stick up, don't anybody move. nobody move, nobody get hurt, turn over $700 bill and don't ask where it is going, we want it unmarked...."

You know the rest. Or do you?

what does what you posted have to do with what i said.....

is you point that clinton sucked as bad as bush......

 

[Iriemon]

props to dave
from what i have read ... and especially the steiner article he referenced ... your challenge was not only accepted but was met

The myth that a surplus during the Clinton administration was a myth.
Ever since I started posting here, I've seen in a number of threads with posts from a number of different people who claim that the budget surplus during the Clinton administration was a "myth," and that in fact there was no surplus.

The "fact" that there was no surplus under Clinton has been "proved" here "over and over and over" according to some like DiamondDave, who as of late taken to neg repping me for even asserting otherwise.

I don't know who was debating this point before I got here, but if it was "proved" over and over that a surplus under Clinton was a "myth" they weren't very knowledgeable. Or they get their information for the Murdoch "news" outlets.

So this thread is to settle the matter once and for all.

Those who claim that the surplus during the Clinton administration was a "myth" can use this opportunity to prove me wrong. And since it apparently has been proved "over and over and over" again to have been a myth it shouldn't be too hard to prove it one more time.

and it appears that some on the left fringe now recognize that clinton surplus story to be a myth, too, because the goalposts were subsequently moved from 'prove the clinton surplus was a myth' to 'acknowledge that clinton was not as bad a spendthrift as the shrub'
but dave had anticipated that earlier in the thread and acknowledged that it was disappointing the republicans were pitiful fiscal stewards

and thanks for the thread, because until reading it, i was one of those who accepted - whole hog - the myth that clinton gave us budget surpluses

Why do you credit Craig Steiner over the Congressional Budget Office, and the Department of the Treasury, just out of curiousity. Who is Craig Steiner so that you believe his blog as to whether there was a surplus carries more weight than what the CBO says?

 

[manu1959]

during the dot com economic boom......

congress produced a budget that clinton signed that was paying down the debt.......

but there was never a surplus......

in other words they never fully paid off the credit cards and started saving money.....

A "suprlus" in budgetary terms means that more revenues were taken in than went out, not that the entire debt was paid off.

I agree that confusion of those terms is common and a lot of people mistakenly believe that the debt was paid off, far from it.

But that is not the issue, but whether there was a budgetary surplus -- ie the government took in more revenues than it spent.

i don't disagree....i belive i said clinton was making money but to say he had a surplus of money when there was still a debt is missleading and cutting off clinton's fiscal year budget in december of 2000 and saying look at the surplus he passed to bush when the econmomy was actually declining do to the dot com bust is not quite being honest either....

now if you want to justify clintons behaviour with bushes bad behaivour then there is really no point in discussing this further .....

 

[jillian]

Why do you credit Craig Steiner over the Congressional Budget Office, and the Department of the Treasury, just out of curiousity. Who is Craig Steiner so that you believe his blog as to whether there was a surplus carries more weight than what the CBO says?

because the blogs are soooooooooooooo reliable...

who craig steiner is:

I've been doing software development since 1980 and professionally since 1990. After starting my career as a full-time employee, I opted to go out on my own and became a self-employed consultant in 1999. I've been doing that ever since.

About Me & This Website

yep...sounds like an expert all right...

 

[Yurt]

during the dot com economic boom......

congress produced a budget that clinton signed that was paying down the debt.......

but there was never a surplus......

in other words they never fully paid off the credit cards and started saving money.....

A "suprlus" in budgetary terms means that more revenues were taken in than went out, not that the entire debt was paid off.

I agree that confusion of those terms is common and a lot of people mistakenly believe that the debt was paid off, far from it.

But that is not the issue, but whether there was a budgetary surplus -- ie the government took in more revenues than it spent.

i don't disagree....i belive i said clinton was making money but to say he had a surplus of money when there was still a debt is missleading and cutting off clinton's fiscal year budget in december of 2000 and saying look at the surplus he passed to bush when the econmomy was actually declining do to the dot com bust is not quite being honest either....

now if you want to justify clintons behaviour with bushes bad behaivour then there is really no point in discussing this further .....

that is exactly the truth in a nutshell....

 

[Iriemon]

during the dot com economic boom......

congress produced a budget that clinton signed that was paying down the debt.......

but there was never a surplus......

in other words they never fully paid off the credit cards and started saving money.....

