The Clinton Surplus Myth...

The myth is that is was a CLINTON surplus. Clinton opposed the tax rate cuts and welfare reform that produced the surpluses. They were Gingrich/Kasich surpluses.

The results of the tax rate cuts, which did not go fully into effect until 2003 after the slowdown and recession 2000-2004 and then the Democrat take over, Obama-Pelose-Reid, in 2008

Revenue Spending Deficit Revenues Spending
2003 1,782,314 2,159,899 (377,585) -3.82% 7.41%
2004 1,880,114 2,292,841 (412,727) 5.49% 6.16%
2005 2,153,611 2,471,957 (318,346) 14.55% 7.81%
2006 2,406,869 2,655,050 (248,181) 11.76% 7.41%
2007 2,567,985 2,728,686 (160,701) 6.69% 2.77%
2008 2,523,991 2,982,544 (458,553) -1.71% 9.30%
2009 2,104,989 3,517,677 (1,412,680) -16.60% 17.94%
2010 2,162,724 3,456,213 (1,293,489) 2.74% -1.75%
2011 2,303,466 3,603,061 (1,299,595) 6.51% 4.25%


Well on our way to surpluses again after the slowdown and recession and 9/11 attacks earlier.

It would have been higher without the tax rate cuts which helped spur on an economic recovery with 52 months of full employment and soaring revenues.

False on it's face, see above.

By me, the facts show otherwise.

 

No myth at all.

CLINTON passed the big tax increase in 1993 and the deficit fell every single year until we had a surplus.

BUSH got elected and passed a big tax cut, revenues tanked, and squandered the surplus and returned us to record deficits.

I know. Just a big coincidence.

Bluesguy omitting facts again. The 2001 tax cut was made retroactive with $600 in rebates mailed out that year. But for that revenues would have increased in 2001 instead of falling.

Bluesguy showing how he cherry picks the data again. When he presents data on Obama, he includes 2009 and 2010.

When he presents data on Bush, he excludes 2001 and 2002.

You can always make data look better when you unfairly cherry pick the best dates and ignore the worst.

Why would Bluesguy omit 2001 and 2002? Here's why:

Year - REvenues - % chng
2000 2,025.2
2001 1,991.2 -1.7%
2002 1,853.2 -6.9%

Source: CBO.gov

We weren't even close to a surplus. Bush kept the cost of the wars off budget. When you add that back in and take out the SS surplus taxes the deficits were over $500 billion every year after 2002.

More cherry picking. Revenues adjusted for GDP or inflation never got to the level Clinton left them. Bush had a period of low employment because he inherited a 4.2% unemployment rate from Clinton. We have never seen that since, and the UR was 7.8% when Bush left office.

100% fair. See above.




By me, the facts show otherwise.[/QUOTE]

 

On a rapidly expanding economy and slowed the growth of revenues from 9% down to 7% at which rate we would no have seen surpluses. Gingrich and Kasich forced him to sign tax rate cuts and THEN we hit higher revenue growth and surpluses.

And as I proved once in full effect and the recession over produced record revenues and helped to lower the deficit down to a measly $161 billion. Where did Obama and Pelosi and Reid take the deficit too after that?

So which is it you blame Bush for the results of the slowdown that began before he came to Washington or not?

Iriemon lying again, I repeatedly point out that the rebate occured, of course you pretend it went into effect in January when in fact it didn't even go into effect until June, the ninth month of the fiscal year. The full tax rate cuts didn't get passed till later and didn't go into effect until 2003.

Because I honestly point out that Senator Obama full supported and voted for those budgets. Are you totally ignorant of that fact?

2000 and 2001, Bush wasn't in Washington when those budgets were passed, he was governor of Texas, are you claiming the Governor of Texas passed federal budgets?

Yes you do that repeatedly. Like how you pretend Obama did not support of vote for the 2008 and 2009 budgets.

$161 billion, where did Obama and Pelosi and Reid take the deficits?

ROFL well DUH we hope GDP goes up and tax policy has a LOT to do with that as we have seen Obama's failure. Now prove it was inflation. Money where mouth is time.

 

As I pointed out, revenues grew far faster after the Clinton tax increase adjusting for economic growth.

