Clinton ran deficits through 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 Clinton's term. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np The total national debt continued to go up every year Clinton was in office.. What happened as the use of the following funds to borrow money to pay down the debt held by the public while increasing the intragovernmental debt by the amount borrowed. For example, in 2000, Clinton claimed a $230B surplus, but Clinton borrowed $152.3B from Social Security $30.9B from Civil Service Retirement Fund $18.5B from Federal Supplementary Medical insurance Trust Fund $15.0B from Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund $9.0B from the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund $8.2B from Military Retirement Fund $3.8B from Transportation Trust Funds $1.8B from Employee Life Insurance & Retirement fund $7.0B from others Total borrowed from off budget funds $246.5B, meaning that his $230B surplus is actually a $16.5B deficit. ($246.5B borrowed - $230B claimed surplus = $16.5B actual deficit). So the facts are there was a surplus...in the on budget debt, while the intragovernmental debt went up more than that on budget surplus for a net deficit every year of Clinton's presidency. So his story is only have the story, but then as Paul Harvey used to say, "now here's the rest of the story."
I think we need to start off with the Treasury Dept's definition of a deficit: You can think of the total debt as accumulated deficits plus accumulated off-budget surpluses. In other words the deficits of one year add to the previous deficit and each deficit increases the debt. So the deficit for FY 2001 plus the debt at the end of FY` 2000 equals the new debt at the end of FY 2001. It can also be stated that the debt at the end of FY 2001 minus the debt at the end of FY 2000 equals the deficit for FY 2001. Your statement, "When there's a surplus, it means that more money came in than was spent; when there's a deficit, it means that more money was spent than came in," is also true. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway if used correctly will give you these numbers, all I did was add the simple arithmatic showing the deficit for that year. If you don't believe my numbers check the math. I rounded off to the approximate billion. Insert Oct 1, 1993 as a beginning date.. Debt=4,406,339,573,433.47 ..........Sep 30, 1994.......................... ......Debt=4,692,749,910,013.32 ........Deficit=286 billion ..........Sep 29, 1995.......................... ......Debt=4,973,982,900,709.39........ Deficit=280 billion ..........Sep 30, 1996.......................... ......Debt=5,224,810,939,135.73 ........Deficit=241 billion ..........Sep 30, 1997.......................... ......Debt=5,413,146,011,397.34 .........Deficit=189 billion ..........Sep 30, 1998.......................... ......Debt=5,526,193,008,897.62 .........Deficit=113 billion ..........Sep 30, 1999.......................... ......Debt=5,656,270,901,633.43 .........Deficit=130 billion ..........Sep 29, 2000.......................... ......Debt=5,674,178,209,886.86 .........Deficit=18 billion Insert Sep 28, 2001 as an end date ..........Debt=5,807,463,41 2,200.06..........Deficit=174 billion Yes, revenues, not the borrowed money from the trust funds. The total deficit can be gotten from the debt as described above. According to the treasury site the FY 2000 deficit was $18 billlion, easily ascertained by subtracting the end total national debt at the end of FY 1999 from the end total national debt for FY 2000. That is the FY 2000 deficit, as per the definition from the treasury site, "You can think of the total debt as accumulated deficits plus accumulated off-budget surpluses. In other words the deficits of one year add to the previous deficit and each deficit increases the debt" Correct, over the period of each Fiscal Year. "The Treasury securities issued to the public and to the Government Trust Funds (Intragovernmental Holdings) then become part of the total debt," which means that what is borrowed from the trust funds adds to the total national debt. When I said, "One debt going down does not mean a surplus if you created more debt from additional borrowed money," it meant exactly that. The general treasury borrowed money from the trust funds (not just SS/MC, but several others as well and used part of that money to pay down on budget debt. Unfortunately the debt amount paid down was not as much as was added debt owed the trust funds. In fact my position has never changed, you just have not been smart enough to understand the reality of it all.
It was always all on paper, but we don't have honest news media to share that with the poorly informed electorate. They just receive the Democratic Party propaganda and the gobble it up.
No they don't. It is the responsibility of those who can to take care of those who cannot. Clinton was actually one of our better presidents fiscally even if he was a morally corrupt degenerate.
Oh now you did it. Iriemon is going to have kanipshin. How dare you pick on her favorite President who gave have us that only on paper surplus.
You overdrew your checking account by $75.00. You borrow $100.00 from your credit card and make a deposit. Do you now have a $25.00 surplus in your checking account?
1 - Not sure how this is a current event. 2 - If you want to look at Deficits, you need to look at the conservative darling Reagan. He's the one that set in motion today's disaster: U.S. Federal Deficits, Presidents, and Congress
How about SOME indication that the accountants both public and private and ALL the Clinton-hating Republicans for, all these years simply ignored this 246 Billion in additional debt, and did NOT include it on the books.
The deficit is the year to year difference between what the United States Government (Government) takes in from taxes and other revenues, called receipts, and the amount of money the Government spends, called outlays. The items included in the deficit are considered either on-budget or off-budget. Since the President serves from 1/20 of each year to 1/19 of the next the fiscal year does not apply to this issue. You can think of the total debt as accumulated deficits plus accumulated off-budget surpluses. Which means the actual increase in the debt from year to year is the annual deficit. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/resources/faq/faq_publicdebt.htm#DebtOwner and http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/current Instead of listening to Clinton cronies, do the research to prove the point, then maybe you will solve your ignorance on the subject problem.
No, it was Congress under Newt Gingrich leadership who balanced the budget. Clinton gets credit for having some leadership capabilities and crossing the aisle and working with the Republicans. Not unlike the current whinny President who wants it his way or no way because he has a pen and a phone and the Constitution doesn't mean jack (*)(*)(*)(*).
Balancing the budget means you have paid off all previous debt and you can pay all of your bills as they come every month. No where in history has the government paid off their debt. They do not want to since the interest that is charged to tax payers is subtracted off the top at tax season and they get to spend that interest money anyway they want to without any explanation to the public.
