🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jul 20, 12:47 pm, Robert of St Louis <free.tun...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Bill Clinton, with the largest tax increase in history coupled with
> our most expansive eight-year economic growth, brought this record
> deficit down to zero in four years and then had four years of
> surplus.


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.



http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16


Clinton clearly did not achieve a surplus and he didn't leave
President Bush with a surplus.

So why do they say he had a surplus?

As is usually the case in claims such as this, it has to do with
Washington doublespeak and political smoke and mirrors.

Understanding what happened requires understanding two concepts of
what makes up the national debt. The national debt is made up of
public debt and intergovernmental holdings. The public debt is debt
held by the public, normally including things such as treasury bills,
savings bonds, and other instruments the public can purchase from the
government. Intergovernmental holdings, on the other hand, is when the
government borrows money from itself--mostly borrowing money from
social security.