Every president of all time has produced "record revenues" whoop de do.

I never blamed Bush for the slowdown. The slowdown didn't cause revenues to fall hundreds of billions of dollars.

No lie. You said nothing about the rebate in the post I responded to.

Anyone can verify that for themselves.

Nope. So what?

Republcians controlled the Congress.

That is a lie. Quote where I ever "pretended" that.

What was it when you take out the SS taxes and add in the wars?

When Obama took office, the economy was tanking at a -9% real rate, losing 700,000+ jobs a month, unemployment was skyrocketing upward, and the stock markets were crashing in the worst recession in 80 years. The housing market was destroyed and the economy was headed straight for a depression.

But now the economy has been growing steadily for three straight years, the private sector has added more jobs every month for 32 months in a row, stock markets are up over 100% from their recession lows, the unemployment rate has fallen from above 10% to 7.8%, and over 4.7 million additional private sector jobs have been added since Jan 2010.

And this despite an obstructionist Tea Party Republican party whose stated top priority is not to work with the president to improve the economy but get him out of office.

Only those invested in failure for political purposes would claim Obama is a failure.

 

We all experienced and watched the explosion of the financial bubble. And the same with the housing bubble. Now another bubble is in process that will stand in the history books. The explosion of the obama bubble.

Romney exposed b.o. as a sham.
The Benghazi LIES and COVER UP will bite b.o. in the ass, as it should.
And Ryan will expose Biden as a blustering liar.

By Nov. the obama bubble will be deflated.

Bullcrap can go on and on and on, and it has. But once it is clearly exposed as total bullcrap, it implodes rapidly.

 

You pointed out nothing, I pointed out the facts. And there is no 'adjustment for economic growth' factor.

Yes Bush did it at lower tax rates, the point that went over you head. But you may want to reconsider your statement considering the current occupant of the White House......every President?

I never said you did, I keep asking and you keep dodging.

Already proven.

I say it repeatedly in multiple threads and discussions when it comes up.

Please elaborate.

Non-sequintor

Oh I'm sorry if I misunderstood, you do agree he voted for and support the budgets and deficits of 2008 and 2009? Glad you cleared that up.

It is what it is in the CBO historical tables of budget deficits comparing year to year, President to President. You don't get to skew Bush's numbers with phony qualifications.

Just refutted that excuse in another post.

So what, he said he'd fix it, he failed.

And he asked for the job, you don't get excuses.

Bottom out as he took office and then his policies failed to get the economy back into strong growth and recovery. So why would you reelect a failure?

A specious statement. It's the pitiful level of growth that is the issue. If the economy only grew .000001% per quarter for the last 3 years your statement will still be true wouldn't it. And the economy would be in the tank.

The real issue is growth is only 1.3% and falling. Why are you satisfied with the current level of growth after three years of his policies?

Specious statement, if the entire private sector only added one new job every month for 32 months in a row the economy would be in the tank. Is the economy producing enough jobs to bring down the high unemployment, and not in 5 years from now, and then raise the labor paricipation rate to acceptable levels. NO, it is NOT after three years of Obama policies. Why would you want to continue that?

All of which are pitiful three years after the recession ended. Why would you want to continues with the weakest economic recovery on record?

Obama wasn't obstructed, and it's HIS job as President to work with whoever is in the Congress. He failed. He is no capable of working with people. Romney has a proven succesful record. Why would you keep the failure in office?

Yes after two years of Obama failures, the economy in strangle hold, unemployment getting worse and worse, why wouldn't it be their goal, why isn't it yours?

Only those trying the defend the indefensible would post such bromides.

 

Sure there is.

He hasn't finish. Bush's revenues were lower too at this point in his term.

Then why do you ask?

You have this bizarre notion that your unsupported say-so is proof.

So what.

So what. It is a request that you explain why the point you are purporting to make as any relevance.

Not at all.

Nope.

What was it when you take out the SS taxes and add in the wars?

Bushes deficits were never less than about 1/2 trillion.

Fabrication.

Fabrication.

It's not an excuse. It is a fact.

