- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Re: Hawken can explain that..
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16
"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."
"When it is claimed that Clinton paid down the national debt, that is patently false--as can be seen, the national debt went up every single year. What Clinton did do was pay down the public debt--notice that the claimed surplus is relatively close to the decrease in the public debt for those years. But he paid down the public debt by borrowing far more money in the form of intragovernmental holdings (mostly Social Security).
Update 3/31/2009
- : The following quote from an article at CBS confirms my explanation of the Myth of the Clinton Surplus, and the entire article essentially substantiates what I wrote.
"Over the past 25 years, the government has gotten used to the fact that Social Security is providing free money to make the rest of the deficit look smaller," said Andrew Biggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
Interestingly, this most likely was not even a conscious decision by Clinton. The Social Security Administration is legally required to take all its surpluses and buy U.S. Government securities, and the U.S. Government readily sells those securities--which automatically and immediately becomes intragovernmental holdings. The economy was doing well due to the dot-com bubble and people were earning a lot of money and paying a lot into Social Security. Since Social Security had more money coming in than it had to pay in benefits to retired persons, all that extra money was immediately used to buy U.S. Government securities. The government was still running deficits, but since there was so much money coming from excess Social Security contributions there was no need to borrow more money directly from the public. As such, the public debt went down while intragovernmental holdings continued to skyrocket.
The net effect was that the national debt most definitely did not get paid down because we did not have a surplus. The government just covered its deficit by borrowing money from Social Security rather than the public."
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Re: Dag
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/07/sessions-wrong-on-bush-tax-cuts/
This was put u in response to Jeff Sessions who made these erronious remarks on ?? forgot already . Meet the press or one of the sunday shows.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Re: Hawken can explain that..
I look at it this way.
Bus was like a driver, driving a Bus, West from Omaha, looking for the Statue of Liberty. After seeing the 'Welcome to Colorado' sign, he was fired, and Obama took the wheel. However, instead of turning around the 'tax cut' bus, he kept it on the same road that Bush was on, going the same direction. When he came to a rest stop/ U turn alley, he decided to continue West. However, for some reason, now that everyone is at the Golden Gate Bridge, instead of the Statue of Liberty, they are still blaming the original wrong turn taker, Bush, even though he got kicked off the bus somewhere around Denver.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Re: Hawken can explain that..
So you agree, Bush allowed Congress to increase spending?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Re: Hawken can explain that..
How much did you make? SEND IT IN
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Re: Hawken can explain that..
Don: "Ha! another fair and balanced report. Bush's deficits was because he did not stand up to democrat spending.!"
Don, it appears as though that comment was directed towards me so I'll reply. Please re-read my post and you will see I never said democratic spending.
Don, you keep saying the Bush tax cuts are responsible for our red ink as they reduced our federal tax revenues. As I pointed out in another thread that simply is not true.
"From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. The rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years."
The problem was that under Bush spending increased as he never had the guts to veto any of the pork spending.
I am still curious Don why Obama and Dems extended the Bush tax cuts if they were such a failure and were targeted towards Bush's wealthy buddies?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Re: Hawken can explain that..
simple! Unemployment benefits and devt increase were held hostage to extending the bush tax cuts. But then you knew that didn't you? Even you aren't that vacuous.
- « Previous
- Next »