The Clinton Surplus Myth...

But your computer programmer, just a model of non-partisan objectivity, right?

Tell us about the partisanship of the Bush adminsitration, the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Treasury Department.

We see here the basis of onalandline proclaimed belief in a ring wing computer programmer over numerous objective, reliable sources. It suits her predisposed political preferences.

 

That's just a blatant lie, but that you prefer getting your news from obviously bias blog sites rather than non-partisan fact checking organization is very revealing. You're doing nothing other than confirming bias.

The CBO is wrong, factcheck is wrong, politifact is wrong, the treasury department is wrong... in other words, anything that doesn't agree with your disinformation is wrong. Face it, you're just a partisan hack that can't handle when the evidence doesn't agree with your position.

 

Onalandline:

Here's a chance for you to defend your source and prove we (and the CBO, OMB, Bush administration etc.) are all wrong.

Here is the link Steiner provides as his evidence there was no surplus under Clinton: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

Feel free to review Steiner's link, and then quote for us where it says anything about surpluses or deficits, or even where you find those words.

If you can show us where Steiner's source says there was no surplus under Clinton or even where it has the word surplus, then we can look at them and what his source says about Clinton's surplus.

If you can't, then: 1) if you have any interest in objective truth, fact and honesty at all, maybe you'll question the veracity of your biased right wing source; and 2) I'll show you where you can find actual information about surpluses and deficits on the Treasury Department's website.

Or you can ignore the challenge and wallow in blissful ignorance and false beliefs because it fits your predisposed beliefs.

 

You're a lib, and just hate to think that the Clinton "surplus" just wasn't so.

 

You just can't handle the fact that the Clinton years were not as prosperous as you thought. Sorry.

 

Where's the evidence request? Oh, you still don't have it because it's an utter farce.

Cut out the juvenile one liner jabs and try supporting your position with evidence. I won't hold my breath.

 

That must be it.



Say, did you miss my challenge? Here it is again in case you missed it.

+++

Onalandline:

Here's a chance for you to defend your source and prove we (and the CBO, OMB, Bush administration etc.) are all wrong.

Here is the link Steiner provides as his evidence there was no surplus under Clinton: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPD...application=np

Feel free to review Steiner's link, and then quote for us where it says anything about surpluses or deficits, or even where you find those words.

If you can show us where Steiner's source says there was no surplus under Clinton or even where it has the word surplus, then we can look at them and what his source says about Clinton's surplus.

If you can't, then: 1) if you have any interest in objective truth, fact and honesty at all, maybe you'll question the veracity of your biased right wing source; and 2) I'll show you where you can find actual information about surpluses and deficits on the Treasury Department's website.

Or you can ignore the challenge and wallow in blissful ignorance and false beliefs because it fits your predisposed beliefs.

 

Great thread showing how many conservative minds work. You have a committed belief system, predisposed to a certain mindset, that refuses even to acknowledge the possibility that what was found on some unknown blog by some unknown person might not be 100% accurate, even when confronted with overwhelming contradictory evidence from numerous, reliable sources, in this case, even the Bush administration.

That is why you see amazing stats like the 25+% of folks who thought Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, that he was working with Al Queda, that tax cuts produce greater revenues, Bush was a great president, and other baffling beliefs that amazing percentages of people in this country hold.

 

It's definitely not just conservatives (go to Reddit to see a left leaning hive mind in action), but they do seem to engage in this behavior quite often. Politics gets treated like religion, taking the word of a single source and no matter how much unbiased evidence is presented to the contrary you MUST deny it.

If anyone ever is unsure what dissonance looks like, I'll link them to this thread.

 

Well that is true, you do get some irrational believers on the liberal side as well.

 

Why then, did the national debt not decrease during the Clinton years if he truly has surpluses?

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

http://quaap.com/D/clinton-surplus-factcheck.html

Clinton's "surpluses" were just a shell game borrowing money from different sources to make it look positive.

 

There was no surplus under Clinton.

From the Treasury itself: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/NPGateway, the total debt increased. It doesnt matter if it was public debt or intragovernmental debt. Intragovernmental debt is still an obligation that has to be repaid.

If you do a little reading you find Clinton borrowed from many govt programs such as SS, civil service retirement fund, military retirement fund, transportation fund. Those funds are already obligated to peoples retirement and transportation programs, they must be repaid.

To argue that the federal debt can increase in a year while not having a deficit that year is assinine. Only the govt can make such a claim. Any CFO of a private or publicly held company that made such a claim would go to jail.

 

clinton was around when a new unregualted free market was created, anemly the internet, which grew from r+d of 80s and ron reagan

a pet rock coulda done better than clinton

clinton was a tool but obama is worse

democrats wil never get that communism always fails and always will

 

Did you see the word "surplus" or "deficit" anywhere in that link?