When Obama took office, the economy was tanking at a -9% real rate, losing 700,000+ jobs a month, unemployment was skyrocketing upward, and the stock markets were crashing in the worst recession in 80 years. The housing market was destroyed and the economy was headed straight for a depression.

But now the economy has been growing steadily for three straight years, the private sector has added more jobs every month for 32 months in a row, stock markets are up over 100% from their recession lows, the unemployment rate has fallen from above 10% to 7.8%, and over 4.7 million additional private sector jobs have been added since Jan 2010.

And this despite an obstructionist Tea Party Republican party whose stated top priority is not to work with the president to improve the economy but get him out of office.

Only those invested in failure for political purposes would claim Obama is a failure.

But the same one you made for Bush. Funny how your standards change when it is you making that assertion.

Prove it is falling.

It shows consistent performance. You remember you made the same claim about bush till I proved you were wrong.

Thanks to trickle down policies. Why would you want to go back to the worst recession in 80 years?

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." -Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell

Because I don't want to go back to the same policies of the Great Recession. Why do you?

Only showing your partisan goals.

 

Whatever, Clinton signed the legislation so the tax increases are assigned to his adminstration. The point would be that the tax rates were not oppressive and they had bi-partisan support from one of the more conservative members of Congress (Gingrich). No one was "hurting" under the tax rates and today we have Romney whining about the 47% that don't pay income taxes (excluding FICA taxes which are also an income tax targeting middle and lower income workers).

What "recession 2000-2004" is being discussed. A recession is generally classified as two or more consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth and that didn't happen between 2000-2004.



http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth

Sorry that my chart left out the first quarter of 2000.

What did President Bush promise in his 2001 State of the Union address when he proposed cutting the existing tax rates that he'd inherited from the Clinton adminstration?

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29643

Obviously later events, including the 9/11 attacks, affected the budget which would have invalidated the foundation for tax cuts that were implemented in 2001-2003 and as the chief executive of the nation President Bush should have immediately reversed his position and not have cut taxes but instead should have focused on keeping his promise in his 2001 State of the Union address and ensured that federal revenues would pay down the national debt by $2 trillion. Not a singly dollar was paid to reduce the national debt under President Bush and instead of having a reduction of $2 trillion President Bush doubled the national debt in 8 years. That is, as I noted, about a $7 trillion difference in what the national debt is as compared to what Bush promised the American People in 2001.

Between 9/2001 and 9/2009, the Bush budget years, the national debt increased by $6.1 trillion. Even if we were to assume that Bush's promise of reducing the national debt by $2 trillion in 10 years was leaving 1/2 of that reduction to his successor and he only reduced it by $1 trillion in 8 years the difference would be $7 trillion ($1 trillion in reduction and $6 trillion not added to the debt).

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

We might even assume that the tax rates left from the Clinton adminstration weren't enough to achieve the $2 trillion reduction in the national debt in which case Bush should have raised the rates enough to achieve his budgetary promise, not cut them. Expendatures increased under Bush and he needed to pay for them plus have enough revenue to reduce the national debt.

The problems originated with the Bush tax cuts and not with Obama spending (which I opposed). Clinton left the US budget with a much more positive future than Bush and the national debt would be no where near the $16 trillion we have today had Bush not lowered the tax rates. We couldn't afford the Bush tax cuts in 2001-2003 and we can't afford them today.

 

Bush came in at the start of a recession. Obama was a Senator when the economy was still growing, then he and the Democrats took over with their policies, even when he went to the White House it was past the halfway point of the recession. Again your misguided notion that the economy stops and restarts every time President is sworn in.

Hoping you would answer the question I did ask.............not hold my breath.

My supported evidence.

More none response.

Specious.

More non response.

Nope your excuses.

Already refuted with the proper context, can you try to respond instead of just posting your boilerplate excuses?


But the same one you made for Bush. Funny how your standards change when it is you making that assertion.

Refute it, prove that GDP is higher than last quarter and higher than last year. I say it isn't.

No I don't remember and it still stands your statement is specious and meaningless.

Why do you want to stay in it due to the failed trickle up policies of Obama?

Your point being what? He was right.

No, that's why we need to vote Obama and the Democrats who ushered it in out of office, why would you want to keep them in office?

