• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GOP plan to extend tax cuts for rich adds $36 billion

Do your own research, your link will provide you with enough information to prove that Clinton lied again. Apparently like all liberals you ignore that the National Debt is comprised of Public Debt and intergovt. holdings. Clinton paid down the public debt by using SS revenue from intergovt. holdings raising that debt so the combined is more each year and thus no pay down of the debt.

Even your information refutes Clinton's statement. Let's see if you can figure out yet that Clinton and the Democrats have made a fool out of you?


In other words what you posted is bull*** as usual…noted. :2wave:
 
In other words what you posted is bull*** as usual…noted. :2wave:

If I posted bs so did you. Your site doesn't show a surplus and apparently you don't understand the debt and deficit. That is ok since most liberals don't understand it either. You can bait me all you want, doesn't work. Clinton lied, your site shows it and now you divert from it. Let's see you do creative math on the Obama 3 trillion deficits.

By the way, you seem to not understand that the fiscal year of the U.S. is October to September, not January to January.

Here is the link for the yearly debt both Public and Intergovt. holdings

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm


Now are you going to admit that Clinton lied to you and the public?
 
Last edited:
Nah, you call and tell them that treasury direct (one of your links ) that they are posting wrong data. While you at it tell them that that the President of the United States is wrong as well, for telling CNN “that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion.”

September 27, 2000
Web posted at: 4:51 p.m. EDT (2051 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion.

Donc, show me the page number of the U.S. Treasury site or any other credible site that shows this surplus that Clinton claimed and you along with the other liberals including the media bought?
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

Oh, don't be so hard on yourself. The first step to a cure though is admitting you have a problem. I keep waiting for you to answer the question, why do you care how much the rich pay in taxes? Also noticed you didn't respond to the article I posted showing that 47% of the people don't pay any taxes yet no outrage on your part?
What is the reason they paid no taxes. I did notice in that MS Excel worksheet that .2% of those people making $10 Million or more paid no income tax. I didn't mention it earlier.
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

If you don't believe Obama appeals to class warfare you are ignorant.

I don't know how you define rich and maybe you refer to someone like Bill Gates or the Waltons

I refer to those who are going to bear the brunt of the Obama-Dem-CLinton tax hikes and that is people making 200k to 2 mllion a year. They are the ones who are -in most cases-going to have to make lifestyle changes if all these tax hikes take place.

many of those people are going to see taxes go up 15-25% and if you are mainly getting your income from investments-your taxes could well double.

Show me da numbers.:2razz:
 
If I posted bs so did you. Your site doesn't show a surplus and apparently you don't understand the debt and deficit. That is ok since most liberals don't understand it either. You can bait me all you want, doesn't work. Clinton lied, your site shows it and now you divert from it. Let's see you do creative math on the Obama 3 trillion deficits.

By the way, you seem to not understand that the fiscal year of the U.S. is October to September, not January to January.

Here is the link for the yearly debt both Public and Intergovt. holdings

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding - Annual 1950 - 1999

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual


Now are you going to admit that Clinton lied to you and the public?
I believe your explanation of total debt and intergovernmental holdings to be accurate and we can take the Treasury numbers as accurate too.
What these charts tell me is that during the later Clinton years the debt increased little, almost flattened out, and that the budget was near balanced. Is this in dispute?
 
Last edited:
I believe your explanation of total debt and intergovernmental holdings to be accurate and we can take the Treasury numbers as accurate too.
What these charts tell me is that during the later Clinton years the debt increased little, almost flattened out, and that the budget was near balanced. Is this in dispute?

Clinton had a GOP Congress so the question is did Clinton sign bills with higher or lower spending than he proposed? Clinton benefited from the dot.com bubble but when it burst the economy tumbled and he left us a recession.

Now can I ask why we are reliving the Clinton/Bush Presidencies when the current President has added 3 trillion to the debt in two years and 4 million to the unemployment roles?
 
Last edited:
The tax cuts for the wealthy must be extended. Rumor on the street has it that Obammer and the Dems are going to pass a major tax cut for the middle class in October. I'll bet you can figure out why.

It wouldn't look good to delete the wealthy tax cut before granting the new one for the working people.
 
The tax cuts for the wealthy must be extended. Rumor on the street has it that Obammer and the Dems are going to pass a major tax cut for the middle class in October. I'll bet you can figure out why.

It wouldn't look good to delete the wealthy tax cut before granting the new one for the working people.

Now that isn't going to make a lot of liberals here very happy.
 
I believe your explanation of total debt and intergovernmental holdings to be accurate and we can take the Treasury numbers as accurate too.
What these charts tell me is that during the later Clinton years the debt increased little, almost flattened out, and that the budget was near balanced. Is this in dispute?