Neither did I. So why would you think that is a valid link to prove there was no surplus when it doesn't even have the word surplus or deficit in it?

Because the Govt borrowed more money in that time period. The amount of debt does not equal a surplus. That is another area where your computer programmer shows his ignorance.

This is what a surplus (or deficit) measures:

surplus: The amount by which the federal government’s total revenues exceed its total outlays in a given period, typically a fiscal year. Compare with deficit.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/glossary.pdf

But the total debt did decrease $114 billion in 2000.

ftp://ftp.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opds122000.pdf

Not at all. it was a real surplus. The Govt took in more money than in spent in 2000. You've just allowed yourself to be mislead by ignorant right wing progpaganda sources, because it fits with your predisposed political preference.

 

You obviously didn't bother reading the thread, because you are making the same argument that was disproved earlier in the thread.

But I'll ask you the same think I asked Onalandline:

+++

Here's a chance for you to defend your source and prove we (and the CBO, OMB, Bush administration etc.) are all wrong.

Here is the link Steiner provides as his evidence there was no surplus under Clinton: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPD...application=np

Feel free to review Steiner's link, and then quote for us where it says anything about surpluses or deficits, or even where you find those words.

If you can show us where Steiner's source says there was no surplus under Clinton or even where it has the word surplus, then we can look at them and what his source says about Clinton's surplus.

If you can't, then: 1) if you have any interest in objective truth, fact and honesty at all, maybe you'll question the veracity of your biased right wing source; and 2) I'll show you where you can find actual information about surpluses and deficits on the Treasury Department's website.

Or you can ignore the challenge and wallow in blissful ignorance and false beliefs because it fits your predisposed beliefs.

 

And even though a pet rock could have done it, conservatives at the time claimed Clinton's tax increase would kill jobs and wreck the economy.

That makes conservatives dumber than pet rocks, doesn't it?

 

I don't know or care who Steiner is. All I need to do is look at Treasury.gov (the link I provided a few posts back) to see there was no surplus. Every year Clinton was in office the debt increased. The debt doesnt increase unless govt spending exceeds revenue.

The ball is in your court. Explain how the debt can increase if there is a surplus.

 

He's the computer programs that posted the claim you're parrotting. Where else did you get the idea that a Treasury page on the amount of debt would show the Govt surplus or deficit?

The ball is in your court. Explain how the debt can increase if there is a surplus.[/QUOTE]

I appreciate you could not answer the post. Of course you see no "surplus". You see no "deficit" either. Because you are looking at the debt.
A surplus or deficit is not a debt. That Treasury page you are citing doesn't even have the word "surplus" or "deficit" on it.

surplus: The amount by which the federal government’s total revenues exceed its total outlays in a given period, typically a fiscal year. Compare with deficit.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...s/glossary.pdf

Nothing about debt.

But regarding the debt, you are wrong about Clinton. The debt did decrease $114 billion in 2000. ftp://ftp.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opds122000.pdf

 

Oh lookie! Just like I said earlier, another person who doesn't understand the difference between the debt and the budget.

Maybe an analogy will help. Let's say you owe MasterCard $100. You also make $200 a week and have $100 dollars worth of bills. You have a budget surplus of $100, but the interest on the credit card caused the balance to increase. In this scenario you have both a budget surplus and your debt has increased. Learning is FUNdamental!

 

Are you kidding? You think nobody knows about Treasury.gov unless they go to some guy named Steiner? What bubble do you live in? ALthough it explains your extreme ignorance in all things economic.

You really don't know what you are talking about.

change in debt = spending - revenue. If spending exceeds revenue, the debt increases. Its very simple.

The debt when Clinton took office was $4,177,009,000,000 (12/31/1992).
The debt when Clinton left office was $5,662,216,013,697.

The debt did not magically increase. It increased because Clinton spent more money than he had. Expenses exceeded revenue.

This is so simple a child can understand it.

 

What extreme ignorance?

Ya think? I don't expect people to take my word for it. That is why I link to credible sources.

Where does it say that? Debt goes up when the govt borrows more. Go to the debt page and it says nothing about surpluses or deficit.

Clinton inherited a (then) record deficit that took several years to get down..

In his last year, he had a surplus, meaning the Govt took in more revenues than it expended.

And in 2000 the total debt decreased $114 billion.

ftp://ftp.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opds122000.pdf

Your baseless, unsupported assertions are simply wrong. Maybe they would impress an ignorant child.

 

Then you must be impressed.

 

Obvious duck noted.

 

No, not at all.

 

You'll believe what you want. Clinton used fuzzy math and other money sources to show a surplus. Move on.