Why did Clinton have a lower national deficit than his neighboring Conservative presidents?

Question

Bill Clinton had the lowest national deficit (by far) compared to his two predecessors (Bush, Reagan) and follower (Bush). Clinton is supposed to be liberal and expand the scope of government, but he balanced the budget, while the conservatives are supposed to reduce government spending. Why/how did Clinton have this?

Answer 1

A few reasons:
* Clinton precided over tremendous economic growth thanks to the Internet boom.
* Clinton was president between the Cold War and the War on Terror. He cut military/defense spending and was able to concentrate on domestic spending, and spending less.
* Clinton got to work with a fiscally responsible Congress. Only Congress has the right to spend money, according to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. The President does not have the power to do this, and therefore should never be given credit for a good economy or blame for a weak one. BTW, the economy started downward in Clinton's final year in office.

Answer 2

Under Clinton's reign, the Federal Reserve began to increase the money supply even more rapidly than it had, under the Reagan and Bush regimes. This flood of liquidity found its way into the stock market, causing the prices of shares to increase. Trading in these expensive shares caused capital gains to increase, which led to an increase in the revenues received by the Federal Government. It was this increase in revenues, more than any budget cuts that Clinton may have made, that tipped the scales in favor of a balanced budget.

For the record, however, although the "budget" was balanced, during the Clinton years, the Federal Government continued to spend more than it took in. How do we know that? Because the National Debt continued to increase, under his Administration. There's a little something called "off-budget expenditures", in Washington. This ruse allows the President to say that the budget is balanced, when, in fact, it is not. It is these same expenditures that allowed our current President to declare, recently, that he had halved the deficit. Mr. Bush claimed that last year's deficit was $249 billion, when, in fact, the Government had to borrow $620 billion, to make ends meet. The difference was "off-budget expenditures".

Answer 3

It's amazingly hypocritical how conservatives crow and insist that Bush be given credit for a 12K Dow and a good economy but Clinton was just lucky that the economy did well during his years.

Answer 4

Clinton could do this because he did not pass huge tax cuts for the wealthy. Only Rep say that Dem expand govt. Dem expand benefits for the poor and average people of this country, Reps spend huge amounts on war and previously on such projects like bailing out the savings and loan industry which was ripped off by the rich executives, and had to be saved for the rich people who had huge amounts invested in the S & Ls. Americans do not benefit from these tax cuts unless they are rich. Americans lose under Republicans whose whole agenda is to help the wealthy who help them get elected. This is a Rep lie which has been believed for decades. Rep increase the size of govt if you consider the military, and decrease govt in regards to service to the poor, elderly, children and most average americans. Please let us sweep the legislature this year and add the presidency in 2008. Get out and vote for the benefit of the average american.

Answer 5

Clinton was able to balance the budget by cutting spending in crucial areas like security and intelligence. He was also riding a cyclical economic high.

Answer 6

Clinton didn't take an active role in world politics, he was much more of an isolationist and thus saved money at the expense of future security from foreign threats.

Answer 7

It was contributed to Reagan's sound judgment the Clinton takes credit for.

Answer 8

Because he was a true fiscal conservative.