It is literally impossible for debt held by the public to go down (as it did during the later clinton years) and to have a budget deficit. The government cannot borrow on behalf of itself. The intergovernmental holdings are debts to other programs. It basically takes money that has been garanteed to be used in that program (like SS) and puts it into the general fund for spending. This once again can only happan if the program (like SS for example) has a surplus in the first place.

There was a budget surplus and as a result explicit debt went down. Implicit debt increased due largely to the nature of the SS trust fund.

Debt held by the public:
09/30/1998 3,733,864,472,163.53
09/30/1999 3,636,104,594,501.81
09/29/2000 3,405,303,490,221.20
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway

The largest driver of changes in intragovernmental holding is the SS Trust funds.
Keep in mind my earlier comment about surpluses in SS and increases in intragovernmental
holdings.

SS Trust Fund Balance

OASI Fund

Calendar Total Total
year receipts expenditures
1998 424,848 332,324
1999 457,040 339,874
2000 490,513 358,339

DI Fund

Calendar Total Total
year receipts expenditures
1998 64,357 49,931
1999 69,541 53,035
2000 77,920 56,782

Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance Trust Funds

Calendar Total Total
year receipts expenditures
1998 489,204 382,255
1999 526,582 392,908
2000 568,433 415,121

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/index.html
 
Last edited:
It is literally impossible for debt held by the public to go down (as it did during the later clinton years) and to have a budget deficit. The government cannot borrow on behalf of itself. The intergovernmental holdings are debts to other programs. It basically takes money that has been garanteed to be used in that program (like SS) and puts it into the general fund for spending. This once again can only happan if the program (like SS for example) has a surplus in the first place.

There was a budget surplus and as a result explicit debt went down. Implicit debt increased due largely to the nature of the SS trust fund.

Debt held by the public:
09/30/1998 3,733,864,472,163.53
09/30/1999 3,636,104,594,501.81
09/29/2000 3,405,303,490,221.20
Government - Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

The problem is any SS surplus really isn't a surplus at all, it is money that will be required for future retirees so what happened is public debt went down because of SS funds being used and those SS funds were replaced by IOU's that will come due and thus are future debt thus part of the total national debt. The fact remains Clinton didn't have a Budget surplus because the combination of Public Debt and Govt. holdings combined went up each year of his Administration
 
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.

FederalDeficit(1).jpg



 
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.

FederalDeficit(1).jpg




The NON partisan CBO doesn't trump the U.S. Treasury site and the actual numbers. No matter how hard you try, the checkbook of the United States has the actual results.

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:


Fiscal
Year Year
Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion



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.

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.
 
Last edited:
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.

FederalDeficit(1).jpg




Regarding your CBO numbers, please note what the CBO is reporting is public debt not total debt

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) vs. These "Partisan" Numbers

Another common response to the above explanation of the myth of the Clinton surplus is that the budget surpluses are based on the numbers produced by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Indeed if you access the CBO's "historic budget data" document , on the fist page you will see that 1998 shows a surplus of $69 billion, 1999 shows $126 billion, 2000 shows $236 billion--the same surpluses claimed by Clinton and CNN in the article mentioned at the top of this page.

However, further analysis of the document should make it very clear that important information is missing from the CBO document--specifically focusing on the last two columns of the table on page 1. If you take the $3,772.3 billion debt held by the public at the end of 1997 and subtract the "total" $69.3 billion surplus stated for 1998, you would expect to see the debt go down by 69.3 billion to $3,703 billion. Instead, the debt indicated for 1998 is $3,721.1 billion--suggesting a surplus of only $51.2 billion. This alone should tell you that the CBO numbers aren't telling the whole story because they don't add up--and the story they aren't telling is intragovernmental holdings.

The reality is that the federal government and politicians use a form of accounting that would get most accountants thrown in jail. As USA Today wrote in 2007 , special rules used by the federal government allowed it to report a $248 billion deficit in 2006 rather than $1.3 trillion if it had used corporate-style accounting.

While the CBO may be non-partisan, that does not mean the CBO is non-political nor that their numbers are honest or transparent.
 
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.

FederalDeficit(1).jpg




Figured out where the CBO was wrong yet? Public Debt PLUS Intergovernmental Holdings= TOTAL DEBT and that debt never dropped once during the Clinton years. Really is interesting how so many people put so much faith in the CBO numbers while ignoring the U.S. Treasury, BEA, or BLS which has actual numbers, all of them.
 
Clinton had a GOP Congress so the question is did Clinton sign bills with higher or lower spending than he proposed? Clinton benefited from the dot.com bubble but when it burst the economy tumbled and he left us a recession.