 

It is not a "whatever". Clinton fought AGAINST the measures that brought about the surpluses.......that is fact. He should get NO credit for them. He ONLY signed them as a political measure to get reelected and vowed to repeal them.

They get assigned to the persons who presented them to Congress and got them passed. Gingrich and Kasich.

They were HIS IDEA, the Democrat fought tooth and nail against them they passed because of a Majority Republican Congress and the fact that Clinton's tax increase has slowed the recovery, by his own admittance.

And the economy wasn't performing as it should costing jobs and revenues. The tax rate cuts got the economy back on track and produced more jobs and MORE REVENUE TO THE GOVERNMENT.

No he wasn't, he was stating that his campaign would not be spending a lot of ad money towards those who were not going to vote for him anyway.

That get reimbursed back to them through the EITC.

The slowdown that began in 2000 before Bush was even elected and went full blown recession within weeks of his taking office and then when it was ending got hit again by 9/11.

That definition went out a long time ago.

I could care less, I know the results. 52 months of full employment, soaring tax revenues and declining deficits in 2005-2006-2007 down to a measly $161 Billion.

That would have been a totally stupid thing to do as it would have dampened economic growth which is exactly what we needed.

Why do you attribute the Democrat budgets of 2008 and 2009 to Bush? THAT is where the huge in crease in the deficit occurred after Bush and the Republicans had them falling the previous three years down to a measly $161 Billion. It was Obama and Reid and Pelosi who reversed that and increase the deficits almost TEN FOLD.

They SLOWED the rate of revenue increase from 9% and climbing to 7% and stagnant.

How when revenues increased 40% from the bottom of the recession and more than 20% over the Clinton years?

How when he and the Democrats increased spending by almost a third?

We were in an economic slowdown entering a recession when he left office. Tax revenue growth was slowing.

 

Bush's tax rebates of about $60 billion more than caused revenues to fall $34 billion in 2001.

But you knew that.

Typical. You make a bull(*)(*)(*)(*) claim, you get caught fabricating facts again and can't back it up, and so you demand that I prove you're claim is wrong. Standard MO of the dishonest debater.

You don't remember it? Really? You don't remember how you used to regularly brag about Bush creating jobs 52 months in a row -- the same thing you are now criticizing me for -- until I proved your statement is false? Really?

It was less than a year ago. No wonder you keep repeating the same bull(*)(*)(*)(*) over and over. You simply "forget" irrefutable proof that you are wrong.

Here, let me refresh your memory:

Maybe you'll remember it now.

 

Isn't it funny how when Bluesguy (erroneously) claimed that Bush had sustained job growth for 52 straight months, that was valid evidence of the success of Bush's policies, but when I accurately pointed out that private sector jobs have been growing for 32 straight months under Obama, it now becomes a "specious statement".

Illustrating the wonderful word of double standards underlying his positions.

 

Once again, based upon the commonly held definition of a "recession" (i.e. two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth) there wasn't a recession in 2001. There were two negative GDP growth quarters in 2001 but they were not consecutive and the overall GDP growth was positive for the year. Repeating the same false mantra is not going to make it true.

PS We had four consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth that started under the Bush adminstration and that actually qualifies as a "depression" but have had 12 consecutive quarters of positive GDP growth since the Bush "depression" ended under the Obama administration. When it comes to discussing the economy the "Republicans" really don't have much ground to stand on.

 

They weren't charged against revenues, people paid the same amount of taxes. The socalled rebates were an expense that as I recall were offbudget as they were really an advance against the lower tax rates that were coming.

Typical platitudes and bromides when you lose the arguments.............still waiting..........Refute it, prove that GDP is higher than last quarter and higher than last year. I say it isn't.

ROFL and he goes trolling back more than a year.

Sept-Oct 2006 136776 137475
And one blip in 52 months...............getting desperate again I see.

You just can't stand the fact that the Bush tax rates cuts produce 52 months of full employment and soaring revenues and a declining deficit in 2005-2006-2007 down to $161 billion which Obama and his fellow Democrats then blew producing the highest and worst unemployment situation since the Depression and going on 5 years of TRILLION dollar deficits and he offers NOTHING to turn it around.