A "suprlus" in budgetary terms means that more revenues were taken in than went out, not that the entire debt was paid off.

I agree that confusion of those terms is common and a lot of people mistakenly believe that the debt was paid off, far from it.

But that is not the issue, but whether there was a budgetary surplus -- ie the government took in more revenues than it spent.

i don't disagree....i belive i said clinton was making money but to say he had a surplus of money when there was still a debt is missleading and cutting off clinton's fiscal year budget in december of 2000 and saying look at the surplus he passed to bush when the econmomy was actually declining do to the dot com bust is not quite being honest either....

now if you want to justify clintons behaviour with bushes bad behaivour then there is really no point in discussing this further .....

I would agree with you that to say there was a "surplus of money" could be wrong, though I'm not sure what "surplus of money" even means. It's not a term I've used.

But in this thread it is clear we are talking about budget surpluses. In that context, your statement "but there was never a surplus" is simply wrong, at least if we want to look at what the Congression Budget Office (or any other Govt agency) says.

If you want to use irrelevant or uncommon definitions you can define away anything.

What is not honest about saying the debt decreased $114 billion in the calendar year 2000? That is straight from the US Department of the Treasury. I didn't make it up. The cite is there for all to check for themselves.

 

[DiamondDave]

props to dave
from what i have read ... and especially the steiner article he referenced ... your challenge was not only accepted but was met

The myth that a surplus during the Clinton administration was a myth.
Ever since I started posting here, I've seen in a number of threads with posts from a number of different people who claim that the budget surplus during the Clinton administration was a "myth," and that in fact there was no surplus.

The "fact" that there was no surplus under Clinton has been "proved" here "over and over and over" according to some like DiamondDave, who as of late taken to neg repping me for even asserting otherwise.

I don't know who was debating this point before I got here, but if it was "proved" over and over that a surplus under Clinton was a "myth" they weren't very knowledgeable. Or they get their information for the Murdoch "news" outlets.

So this thread is to settle the matter once and for all.

Those who claim that the surplus during the Clinton administration was a "myth" can use this opportunity to prove me wrong. And since it apparently has been proved "over and over and over" again to have been a myth it shouldn't be too hard to prove it one more time.

and it appears that some on the left fringe now recognize that clinton surplus story to be a myth, too, because the goalposts were subsequently moved from 'prove the clinton surplus was a myth' to 'acknowledge that clinton was not as bad a spendthrift as the shrub'
but dave had anticipated that earlier in the thread and acknowledged that it was disappointing the republicans were pitiful fiscal stewards

and thanks for the thread, because until reading it, i was one of those who accepted - whole hog - the myth that clinton gave us budget surpluses

Precisely...

I never argued that Bush did better on the budget or anything like that... I simply PROVED that the Clinton surplus was a myth.. which indeed it was... The government, when taking into account ALL spending, spent more than it took in each and every fiscal year (as stated, that is the timeframe of the budget and the timeframe which is used as "yearly" in terms of the federal budget)

Some folks and extreme partisan assholes refuse to acknowledge truth, because it goes against their preconceptions... Hell, I USED to believe the surplus myth, until I looked into it much closer than the average person does....

 

[DiamondDave]

Why do you credit Craig Steiner over the Congressional Budget Office, and the Department of the Treasury, just out of curiousity. Who is Craig Steiner so that you believe his blog as to whether there was a surplus carries more weight than what the CBO says?

because the blogs are soooooooooooooo reliable...

who craig steiner is:

I've been doing software development since 1980 and professionally since 1990. After starting my career as a full-time employee, I opted to go out on my own and became a self-employed consultant in 1999. I've been doing that ever since.

About Me & This Website

yep...sounds like an expert all right...

I don't give a shit about the guys interjections or writing... it is simply a place that can be referenced that sums up the numbers that are actually SEEN on the government page, which I linked numerous times... the numbers and calculations are taken DIRECTLY from the government data... no spinning, no leaving shit out, no nothing.. just the pure data

And the data PROVES the point.. CLINTON HAD NO SURPLUS, P-E-R-I-O-D

 

[Iriemon]

props to dave
from what i have read ... and especially the steiner article he referenced ... your challenge was not only accepted but was met

The myth that a surplus during the Clinton administration was a myth.
Ever since I started posting here, I've seen in a number of threads with posts from a number of different people who claim that the budget surplus during the Clinton administration was a "myth," and that in fact there was no surplus.

