Question:
Did Clinton really create a budget surplus that Bush erased, or is that a dirty liberal lie?
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Did Clinton really create a budget surplus that Bush erased, or is that a dirty liberal lie?
34 answers:
42
2009-03-17 13:21:10 UTC
Econ 101 ... deficits and debts are NOT the same thing.



Yes, Clinton signed off on annual budgets that ran surpluses. Which means that for a given fiscal year, the government took in more money than it spent.



The national debt is the cumulative effect of many individual budget deficits over many, many years. Which means that even though Clinton had a few years with a budget surplus, it did next to nothing to bring down the national debt. That would take decades of enormous fiscal restraint.



And yes, we returned to deficit spending under Bush.
mariner31
2009-03-17 14:10:08 UTC
When President Clinton left office, the National Debt was $5,769,000,000,000 (or $5.76 TRILLION). He had started his presidency with a National Debt of $4.35 Trillion. His last term in office, there was a reduction of 0.2% in Federal spending (almost entirely in forced-retirements from the military).



William Jefferson Clinton and the 103rd Congress DID enact the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993... which raised income-tax rates and raised transportation fuels taxes by 4.3 cents per gallon. Not a SINGLE Republican voted in favor of that act.



In fiscal year 200, Clinton had a budget surplus of $230 billion... that means that IF the Clinton style budget had continued indefinately AND there had been no terror-attacks, hurricanes, earthquakes, or wars...



The National Debt could have been elimitated in (5.76 / .23 = ) TWENTY-FIVE YEARS !!! That means 2025... 16 years from NOW.



SO YES, the liberals LOVE to IMPLY they had solved the national debt...



JUST like they turn a blind eye to the fact that President Clinton signed DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act) in 1996.... the law states "The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states."



The bill was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.



Sounds like a LOT of Democrats didn't want the Federal Government recognizing same-sex marriage... WOW.
2009-03-17 13:42:27 UTC
While Clinton did have some years of budget surpluses, the fact is that the fiscal year budget for 2001 was never going to produce a surplus, even if Gore had been elected.



So when Bush came into office with the nation in a recession, with an underfunded and depleted military, with both parties clamoring to add prescription drug benefits to Medicare, etc, there was no way a surplus could be maintained. Throw in the bipartisan NCLB education bill, and you have a big deficit.
Erich M
2009-03-17 13:22:22 UTC
Wow. Read any history much? Besides, you all claim the President doesn't control the economy but the Congress does. So, in theory, the Republicans controlled Congress from 1994-2006. Who you gonna blame, man? Also, Bush created 8 million jobs in 8 years. Clinton 23 million in 8 years. There was a surplus and I'll man up and say the Republican controlled congress helped that along. I have a feeling you're a little too smart to play the blame game. Let's all get together and fix our country, man!
2009-03-17 13:23:41 UTC
It is true.



Often what people misrepresent is that we have a national debt, and a national budget.



Clinton put the budget into a surplus and was decreasing our national debt. Our National Debt, however, was still in the red.



However, had Bush of done his job we could of perhaps held onto that surplus and been in much better standing now. But remember, he wanted to be remembered as a war President.
as.erwin
2009-03-17 13:18:48 UTC
Well, Clinton had some good policies... (we could use him now), but the fact is, he worked under a deficit for all but 1 year... (his last)... And that last budget calculated to a $1.9 billion surplus.



Now, please keep in mind what that actually means. It means that there was spending worth X amount of dollars, and revenues worth Y amount. It doesn't mean there was that much money left... Those are really just numbers on paper...
KO the Con's
2009-03-17 13:24:35 UTC
Clinton created a budget surplus, this is easily verifiable. If you don't believe it I have some 9/11 conspiracy theories I can sell you.
2009-03-17 13:24:35 UTC
fact. yes he did with an republican house and senate but it was under him. check it out for yourself. Bush had a surplus and a balanced budget. stop playing politic and see it for your self. the reason Clinton did not get impeach is because everyone was money and had job during his years and the senate didn't want to mess that up
2009-03-17 13:35:55 UTC
The budget was balance on Clintons watch by Newt Gingrich and his "Contract with America", NOT by Bill Clinton.



