Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Political Action Forum' started by Matagorda Bound, Dec 27, 2017.
Yet they are directly related to each other.
Projected surplus in the future based on projections that never happened with the economy is not leaving with a surplus. From a report at the time!
WASHINGTON -- The Concord Coalition welcomed today's news that the federal government's budget deficit shrank to just $1 billion in fiscal year 1999 without counting the Social Security surplus. However, the Coalition reminded Congress and the Administration that the surplus over and above Social Security projected for fiscal year 2000 and beyond will vanish if fiscal discipline continues to collapse.
“The numbers provided today by the U.S. Treasury Department show that the federal government's on-budget accounts were $1 billion in the red for fiscal year 1999, while the off-budget Social Security program had a $124 billion surplus over that same period. Only by combining the on-budget and off-budget numbers into a ‘unified' budget figure can it be claimed that the federal government ran a surplus for fiscal year 1999,” said Executive Director Robert Bixby.
So don't parade Clinton as a deficit hawk! Nothing farther from the truth, just another President fiddling with numbers to hide the real truth! Bush did it as did Obama and likely Trump as well.
The economy boomed as a result of Reagan's efforts and in spite of Clinton's.
And how much of Obama's deficits was due to inheriting two wars and a crashed economy?
I have always believed that for the most part, presidents preside over economic cycles that are largely out of their control. They get too much credit when it is good and too much blame when it is bad.
A lot. I agree 100% that much of Obama's deficits are actually the responsibility of GWB (the wars, tax cuts and lack of regulatory oversight). That said, if you look at the policies they advocate, it is almost always the case that D's want to do things that will increase spending/deficits more than the R's do. Sure the R's are bad, but the D's are always worse. Bush should have fought the D's more. GWB, like his father, was a big gov't R. I'll take small government over big government seven days of the week and twice on Sunday.
The guy had 8 years and a fawning press - and he still got nowhere economically.
Ya wonder... What is it within the fawners that allows them to deny reality? Like maybe manifestation of a personality defect?
The claim has been that the debt went down under Clinton.
"We paid down the debt for four years -- paid down $600 billion on the national debt."
— Bill Clinton on Sunday, September 19th, 2010 in an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press"
Any POTUS could have lowered a deficit had Newt Gingrich been speaker of the House when they served. He said no to Clinton’s $100 billion in new social spending that would have increased deficit spending. And he got Clinton and Congress to go along with a Social Security payroll tax. Neither of them knew that they were going to be blessed with the birth of the internet...
If only they’d asked Al...
I believe any president could have done well in Clintons term, the Dot Com boom was going to happen no matter who was in office and that was a major economic driving factor.