Yes, Rush, There WAS a Clinton Surplus

[ulTRAX]

With even Kerry and Krugman not being truly honest about budget numbers the amount of disinformation out there about some simple facts is astounding. Both were using the unified budget numbers. So Bush's deficit was cited at about 413 billion when it still borrowing some 155 billion from the trust funds. The true Bush FY04 deficit was in the 570 billion range.

So it came as no surprise that Rush is telling some outright lies. A few days ago he was claiming there was NEVER a surplus... it was just on paper. That's curious since wasn't he justifying tax cuts back in 2000 BECAUSE of the surplus? The simple fact is there was a surplus and the figures are on table 1.1 here http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy05/hist.html The ON BUDGET surplus/deficit column clearly shows a 1.873 Billion surplus for FY99 and 86.626 Billion for FY00.

It is only from a surplus in ON-BUDGET revenues can the debt truly be paid down. The spread between Clinton's 87 billion surplus and Bush's 570 billion deficit is nearly a 655 BILLION drop in revenues.

[papau]

1. very true - Bush removed calendar year data from the budget site

so that the decrease in the National Debt in calendar year 2000 could not be seen without going to the monthly data spreadsheets!

Not that Bush lies - or that the media and pundits say whatever they are told - but it sure seems that way.

:toast:

:-)

[ulTRAX]

2. I think in Kerry's case......

As a regular at the Kerry forum I was appalled that he refused to use the correct Bush deficit numbers even though they worked to his favor. Then I realized he didn't use them because his own deficit reduction plan was based on the bogus unified budget numbers. To give himself the illusion of being fiscally conservative he wanted to claim he could balance the budget even when it was still 155 billion in the red. In doing so he also had to give Bush a get out of jail free card on the true extent of his fiscal irresponsibility.

[papau]

4. Kerry did not have the best advice - Sometimes folks are too clever by

half - whatever that means! :-)

[Oversea Visitor]

3. Mad guys

You can doctored figures but you cant hide them they will jump up just like Enron. Oh well only so much dirt can be sweep under the carpet.

[ulTRAX]

8. but why does Krugman play this game?

Here's a post on Krugman I made on 11-2: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1272505

ulTRAX Tue Nov-02-04 11:25 AM
DAMN IT KRUGMAN!!!!!!!! why is everyone hiding the true Bush deficit?

On Charlie Rose last night Paul Krugman said the Bush deficit was some 400 Billion. Why is he understating it? So does Kerry.

The mid-October CBO estimate for the FY04 deficit was about 568 Billion... that's the ON-BUDGET revenue deficit. Krugman was citing the UNIFIED budget which has about a 416 Billion deficit. This gives Bush credit for about 150 billion that's actually being BORROWED from various federal trust funds. They are treating a LOAN as revenue.

Why do Democrats and some Kerry supporters like Krugman refuse to expose the TRUE extent of Bush's fiscal irresponsibility?

Maybe the easiest way to see though this smoke & mirrors of on and off budgets is to just look at the debt figures which are close to the correct on-budget deficit figures. Here's the FY04 debt from http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/cgi-bin/cg...~www/opdpe...

09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
10/01/2003 $6,804,504,127,055.70

Bush has run up some $574.5 BILLION in new debt for FY04... and some 1.7 TRILLION in less than 4 years.

So why can't the Democrats just say so?

[Oversea Visitor]

9. There is lots

of auditing to do if you want to trace a figures. Its a continous trail. Accounting always leave a paper trail, debit and credit. Maybe they will classified all this documents too.

[ulTRAX]

11. that was not the reason

Krugman WAS quoting accurate deficit figures... but they were for the unified budget... the amount of money the government borrows from OUTSIDE sources. What is more important is how much of deficit there is in ON-budget revenues. That show how much money is being borrowed from ALL sources... and that figure should be rather close.. though not exact... to the increase in debt during the FY.

[Oversea Visitor]

16. Dont give

a damn how they report it. Facts is US in shit house. They just argueing over how big the pile of shit is. In sofar as I am concern it is pretty big. Me I am staying away from the US dollars for a long long time. There is only so much a system can take before it breakdown. Only thing US trying to do now is bushwhack it to hell, not even trying to save it. Sorry but you guys getting robber in broad
daylight. Where is all the money going?

[ulTRAX]

21. you may not give a damn

But this thread was started for those who do give a damn how it's reported and are looking for reasons why Dems are understating the deficit even if the true numbers work to their advantage.

[Oversea Visitor]

23. Ok

Maybe I did not explain myself clearer. If my house is burning I wont be interested in argueing over how hot the temperature is. I rather be doing something to save the house.

Does is matter really how big the deficitis when it is already big enough for concern? Are there steps taken to prevent future growth in deficits or is everyone going to be argueing over how big is it?

Your November figures alone show a deficit of 60.3 billion. Where is red button alert.I say forget about the figures but monitor the month to month. Take action to correct it fast.

[ulTRAX]

24. The US is awash in irrational politics

The US is awash in irrational politics. Manipulative politicians push buttons on an electorate that's half brain-dead. The Democratic Party is no exception. It's this dysfunctional relationship that has got us to where we are.... 560 billion in deficits and the correct figure isn't even mentioned in a presidential election year. That's is not just shocking, it's shameful.

