Pres. Clinton Balanced the Federal Budget & Erased the Federal Debt:

[13]

Pres. Clinton Balanced the Federal Budget & Erased the Federal Debt:  Here are the accurate and irrefutable FACTS:



February 3, 2008

Updated: February 11, 2008

Q:

During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A:

Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not. This chart, based on historical figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, shows the total deficit or surplus for each fiscal year from 1990 through 2006. Keep in mind that fiscal years begin Oct. 1, so the first year that can be counted as a Clinton year is fiscal 1994. The appropriations bills for fiscal years 1990 through 1993 were signed by Bill Clinton's predecessor, George H.W. Bush. Fiscal 2002 is the first for which President George W. Bush signed the appropriations bills, and the first to show the effect of his tax cuts.

The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton's fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries.

Clinton's large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn't counted. 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.



http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html

[stretch351c]

wrong again 13 http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

[hoosier_daddy]

yeah, but you are using the Congressional Budget Office official numbers, a bipartisan government agency whose job it is to keep the official numbers for economic related data...no wonder it shows clinton kicking the shit out of his predecessor and his successor....

[13]

And even according to an Update made on Feb. 11, 2008, the fact that Clinton balanced the budget and erased the Federal Deficit: 

The difference between the federal deficit and the federal debt:

A deficit occurs when the government takes in less money than it spends in a given year. The debt is the total amount the government owes at any given time. So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus. The debt the government owes to the public decreased for a while under Clinton, but the debt was by no means erased.

Some have noted a USA Today story stating that, under an alternative type of accounting, the final four years of the Clinton administration taken together would have shown a deficit.

This is based on an annual document called the "Financial Report of the U.S. Government," which reports what the governments books would look like if kept on an accrual basis like those of most corporations, rather than the cash basis that the government has always used. The principal difference is that under accrual accounting the government would book immediately the costs of promises made to pay future benefits to government workers and Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries.

HOWEVER even under accrual accounting, the annual reports showed surpluses of $69.2 billion in fiscal 1998, $76.9 billion in fiscal 1999, and $46 billion for fiscal year 2000.

So even if the government had been using that form of accounting the deficit would have been erased for those three years.

-Brooks Jackson
Sources
Congressional Budget Office, "Historical Budget Data," undated, accessed 28 Jan. 2008.

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html

[stretch351c]

hey dipshit. The CBO can only use the numbers it is given. It has no ability to look elsewhere. And guess who gave the CBO the cooked numbers?

[hoosier_daddy]

who gives a shit what craig steiner says, dumbass?

Update, Feb. 11: Some readers wrote to us saying we should have made clear the difference between the federal deficit and the federal debt. A deficit occurs when the government takes in less money than it spends in a given year. The debt is the total amount the government owes at any given time. So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus. The debt the government owes to the public decreased for a while under Clinton, but the debt was by no means erased.

Other readers have noted a USA Today story stating that, under an alternative type of accounting, the final four years of the Clinton administration taken together would have shown a deficit. This is based on an annual document called the "Financial Report of the U.S. Government," which reports what the governments books would look like if kept on an accrual basis like those of most corporations, rather than the cash basis that the government has always used. The principal difference is that under accrual accounting the government would book immediately the costs of promises made to pay future benefits to government workers and Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries. But even under accrual accounting, the annual reports showed surpluses of $69.2 billion in fiscal 1998,  $76.9 billion in fiscal 1999, and $46 billion for fiscal year 2000.  So even if the government had been using that form of accounting the deficit would have been erased for those three years.

-Brooks Jackson

[13]

wrong again 13 http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

Yes, YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS WRONG AGAIN, stretch, as usual.

[hoosier_daddy]

Tag: Bill Clinton
FACT-CHECK: Ed Rendell-Starting in 1993, after raising taxes on the wealthiest of Americans and cutting the budget, the Clinton administration produced over 23.5 million new jobs.
Wednesday, August 4th, 2010 | admin
The following is a fact-check from the August 1, 2010 episode of Meet the Press:




GOV. ED RENDELL (D-PA) | Starting in 1993, after raising taxes on the wealthiest 2% of Americans and cutting the budget, the Clinton administration produced over 23.5 million new jobs over the next 7 years – MOSTLY TRUE

GOV. RENDELL: The debt commission. Both parties have to get together and say, “We’re going to do this together, we’re going to make the changes. They’re not going to be popular, but they’re necessary.” But you have to have increased taxes along with those reductions. And this fairy tale that increased taxes on the rich is going to hurt the economy, well, we don’t have to look any further than 1993. What Bill Clinton did, without one Republican vote, is essentially the same thing. He raised taxes on the top 2 percent in, in America. That was combined with budget cuts that the president and the Republican Congress did together, and it produced 23.5 million new jobs in the seven years that followed.

The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 raised the individual income tax to 39.6% for the top 1.2%, not the top 2%, as Mr. Rendell states. Not a single Republican in either the House or Senate voted for the bill, as Gov. Rendell also stated. As we pointed out in an earlier fact-check and according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, a total of 22.7 million jobs were created during the Clinton administration. But the bill didn’t become law til August of 1993, so if we get technical, only 21.4 million jobs were created, from the passage of the bill to the end Of Clinton’s term.

According to Politifact, unemployment fell from 6.8 percent to 3.9 percent between passage of the bill and the end of Clinton’s term. After the bill’s passage, personal income increased by about 7.5 percent a year, compared to about 5.2 percent a year prior to passage. Industrial production rose by about 5.6 percent per year after passage, compared to 3.2 percent per year before passage. From the passage of the bill until the end of Clinton’s term, the Dow Jones Industrial average rose 26.7 percent per year, from 3,651 to 10,788.

[Bob Huntress]

I am guessing that we are discussing the same CBO that said the Obamacare bill was deficit neutral? We all see that this more recent projection was done completely with smoke and mirrors, and that was the case in the earlier one as well. When Clinton balanced the budget, he did so by projection. This means that when the budget was written, it assumed the amount of money that would come in would be high enough to pay all the money they spent that year. Even if this had happened as it was projected, it would have only meant that for the year in question, no debt would be added. In reality, however, the assumptions of how much money would be raised were ridiculously high leaving the same debt at the end of the year. The CBO only calculates with the numbers they are fed. If you ask whether a bill will save money, you ask based on numbers that will never happen.

[stretch351c]

You clinton asslickers will never get it. Clinton cooked the numbers he gave to the CBO. but parasites like you don't care. What a pity.

[sine-qua-non]

Who gives a shit what -Brooks Jackson says



He's writing is an obvious crock of crap, and his understanding of accounting is juvenile at best, just like

any post here made by the semi-literate Ho Duddy.

LOL!  I needed a libtard to give me a laugh this am, thanks! 

[dg9990]

Clinton DID NOT balance the budget.

Who wrote the Republican Balanced Budget Act of 1997?


Tick, tick, tick, tick ...................

90% of the debt can be explained with social and entitlemnt programs.

LIberal democrats and their freelaoders have destroyed Uncle Sam's financial well being.


The greedy freeloaders take from the middle clasa without working or paying taxes.  The liberal Democrats enable them to do that.
 
 
Erase the debt Now, that was a stupid comment!