For the last six years of Clinton's eight years in office, Congress was controlled by Republicans.
It's the Congress that controls the government's purse strings -- not the President.
So, if there was a surplus at the end of Clinton's presidency, it's a positive reflection on conservative fiscal policies more than anything else.
Don't you love how Obama and the Democrats ALWAYS claim that Clinton left us with a surplus?
BARRY0619
2012/06/10 13:47:31
There was never really a surplus but only Congressional Budget Office
projections. Well, that’s the simple truth…no matter what Barack Obama
claims says WSJ’s Brian Riedl:
President Obama and
congressional Democrats are blaming their trillion-dollar budget
deficits on the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. Letting these tax cuts
expire is their answer. Yet the data flatly contradict this “tax cuts
caused the deficits” narrative. Consider the three most persistent
myths:
• The Bush tax cuts wiped out last decade’s budget
surpluses. Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass.), for example, has long blamed the
tax cuts for having “taken a $5.6 trillion surplus and turned it into
deficits as far as the eye can see.” That $5.6 trillion surplus never
existed. It was a projection by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in
January 2001 to cover the next decade. It assumed that late-1990s
economic growth and the stock-market bubble (which had already peaked)
would continue forever and generate record-high tax revenues. It assumed
no recessions, no terrorist attacks, no wars, no natural disasters, and
that all discretionary spending would fall to 1930s levels.
The projected $5.6 trillion surplus between 2002 and 2011 will more
likely be a $6.1 trillion deficit through September 2011. So what was
the cause of this dizzying, $11.7 trillion swing? I’ve analyzed CBO’s 28
subsequent budget baseline updates since January 2001. These updates
reveal that the much-maligned Bush tax cuts, at $1.7 trillion, caused
just 14% of the swing from projected surpluses to actual deficits (and
that is according to a “static” analysis, excluding any revenues
recovered from faster economic growth induced by the cuts).
Source: WSJ’s Brian Riedl:
projections. Well, that’s the simple truth…no matter what Barack Obama
claims says WSJ’s Brian Riedl:
President Obama and
congressional Democrats are blaming their trillion-dollar budget
deficits on the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. Letting these tax cuts
expire is their answer. Yet the data flatly contradict this “tax cuts
caused the deficits” narrative. Consider the three most persistent
myths:
• The Bush tax cuts wiped out last decade’s budget
surpluses. Sen. John Kerry (D., Mass.), for example, has long blamed the
tax cuts for having “taken a $5.6 trillion surplus and turned it into
deficits as far as the eye can see.” That $5.6 trillion surplus never
existed. It was a projection by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in
January 2001 to cover the next decade. It assumed that late-1990s
economic growth and the stock-market bubble (which had already peaked)
would continue forever and generate record-high tax revenues. It assumed
no recessions, no terrorist attacks, no wars, no natural disasters, and
that all discretionary spending would fall to 1930s levels.
The projected $5.6 trillion surplus between 2002 and 2011 will more
likely be a $6.1 trillion deficit through September 2011. So what was
the cause of this dizzying, $11.7 trillion swing? I’ve analyzed CBO’s 28
subsequent budget baseline updates since January 2001. These updates
reveal that the much-maligned Bush tax cuts, at $1.7 trillion, caused
just 14% of the swing from projected surpluses to actual deficits (and
that is according to a “static” analysis, excluding any revenues
recovered from faster economic growth induced by the cuts).
Source: WSJ’s Brian Riedl:
Top Opinion
-
JenSemPa 2012/06/10 15:32:08
recovered from faster economic growth induced by the cuts. We know for a fact that when JFK cut tax rates, tax revenues increased. We know for a fact that when Reagan cut tax rates, tax revenues nearly doubled over his eight years, despite having inherited a recession from Jimmy Carter. Bush also inherited a recession from the Clinton/Gore administration (caused by the DotCom/stock market bubble burst) and also had the effect of 9/11, the first major foreign attacks on U.S. soil in over 150 years, to deal with.
There was NO SURPLUS....LOOTED SOCIAL SECURITY LOCK BOX !!!!
http://www.treasurydirect.gov...
A favorite of mine is how the Libs were attacking Bush over his lack of military knowledge. They said he didnt know anything about running a war and was AWOL and blah blah blah....then they turn around and elect a guy whos never been within 50 miles of a recruiting station and despises our military.
Go figure.
It's the Congress that controls the government's purse strings -- not the President.
So, if there was a surplus at the end of Clinton's presidency, it's a positive reflection on conservative fiscal policies more than anything else.
It was Bush's spending that was responsible for the deficits.
Is this not like showing someone a bank balance after the pay check goes in and just before all the bills are paid?
Expect all issues to be discussed to fall into this category!
There are way too many variables to get into but as the article states at the beginning , it was all 'projections' based off what was put in front of the CBO and what they were asked to crunch numbers on.
0bozo used the same manipulation with the CBO and OMB to produce the numbers he wanted/needed to sell 0bozocare and the stimulus.