The Left has to start insisting on honesty from its candidates. It has to insist that politics educate not manipulate for such education is necessary to build up a constituency for progress and necessary for self-government to work.

[Oversea Visitor]

25. I understand your feeling

The truth is repackage to the American people. There is so much cover up. The word classified kills of all chances for the real truth to be reveal.

The people in US are deny the FREEDOM of Truth. The people in US lost their Liberty to access documents that will reveal the truth.

So MR BUSH please promote freedom and liberty for this in US before you go round the world trying to enforce it.

[ulTRAX]

26. the ultimate Bush hypocrisy........

The ultimate irony, or perhaps hypocrisy, is while Bush claims to want to promote democracy around the world... he became president after being repudiated in the polls and only won because the US has an anti-democratic vote weighing scheme.

[Acryliccalico]

5. We have to call them on their lies WITH their own words

Like Sen. Boxer, when they call us lier's we can show them their own words. If we put this in their face and don't let them hide or divert attention then they can only make excuses and look afraid and slimy. We have to stand our ground and point it out loudly.

[snippy]

19. Here are some of their own words.

As to whether there was a surplus under Clinton, this used to be on the website of some dipshit named Denny Hastert:

White House officials and top congressional Republicans are vying for credit after the Congressional Budget Office said it thinks fiscal 1999 ended with a $1 billion federal surplus, excluding Social Security. If accurate, Tuesday's estimate by Congress' nonpartisan fiscal scorekeeper would mark the first time since 1960 that the government had balanced its books after discounting Social Security's big surpluses.

http://www.hastertforcongress.org/news/1999/101399a.html

This same Hastert dipshit also talked about the surplus on other occassions:

Hastert also indicated that the GOP might up the ante on using the federal budget surplus to keep Social Security strong, saying that House Republicans might advocate using more surplus budget revenues than President Bill Clinton advocated in his State of the Union address last month.

http://www.conservativenews.org/InDepth/archive/199902/IND19990222b.html

This is what some dumb fuck named Tom DeLay said about the existence of a surplus under Clinton:

"The president should abandon his effort to spend the surplus and instead join the common-sense coalition that is working to refund the surplus though debt relief."

http://www.evote.com/index.asp?Page=/news_section/2000-09/09192000House.asp

[One_Life_To_Give]

6. IIRC The Surplus was only

there if we included SS in the budget. If we used the old method, pre-Johnson, of keeping SS off the budget. We would still have shown a deficit.
I don't think we have had a true budget "surplus" in over 40 years.

[ulTRAX]

7. it was a true suplus

If you look at the spreadsheet... the last time before 1999 that there was an on-budget surplus was in 1960.

[Blue Wally]

17. The point that OLTG made was.......

That the 1960s surplus in the main govt budget was real. The 1999 surplus was computed differently after SS income was added to the budget. To compare 1960 to 1999 you would either have to remove SS income from the 1999 budget or add it to the 1960 budget. We shoulkd also note that it was US (meaning the congressional Democrats) that allowed SS income to be considered in the overall budget. It used to be a separate, balkanized item.

[ulTRAX]

22. I'm not using SS monies

The ONLY numbers I'm concerned with are ON-budget revenues which do NOT include SS monies. The unified budget numbers that Kerry was using hide the borrowing from the federal trust funds. Clinton got to a unified budget surplus in FY98 and a surplus in on-budget revenues in FY99 and 2000. The 1960 surplus was also in on-budget revenue.

[tkmorris]

10. No, there WAS a surplus

It wasn't as large when SS was taken out of the budget, but in 1999 and 2000 there was a surplus nonetheless. It doesn't matter really, perusing the actual year to year figures reveals the true tale.

Once Clinton took office in 1993 the actual on-budget annual deficit went down every single year until 1999 when it broke into the black ink for the first time since 1960. That surplus grew in 2000. When Bush took office in 2001 the suplus turned into a deficit that year, and has grown at record rates every single year since.

The actual on-budget difference between the surplus of 2000, Clinton's last year, and 2004 is three quarters of a trillion dollars.

Go ahead, have a look for yourself. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy05/sheets/hist01z1.xls

[Blue Wally]

18. In fairness

Most of that surplus was driven by taxes on the capital gains being reported during the Dot-Com bubble. When that evaporated, instant deficit.

The merry forecasts that Bush used to justify the tax cuts (and that Gore used to show how good it all was), dishonestly factored in budget surpluses as far as the eye could see by assuming that we would sustain dot com levels of capital gains every year to support income tax collections.

[ulTRAX]

20. which only goes to show.........

The surplus was the result of all the hard work to reverse Voodoo Economics over the previous 20 years... a record long expansion, and a stock market bubble.... all that to essentially break even. And the first priority Bush had was to sabotage debt paydown with irresponsible tax cuts.

That Kerry and the Dems STILL refuse to expose the Right's strangle the beast strategy is not just shocking... it undermines the Democratic agenda.

[Obviousman]

12. "This is your brain on drugs..."

[ulTRAX]

13. have anything intelligent to add to this discussion?

Didn't think so.

ON EDIT... or are you referring to Rush?

[Obviousman]

14. I'm referring to rush of course

In order to be able to deny reality, you have to be on drugs

[ulTRAX]

15. not necessarily

All that's required to deny reality is a self-sabotaged intellect. Any self-justifying belief system will do. An infallibility complex is a perfect example.