Do libs realize that the Republican Congress balanced the budget, not Clinton?

Question

He kicked, screamed and fought over the budget and cried like a little baby.

Answer 1

I think most people can only remember the past couple of years. Most people don't pay attention to politics long term either.

Answer 2

What balanced the budget was the fact that the White House was Democratic and the congress was Republican. Had Clinton been able to slide national healthcare thru congress, there never would have been a balanced budget.
For 8 years, no major expensive legislation was passed.

Answer 3

First thing what you considered a balanced budget I do not. The budget stole from Peter to pay Paul. The budget stole the money from Social Security. Clinton's Budget Office just twisted numbers.

In order to have any credibility, these people must have a way to prove that there is a budget surplus. So they take the annual total dollar inflow of funds to the federal government, including the Social Security tax revenue, and subtract from that number the annual total dollar outflow of funds, including the benefits that Social Security is currently paying out. The net result from this calculation shows that the total receipts flowing into the federal government exceed the total expenditures flowing out by a substantial amount at the present time. Thus, politicians use this calculation to prove that there is a surplus in the federal budget. Technically, they are correct on this point, but they fail to tell the rest of the story. All of the surplus belongs to the Social Security Trust Fund.



Funds flowing into and out of the Social Security Trust Fund are by law supposed to be kept separate from other government expenditures. So the government has a real surplus only if its total spending for everything, except Social Security benefits, is less than its total revenue from all sources except Social Security taxes. Such a surplus has not existed in a single year since 1960 with the possible exception of fiscal year 1999. The Treasury Department initially reported a deficit of $1 billion for 1999. However, the numbers were later revised, and a tiny $0.7 billion surplus was reported. The numbers are so close that the most we can say is that the budget was approximately balanced in 1999 for the first time in 39 years.



The approximately balanced budget for 1999 occurred at a time when the unemployment rate was at a 30-year low and corporate profits were soaring. Since almost all of the federal governments revenue (excluding Social Security contributions) comes from individual income taxes and corporation income taxes, there should have been a much larger surplus in a year when the economy was so overheated. Most economists believe that there should be budget surpluses in those years when the economy is operating at full employment to offset the deficits that occur when it is operating below the full-employment level. If the tax structure was not sufficient to bring a balanced budget at any time other than during such an extraordinarily prosperous year as fiscal 1999, then we are likely to return to deficits at the first hint of rising unemployment. Why would anybody suggest additional cuts in tax rates under these circumstances and make continuing large budget deficits almost a certainty over the long run?



The federal government ran a deficit in its operating budget each and every year from 1961 through 1998. In 1999, the operating budget was approximately balanced for the first time in 39 years with a possible tiny surplus of $0.7 billion. Thats it! That is the whole surplus in the governments operating budget! During the previous four years, 1995-98, the government ran deficits totaling $534 billion. A possible $0.7 billion surplus in 1999 doesnt do a great deal to offset all the red ink of previous years.

Actually, the government has been borrowing the Social Security surplus and spending it on general government programs for several years. The net effect has been to disguise the true size of budget deficits in past years. For example, in fiscal year 1995, the government experienced a $226.4 billion deficit in its operating budget. However, since the Social Security Trust Fund had a surplus of $62.4 billion that year, the government simply borrowed the Social Security surplus and spent it as part of it general operating budget. The $62.4 billion Social Security surplus was deducted from the $226.4 billion deficit and the government reported an official deficit of only $164 billion.



In 1997, since there was a surplus in the Social Security Trust Fund of $81.4 billion, the actual $103.4 billion on-budget deficit was reduced by that amount and the government reported a total deficit of only $22.0 billion. It was in 1998 that the American people first had the wool pulled over their eyes on a grand scale. In that year, the operating budget of the federal government was still in the red with an actual deficit of $30 billion. It was the $99.2 billion surplus in the Social Security Trust Fund that enabled the government to report a budget surplus of $69.2 billion. During a year in which the United States Government spent $30 billion more than it collected in general revenue, it announced that there was a $69.2 billion overall surplus!



From that point on, the American people seemed to believe that there truly was excess money in the federal budget, and cunning politicians began building schemes to further mislead the people into believing that money was available for new programs and/or for cutting taxes. Any reader who has doubts about whether the government had a deficit or surplus in 1998 need only check out the size of the national debt in 1997 and 1998. The United States Treasury Department maintains a web site on the internet that provides public debt figures updated on a daily basis.



The total debt at the end of 1997 was $5,369.7 billion ($5.37 trillion). By the end of 1998, the debt had risen to $5,478.7 billion ($5.48 trillion). How could the national debt rise by $109 billion if the government had a $69.2 billion surplus? It couldnt. The United States Government had to borrow $30 billion to pay the on-budget deficit. In addition, since the Social Security Surplus was all invested in United States Treasury securities as required by law, the governments debt to the Social Security fund also went up.

Answer 4

Shiraz this is totally not true, Clinton had to close down the Government for a month because the RepubLIEcons wouldn't balance the budget. As soon as Bush came along we now have the largest deficit ever!!!!.

Answer 5

So the republican congress is also responsible for our out of control spending now? If you want to take credit for successes, you must also be responsible for the failures.

Grow up and be responsible.

Answer 6

Yet it went to hell when Bush was in office. Hmmm, coincidence, no? Or is that one of those truths you'd prefer not mentioned so you can keep bitching about it?

Answer 7

Under six years of total Republican control federal spending was out of control. Any other fantasies you wish to share with us?

Answer 8

I suppose that, after a Democrat has been in the White House for a couple of years, you will find a way to blame them for the massive debt that the US has incurred with this war....

Answer 9

Clintonomics saved the economy!

So why did the Republican Congress screw it up with Bush as President?

Answer 10

clinton is always the republican excuse for when they poop all lover themselves.

Will you people ever grow up?