I never mentioned Clinton either and yet here we are. So what are you trying to say, that Clinton was responsible for Bush debt? Do you think Obama's debt would be as high now if he had inherited Clinton's debt and budget surplus instead of Bush's debt and policies? Because I sure don't. In fact, I don't think we would have even had a 9/11 if Gore had been elected. <sigh> if wishes were fishes....
Irrelevant to what I said.reduced revenue + increased spending = borrowing.
reduced revenue + increased spending = borrowing.
There was no Clinton "surplus"
That's a myth. Money from Social Security was used to pay down the Public Debt. Not the National Debt. Clinton had deficits every year he was in office.
Clinton also admitted he raised taxes too high. His increased taxes hurt economic growth.
Even the NYT reported yet they've laughably taken down the story since it no longer fits in with their narrative
http://www.nytimes.com/eyeblaster/addineyeV2.html
Taxes Under Clinton? - YouTube
It also helps to print more money in order to make ends meet, which the Feds are doing.
This is true for 2 years, totalled under $90B, and was not when he left office.People often confuse budget deficit with national debt, but yes Bronson, there was indeed a "budget surplus" when Clinton left office precisely because he had raised taxes and reduced military spending.
This is true for 2 years, totalled under $90B, and was not when he left office.
FY Revenue Outlay deficif/surplus
1992 1,091.2 1,381.5 -340.4
1993 1,154.3 1,409.4 -300.4
1994 1,258.6 1,461.8 -258.8
1995 1,351.8 1,515.7 -226.4
1996 1,453.1 1,560.5 -174.0
1997 1,579.2 1,601.1 -103.2
1998 1,721.7 1,652.5 -29.9
1999 1,827.5 1,701.8 1.9
2000 2,025.2 1,789.0 86.4
2001 1,991.1 1,862.8 -32.4
FY2001 was his budget.Yup, there it is, a budget surplus and you even bolded it.
1999 1,827.5 1,701.8 1.9
2000 2,025.2 1,789.0 86.4
Clinton left office in January 2001. So yes Bronson, there was indeed a budget surplus when he left office.
Oh, hmm, you might be right...in the same way that Obama's first year was Bush's budget as well. I need to think about this a bit and get back to you later but I have to go tend to some business now. But that was good, Mr. White.FY2001 was his budget.
Except that Obama signed the FY2009 budget in March 2009.Oh, hmm, you might be right...in the same way that Obama's first year was Bush's budget as well.
Except that Obama signed the FY2009 budget in March 2009.
They did. They also made sure they passed it after GWB left office so he could not claim credit for any of the positive effects it was sure to have on the economy.I thought Congress didn't pass a budget that year?
Except that Obama signed the FY2009 budget in March 2009.
You missed the part where Obama, not Bush, signed the budget.And by that time the fiscal year was already more than half over. Most of the 2009 budget was Bush's
They did. They also made sure they passed it after GWB left office so he could not claim credit for any of the positive effects it was sure to have on the economy.
You missed the part where Obama, not Bush, signed the budget.
People often confuse budget deficit with national debt, but yes Bronson, there was indeed a "budget surplus" when Clinton left office precisely because he had raised taxes and reduced military spending.
President Clinton announces another record budget surplus - CNN
" When spending exceeds income, the result is a budget deficit, which must be financed by borrowing money and paying interest on the borrowed funds, much like an individual spending more than he can afford and carrying a balance on a credit card. A balanced budget occurs when spending equals income. The U.S. government has only had a budget surplus in a few years since 1950. The Clinton administration (1993-2001) famously cured a large budget deficit and created a surplus in the late 1990s.
Read more: Budget Surplus Definition | Investopedia
The Treasury Department has for decades borrowed money from the Social Security trust fund to finance government operations. If it is no longer able to do so, it could be forced to borrow an additional $700 billion over the next decade from China, Japan and other investors. And at some point, perhaps as early as 2017, according to the CBO, the Treasury would have to start repaying the billions it has borrowed from the trust fund over the past 25 years, driving the nation further into debt or forcing Congress to raise taxes.
No, you missed its irrelevance. The expenditures were the result of Bush's disastrous economic policies: two unfunded wars, the finanical meltdown and tax cuts for Paris Hilton. So it needed to be fixed and that involved big deficits.
The koolaid, man, the koolaid.
...don't exist.Those "2 unfunded wars"...
Spending is the problem.
A whole $17M?According to whom -
The 2013 Defense Bill Was Unanimously Approved For $17 Million More Than Requested
Somebody has been drinking the koolaid.
You'd be silly to expect much else from hoj.Oh please not another koolaid wacko. That has to be the most overused moniker on this site.