Now can I ask why we are reliving the Clinton/Bush Presidencies when the current President has added 3 trillion to the debt in two years and 4 million to the unemployment roles?
Ok, that is a good first question. Budgeting is shared responsibility between Congress and the President, though. Clinton does deserve some credit, though, for agreeing to GOP's demands and signing the budget into law. Now I'm wondering who was the GOP leader responsible for reducing spending, what happened to that leader and in general what happened to the GOP in the next 6 years during Bush's term when spending increased? I would just like to see a balanced budget, and coming within range to a balanced budget and then progressing to large deficits is not good.

I, too, am a critic of President Obama's current spending, I think we shouldn't be spending money if we don't have it. I think people on both sides of the aisle have been spending too much, regardless of party.

In anticipation of some questions on spending during Bush's term, here is a link regarding the increase in discretionary and general spending during Bush's term:
Spending Under President George W. Bush | Mercatus
 
Last edited:
The problem is any SS surplus really isn't a surplus at all, it is money that will be required for future retirees so what happened is public debt went down because of SS funds being used and those SS funds were replaced by IOU's that will come due and thus are future debt thus part of the total national debt. The fact remains Clinton didn't have a Budget surplus because the combination of Public Debt and Govt. holdings combined went up each year of his Administration

There was a budget surplus. It is literally impossible to pay down the debt owned by the public with a budget deficit. It goes by definition.

National debt = public debt + intragovernmental holdings

We have already identified that public debt went down. Intragovernmental holds rose by more than the public debt went down, therby increasing the national debt.

Conservative, if the SS trust fund purchases a treasury, where does the money come from? Can the government have a budget deficit without issuing debt to the public?
 
Re: Dem vs Rep Tax Cut Plan in Graph form!

Only more than others.
 
There was a budget surplus. It is literally impossible to pay down the debt owned by the public with a budget deficit. It goes by definition.

National debt = public debt + intragovernmental holdings

We have already identified that public debt went down. Intragovernmental holds rose by more than the public debt went down, therby increasing the national debt.

Conservative, if the SS trust fund purchases a treasury, where does the money come from? Can the government have a budget deficit without issuing debt to the public?

Not sure why you guys are torturing yourselves. Something like 25 years ago congress passed what they called a "unified" budget. That is to make things look better they took the SS surplus and added it to the budget to less less of a deficit or in the case you are talking about a surplus.

As to whether the government can have debt that is not publicly held. My sense is the answer is yes. The money in the SS trust, that was paid for with the insurance money people had taken away as a pension should not be confused with other monies. If you remember, Gore talked about a "lock box". People scuffed at him. Now it looks like the government may actually steal those dollars from retirees so yes it should be considered debt in my view.
 
Enough said there! The truth is pretty clear. And while we're on the subject of hypocrisy in messages. This is the same group of people who vehemently and violently oppose the practice of Muslims who wish to impose religious laws, and then suggest they impose them on us here. They don't want "big government" in their money, but they want their big government eye on your personal life, don't they?
 
I can't believe this needs spoon-fed like this. The YEARLY BUDGET was in the BLACK when Clinton was in. No, he did not manage to completely erase the debt created by the Reagan/Daddy Bush war-budget-freebies-for-the-rich years. But HIS BUDGET was in the BLACK. Do you get it now? Or do you only speak teabagger?
 
Or maybe it's that your "accounting" practices only use "plussing" and "minusing". Don't confuse yourself with interest and complicated formulas that use math like "timesing".
 
Not sure why you guys are torturing yourselves. Something like 25 years ago congress passed what they called a "unified" budget. That is to make things look better they took the SS surplus and added it to the budget to less less of a deficit or in the case you are talking about a surplus.

As to whether the government can have debt that is not publicly held. My sense is the answer is yes. The money in the SS trust, that was paid for with the insurance money people had taken away as a pension should not be confused with other monies. If you remember, Gore talked about a "lock box". People scuffed at him. Now it looks like the government may actually steal those dollars from retirees so yes it should be considered debt in my view.

I realize it is still debt, but how can it possibly be financed without first recieving it from revenues from somewhere? It is only possible if the government or some other agency had a surplus. It is impossible for the government in its entirety to have a deficit (as conservative implies) but still pay down the public debt. If it took the money from SS for example, it was because SS was already in surplus for that year.
 
Plus you have to remember that most the intragovernmental holdings go towards prefunding SS. If the government decided not to prefund SS it would have had the same exact surplus. The only difference is the government would not have garanteed the money would get back to the program (and therby not increase the national debt). The effect on debt to the public, the reported surplus, etc would have been 0 though.
 
I realize it is still debt, but how can it possibly be financed without first recieving it from revenues from somewhere? It is only possible if the government or some other agency had a surplus. It is impossible for the government in its entirety to have a deficit (as conservative implies) but still pay down the public debt. If it took the money from SS for example, it was because SS was already in surplus for that year.

That is correct. That is why they changed the rules for the unified budget I mentioned. Previously there were two numbers.One whatever the status of the budget ex-SS and then the surplus taken in for SS.
 
Back
Top Bottom