The "fact" that there was no surplus under Clinton has been "proved" here "over and over and over" according to some like DiamondDave, who as of late taken to neg repping me for even asserting otherwise.

I don't know who was debating this point before I got here, but if it was "proved" over and over that a surplus under Clinton was a "myth" they weren't very knowledgeable. Or they get their information for the Murdoch "news" outlets.

So this thread is to settle the matter once and for all.

Those who claim that the surplus during the Clinton administration was a "myth" can use this opportunity to prove me wrong. And since it apparently has been proved "over and over and over" again to have been a myth it shouldn't be too hard to prove it one more time.

and it appears that some on the left fringe now recognize that clinton surplus story to be a myth, too, because the goalposts were subsequently moved from 'prove the clinton surplus was a myth' to 'acknowledge that clinton was not as bad a spendthrift as the shrub'
but dave had anticipated that earlier in the thread and acknowledged that it was disappointing the republicans were pitiful fiscal stewards

and thanks for the thread, because until reading it, i was one of those who accepted - whole hog - the myth that clinton gave us budget surpluses

Precisely...

I never argued that Bush did better on the budget or anything like that... I simply PROVED that the Clinton surplus was a myth.. which indeed it was... The government, when taking into account ALL spending, spent more than it took in each and every fiscal year (as stated, that is the timeframe of the budget and the timeframe which is used as "yearly" in terms of the federal budget)

Some folks and extreme partisan assholes refuse to acknowledge truth, because it goes against their preconceptions... Hell, I USED to believe the surplus myth, until I looked into it much closer than the average person does....

I can't imagine who you are referring to when you say "partisan asshole", but I've never denied if you look at total debt from a fiscal year basis, the year ending 9/30/00 increased 17 billion.

But "some folks and extreme partisan assholes refuse to acknowledge truth" which is that for the year ending 12/31/00, the total debt in fact decreased by $114 billion.

And of course every federal government agency says there was a budget surplus, as does most the media, unless you want to rely on a blog by a computer programmer for your position.

Why would someone be a "partisan asshole" for relying on the Congressional Budget Office for Govt budget information, while someone relying on a computer programmer's blog to argue a position is not?

Hmmmmm.

 

[DiamondDave]

09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 * 1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 * 1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 * 1,377,210,000,000.00
09/30/1982 * 1,142,034,000,000.00
09/30/1981 * 997,855,000,000.00
09/30/1980 * 907,701,000,000.00
09/30/1979 * 826,519,000,000.00
09/30/1978 * 771,544,000,000.00
09/30/1977 * 698,840,000,000.00
06/30/1976 * 620,433,000,000.00
06/30/1975 * 533,189,000,000.00
06/30/1974 475,059,815,731.55
06/30/1973 458,141,605,312.09
06/30/1972 427,260,460,940.50
06/30/1971 398,129,744,455.54
06/30/1970 370,918,706,949.93
06/30/1969 353,720,253,841.41
06/30/1968 347,578,406,425.88
06/30/1967 326,220,937,794.54
06/30/1966 319,907,087,795.48
06/30/1965 317,273,898,983.64
06/30/1964 311,712,899,257.30
06/30/1963 305,859,632,996.41
06/30/1962 298,200,822,720.87
06/30/1961 288,970,938,610.05
06/30/1960 286,330,760,848.37
06/30/1959 284,705,907,078.22
06/30/1958 276,343,217,745.81
06/30/1957 270,527,171,896.43
06/30/1956 272,750,813,649.32
06/30/1955 274,374,222,802.62
06/30/1954 271,259,599,108.46
06/30/1953 266,071,061,638.57
06/30/1952 259,105,178,785.43
06/29/1951 255,221,976,814.93
06/30/1950 257,357,352,351.04

No surplus since 1957.. PERIOD

Jill.. and that is not from any blog... it is DIRECT from the COMPLETE and ACTUAL numbers.... including debt and intergovernmental spending....

And it is linked HERE
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual

As a matter of fact.. the other myth that the outstanding debt was paid down is also a complete myth... the debt has never been reduced $0.01 since 1961, when Kennedy actually reduced the debt 4%

 

[sealybobo]

during the dot com economic boom......

congress produced a budget that clinton signed that was paying down the debt.......

but there was never a surplus......

in other words they never fully paid off the credit cards and started saving money.....

Sheeeaaaattttt!!! Go look at how much of Bush's success was in the mortgage and bank scandals. The success Bush enjoyed when corporations had record profits from like 2005-2007, was all bullshit! And they knew it. And in the end, they let the economy crash and told us either give them $700 or they will take the country down with them!