Liberals love to delude themselves that Carter, Clinton and now B.O. are anything but tax-and-spenders.
The Scorpion
2009-03-17 13:20:52 UTC
The big lie is that Presidents have that sort of control over the economy and fiscal strength of the country. If they do, then we are looking at ENTIRELY the wrong people to be president. The economy is barely even effected by the president, and that's the point we need to get across to people so that we can stop electing people based almost solely on the economy. It's so much more complex than just who is president and what his policies are but the American people are too stupid and uninformed to understand, so it doesn't really matter anyway.
Boss H
2009-03-17 13:18:10 UTC
LOL sounds like you need to get your facts straight jack.

When Clinton left there was a budget surplus. That means if spending stayed as it was, there would be no national debt right now.



While the geniuses say no, and it is like taking money from your credit card and calling yourself rich, the more worldy folks know it is more like creating a personal budget where your credit cards are paid of in a projected amount of time.
2009-03-17 13:20:46 UTC
The Republican Congress created a budget surplus which Clinton signed. Outside of putting his pen to paper, Clinton had nothing to do with it.
Greshnab
2009-03-17 13:25:04 UTC
yes he most certainly did.. that is not .. or shouldn't be the question.. the question should be HOW did clinton create a surplus??





and the answer to that is he ordered the CBO to refigure the interest rate on monies oed to the US and on interest that would be paid into social security fund ...



he also ordered them to lower the figured interest rates on monies the US owed or was likely to pay out long term....





so in short ... he cooked the books.
2009-03-17 13:24:19 UTC
Dude, it's true. I know it's hard to believe, that a liberal could be fiscally responsible, but before you were born, there was actually a guy that created a surplus. And he wasn't Republican.



Average economic growth of 4.0 percent per year, compared to average growth of 2.8 percent during the previous years. The economy grew for 116 consecutive months, the most in history.



Creation of more than 22.5 million jobs—the most jobs ever created under a single administration, and more than were created in the previous 12 years. Of the total new jobs, 20.7 million, or 92 percent, were in the private sector.



Economic gains spurred an increase in family incomes for all Americans. Since 1993, real median family income increased by $6,338, from $42,612 in 1993 to $48,950 in 1999 (in 1999 dollars).



Overall unemployment dropped to the lowest level in more than 30 years, down from 6.9 percent in 1993 to just 4.0 percent in January 2001. The unemployment rate was below 5 percent for 40 consecutive months. Unemployment for African Americans fell from 14.2 percent in 1992 to 7.3 percent in 2000, the lowest rate on record. Unemployment for Hispanics fell from 11.8 percent in October 1992 to 5.0 percent in 2000, also the lowest rate on record.



Inflation dropped to its lowest rate since the Kennedy Administration, averaging 2.5 percent, and fell from 4.7 percent during the previous administration.



The homeownership rate reached 67.7 percent near the end of the Clinton administration, the highest rate on record. In contrast, the homeownership rate fell from 65.6 percent in the first quarter of 1981 to 63.7 percent in the first quarter of 1993.



The poverty rate also declined from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 11.8 percent in 1999, the largest six-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years. This left 7 million fewer people in poverty than there were in 1993.



The surplus in fiscal year 2000 was $237 billion—the third consecutive surplus and the largest surplus ever.



Clinton worked with the Republican-led Congress to enact welfare reform. As a result, welfare rolls dropped dramatically and were the lowest since 1969. Between January 1993 and September 1999, the number of welfare recipients dropped by 7.5 million (a 53 percent decline) to 6.6 million. In comparison, between 1981-1992, the number of welfare recipients increased by 2.5 million (a 22 percent increase) to 13.6 million people
smsmith500
2009-03-17 13:19:25 UTC
The budget surplus was projected. On the idea that nothing big would happen. 9-11 threw that out the window.
Richard_SM
2009-03-17 13:24:14 UTC
Sorry - but it's TRUE. But I can see where you might be going wrong.