So why do you still support his failed policies? And if you post your boiler plate again I have the rebuttal which tosses it over the cliff ready to go.

 

That "commonly held" definition hasn't been used for years because it is and never has been accurate.

Here is where you go to find them.
http://www.nber.org/cycles.html

Why do you label recessions with Presidents names? Yes the recession began while Bush was a lame duck President with a Democrat controlled congress include one Senator Barack Obama. What the Republicans have to stand on is the declining deficits of 2005-2006-2007, budgets which Obama voted against and the full employment that occurred under their policies. The Democrats took over policy and legislation and the budget in 2007 (for FY200, what ground do they have to stand on. Unemployment shot up to more than 10%, even though Obama's stimulus was suppose to keep it under 8%. The worst it got during the slowdown/recession Bush inherited was 6.5% and then only for one month. How long has it been over 8% under the policies of Obama and the Democrats? The worst the deficit got under Bush and the Republicans was $400 billion. How high did it get under Obama and the Democrats?

Who has the higher ground to stand on?

 

My point proved.

 

I really don't understand this thread. 40 pages when really it is so simple. The Clinton years were a great period of peace and prosperity . It's why Bill is now so well remembered by the american people who only wish we could have some of that back.

 

And which is why our right wing friends strive so mightily to try to show it wasn't so.

 

You have no point, not debate the issue

Bromides and platitudes are not points.............still waiting..........Refute it, prove that GDP is higher than last quarter and higher than last year. I say it isn't.

 

Who has said it wasn't so, it's the reasons whey where you are so misguided, or willfully ignorant.

 

Why does he get credit? His tax increase slowed a recovery and the resulting growth in revenues. His failure to deal with terrorism and terrorist attacks left us open for the growth of al Qaeda and resulting attacks. His plan to remove Saddam failed leaving it for Bush to do. He opposed the tax rate cuts that sent the economy into the stratosphere and welfare reform which put people back to work paying taxes and both resulted in the surpluses we had. And he totally dishonored the office and pointed his finger and lied to the American people about his sexual antics with federal employees in the Oval Office and then committed perjury and obstruction of justice in a Federal civil rights lawsuit.

And you'd want him back? A sleazebag like that?

 

In a heartbeat. Could care less about his sexual peccadilloes. His economic policies rocked and we were in awesome shape when he left. He is by far the most beloved living american politician at this time.

 

Clinton's policies had little to do with the economy at the time. He was riding on the coat tails of booming tech and .com industries.

 

Felony acts by a sitting President when he was being sued by a former subordinate employee for sexual assault and sexual harassment while violating his oath of office to honor the office he was elected to should be a care.

What policies and what rocket about them?

I repeat:

Why does he get credit? His tax increase slowed a recovery and the resulting growth in revenues. His failure to deal with terrorism and terrorist attacks left us open for the growth of al Qaeda and resulting attacks. His plan to remove Saddam failed leaving it for Bush to do. He opposed the tax rate cuts that sent the economy into the stratosphere and welfare reform which put people back to work paying taxes and both resulted in the surpluses we had.

No we were in an economic slowdown that had begun in the 3rd quarter of 2000 that turned into a recession the 1st quarter of 2001, what was awesome about that?

What is to love about such a sleazebag who so abused women employees and lied under oath when he was being sued about it? A man who so dishonored the Presidency that he should have been ridden out of town. A man who denied a state worker, a black single mother, her rightful promotion and raise in order to give the job to his mistress? What do you love about him?

 

Liberal revisionist history. Gingrich forced a balanced budget and welfare reform on Clinton. Clinton, the consummate politician was smart enough to agree. Remember too that Clinton disagreed with just about everything about obama including economic policy until had to choose the party over his negative opinion of obama. Clinton's SUCCESSFUL economic policies were dictated by a Republican Congress.

Would I vote for Clinton over obama? As you say, in a heartbeat. Clinton would break the stalemate in Congress just as Romney will.
obama refuses to meet with Congressional leaders of either party, and calls Republicans names on a daily basis. And then complains that they won't "cooperate" and pass legislation exactly as HE wants. Grade school kids are smarter than that.