Talk about an October Surprise. Remember Rove said he had a surprise for us? How surprised were you when Bush looked into the camera and said, "this is a stick up, don't anybody move. nobody move, nobody get hurt, turn over $700 bill and don't ask where it is going, we want it unmarked...."

You know the rest. Or do you?

what does what you posted have to do with what i said.....

is you point that clinton sucked as bad as bush......

You guys and your dot com boom. I guess Hoover was lucky enough to have the Model T boom and still he fucked up and caused the Great Depression?

Clinton helped the GOP ruin the American Middle Class.

I know you don't think the middle class is ruined but we are headed that way.

And you guys denied we were heading that way, and that denial is what cost you the election.

 

[sealybobo]

09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 * 1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 * 1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 * 1,377,210,000,000.00
09/30/1982 * 1,142,034,000,000.00
09/30/1981 * 997,855,000,000.00
09/30/1980 * 907,701,000,000.00
09/30/1979 * 826,519,000,000.00
09/30/1978 * 771,544,000,000.00
09/30/1977 * 698,840,000,000.00
06/30/1976 * 620,433,000,000.00
06/30/1975 * 533,189,000,000.00
06/30/1974 475,059,815,731.55
06/30/1973 458,141,605,312.09
06/30/1972 427,260,460,940.50
06/30/1971 398,129,744,455.54
06/30/1970 370,918,706,949.93
06/30/1969 353,720,253,841.41
06/30/1968 347,578,406,425.88
06/30/1967 326,220,937,794.54
06/30/1966 319,907,087,795.48
06/30/1965 317,273,898,983.64
06/30/1964 311,712,899,257.30
06/30/1963 305,859,632,996.41
06/30/1962 298,200,822,720.87
06/30/1961 288,970,938,610.05
06/30/1960 286,330,760,848.37
06/30/1959 284,705,907,078.22
06/30/1958 276,343,217,745.81
06/30/1957 270,527,171,896.43
06/30/1956 272,750,813,649.32
06/30/1955 274,374,222,802.62
06/30/1954 271,259,599,108.46
06/30/1953 266,071,061,638.57
06/30/1952 259,105,178,785.43
06/29/1951 255,221,976,814.93
06/30/1950 257,357,352,351.04

No surplus since 1957.. PERIOD

Jill.. and that is not from any blog... it is DIRECT from the COMPLETE and ACTUAL numbers.... including debt and intergovernmental spending....

And it is linked HERE
Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual

As a matter of fact.. the other myth that the outstanding debt was paid down is also a complete myth... the debt has never been reduced $0.01 since 1961, when Kennedy actually reduced the debt 4%

How many times do people have to expose your numbers as wrong, or fuzzy, before you shut the fuck up.

 

[Iriemon]

Why do you credit Craig Steiner over the Congressional Budget Office, and the Department of the Treasury, just out of curiousity. Who is Craig Steiner so that you believe his blog as to whether there was a surplus carries more weight than what the CBO says?

because the blogs are soooooooooooooo reliable...

who craig steiner is:

I've been doing software development since 1980 and professionally since 1990. After starting my career as a full-time employee, I opted to go out on my own and became a self-employed consultant in 1999. I've been doing that ever since.

About Me & This Website

yep...sounds like an expert all right...

I don't give a shit about the guys interjections or writing... it is simply a place that can be referenced that sums up the numbers that are actually SEEN on the government page, which I linked numerous times... the numbers and calculations are taken DIRECTLY from the government data... no spinning, no leaving shit out, no nothing.. just the pure data

And the data PROVES the point.. CLINTON HAD NO SURPLUS, P-E-R-I-O-D

Only if you predefine "surplus" or "deficit" to only mean comparing whether the total debt increased or decreased for a year ending 9/30.

Which of course few except Diamond Dave and a computer programer's blog do.

If you define a surplus or deficit in the way the term is universally used, based on how the Congressional Budget Office records the budget, or how the media use the term, or even to mean whether the debt was paid down in any given year, then there was undeniably and indisputedly a surplus while Clinton was president.

That's good enough to say there was a surplus to me, partisan hack though I may be called.

But if we do use Dave's test, how big was the "deficit" Obama inhereted? People say all the time that Obama is tripling the deficit this year. Diamond Dave, is that accurate based on your definition of a "deficit"?