Clinton did have a budget surplus in the final years - which he used to pay off the National Debt.



He didnt clear the whole of the National Debt - which had taken 80 years to get to the level it stood at.



And then Bush (W) came along - and borrowed year after year - spending like crazy - and he DOUBLED the debt that had taken 80 years to build up.
hansblix222
2009-03-17 13:21:27 UTC
You're lying, and the burden of proof is on you. Oh yeah, and Clinton wasn't really that liberal either. Take a history course and learn something, will ya?
2009-03-17 13:22:59 UTC
Clinton may have not been the best president but he had a good budget when he was president $230 billion, making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion. and bush became president and wasted it all and now we are almost in a depression because of him
?
2009-03-17 13:32:04 UTC
okay now we all are aware our presidential office is a figure head only position right. The house and senate control the country and the purse strings Clinton did well because we had a Republican house and senate.(the ones actually responsible for a balanced budget signing your name to it is all just fluff Under Bush i think we lost our way -power went to our heads ,very similar as to what is happening now .my feeling is that no one represents me (parties aside) Clinton milked "dot com"stocks to the nth degree(and we know how that ended-no substance) As a nation we lost more jobs to over seas markets than ever in history !
dark eyes
2009-03-17 13:21:13 UTC
The Clinton administration weakened our military, based on the fact that there was no foreseeable war in the near future, causing America to be "in the black".



We got bombed by our own airplanes, on our own turf and Bush declared war [with a weakened military]. We sent our military to Iraq with the shoddy equipment from the Clinton administration, not realizing we were dealing with people that didn't think twice about strapping a bomb on the back of a 5-year-old and sending him to his death in the midst of our soldiers and their civilions.



Now, Obama thinks we can "discuss" this with Iraq--talk them out of the vary nature of their religions and beliefs... I don't think so.
2009-03-17 13:19:30 UTC
Acutally the Republicans in 1995 fource Clinton to ballance the budget.
Dagny Taggart
2009-03-17 13:21:24 UTC
Clinton inherited a huge surplus because of Reagan's policies. Bush inherited a deficit because of Clinton's policies. Any economist will tell you that the economy can take up to ten years to catch up with policy changes.
Mithaniel Marr
2009-03-17 13:17:55 UTC
Clinton's last year in office he reduced the amount of debt he was going to add on to the national debt. He didn't generate a surplus.
2009-03-17 13:20:44 UTC
Ya know what I am so sick of people squabbling over policies that both parties were complicit in.. from hence forth be advised you have no one to blame but yourselves... WAKE UP AMERICA
Capt Cold
2009-03-17 13:22:10 UTC
Rewrite history much? Looks like it.
Stop Spending Our Money
2009-03-17 13:18:55 UTC
It is called slight of hand. I can take a big chunk of money from my credit card and deposit into my checking and whala, I am rich!. But it has to be put back sometime and whala I am poor again.
Barbwired
2009-03-17 13:16:56 UTC
Clinton inherited a budget surplus.
No Pinheads!
2009-03-17 13:22:46 UTC
dirty liberal lie. Liberals are pinheads!



http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16
yutsnark
2009-03-17 13:20:02 UTC
Wrong. Now, do you have a question for which you actually want an answer?
2009-03-17 13:20:07 UTC
Do some research
2009-03-17 13:18:31 UTC
holy cow, such anger.



You should really think about what the Congress is doing passing this huge pork ladden stimulus plan.



Go read it, it is scary
2009-03-17 13:16:52 UTC
Yes he did.
thelarge17
2009-03-17 13:17:05 UTC
No lie. Check it out.
IndianaJohn
2009-03-17 13:20:20 UTC
no lie


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...