Obama: Understanding the Clinton Budget Surplus

[Jacoby515]

Bullshit the surplus didn't mean he dented the debt, in fact the debt rose higher each year while he was in office.

[Spicabibi]

I think people should be given a choice.

If you can afford it, then buy health insurance. If you can afford but choose to NOT buy health insurance, then dont start complaining when youre on your death bed.

People that cannot afford healthcare should be given some type of help since they have NO CHOICES. Poor people pay taxes too.

Hell, even my UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE gets taxed! FEDRAL AND LOCAL! Im tired of rich people using the "I pay taxes" line. So do we and we dont have choices.

[Robikus]

Lets not forget the Clinton tax increases. They should be reinstated.

[PissedFechtmeister]

You've failed to include intragovernmental debt in the charts. That wipes out all the alleged surpluses.

[centenosparky]

We Are Doomed!!!

[drathjon]

Wait, Did i hear this video correctly? We went into a recession with Clinton into office? Well my good man, We entered our recession in 2007, Not 2000? Not only that but our unemployment rate was only averging 4-4.2 percent???When Bush took office, the rate went from a 4.0-4.2 to a 13.3 By the time Bush left office? Obama has taken it down to a 8.7(Look these stats up anywhere, there all solid facts) I mean thats hard to say that? Kinda ignorant as well.

[reportcard2000]

@drathjon The facts are that unemployment began to increase in April 2000 (after the NASDAQ bubble burst of March 2000) and the economy was in a recession beginning March 2001.

[drathjon]

@reportcard2000 Yes unemployment began to increase due to the bush fiasco, However unemployment Exploded in 2008, 2007 rate was 8.7 and rose to 13.3, That's a 4.2 Increase in a year. Bush massacred the economy? I don't know what your arguing? However the recession was not officially started until 2008? That's a fact, not 2001.

[reportcard2000]

@drathjon There were two recessions. One began in March 2001. It is a fact. Leading up to the 2001 recession unemployment began to rise in April 2000, before Clinton left office. You will need to study the 1995 -2000 period to understand how the surplus was generated and also understand it was based on the temporary events of dotcom investments, huge capital gains taxes from the hyped stock market and post cold war defense spending cuts. Refer to the CBO Jan 2001 budget report.

[drathjon]

@reportcard2000 The recession was never of this magnitude? I'm simply pointing out the fact that the recession of 2001, was not a recession of this magnitude, nothing close. Yes I know how the surplus was generated? I wasn't arguing that topic? However my argument is that the recession of todays age is far greater than 2001, Which only affected the U.S during the 2002 and 2003 years, however the main years that lead up to the much larger recession was 2006-2008 and crashed heavily. Still in the

[reportcard2000]

@drathjon OK, I agree the 2001 recession was not of this magnitude. I see the surplus etc as being all tied together; however, it is not an important point. The debate point is: Would the 2001 recession have been as large as 2008 without the Bush tax cuts? The CBO said in January 2001, before Clinton left office, the economy was declining at a surprisingly rapid rate. I still consider the current situation to be unique from 2001 because a generation of creative thinkers is now retiring.

[drathjon]

@reportcard2000 well yes thats a very good debate point however It's pretty obvious that a large part of the deficit was due to Bush Tax cuts, It was something idiotic that he truly did. I don't know he if he actually knew what he was doing? Yet again, He was the worst president in history so it's very obvious why he completely shattered so many great ideas.

[reportcard2000]

@drathjon It is not obvious the Bush tax cuts were a cause of the deficits. Tax revenues are a primary function of GDP. In the mid 2000s (post Bush tax cuts) tax revenues to GDP had recovered to historical averages. There were tax rate cuts late in Clinton's years and revenues increased. As for Bush being the worst president, the same was said about Lincoln. Today, Lincoln is considered one of the best. There are significant structural issues in our economy that people do not want to see.

[drathjon]

@reportcard2000 Well to me it was pretty obvious? Expecially hitting the main rises in the deficit when they hit. Wasting the suprlus without even thinking of stopping, And are you kidding me? Bush was statistically proved to be the worst president, Lincoln was not, Unemployment sky rocketed, as well as the deficit, Tax cuts that Obama extended even rose the deficit an extra 3 trillion dollars. 10.3-13.3 trillion. So if your trying to defend Bush, their's no way around it.

[reportcard2000]

@drathjon When you say Bush wasted the surpluses you need to understand the CBO said in January 2001, before Bush came to office, the reasons for the surpluses were not understood and the economy could return to deficits without any policy changes. Without understanding the temporary reasons for the Clinton surplus years, the impact of 9-11, the aging boomer population and allowing all these structural problems (entitlements) to blamed on "politics" is exactly what got Obama elected.

[drathjon]

@reportcard2000 It's very easy to say how we got into this deificit, Its very statiscal and proven for that matter. High defense spending 756 billion dollars a year, Large Tax cuts that were done which dramatically impacted the economy. These are obvious and proven reasons why were in this hole, the defense spending takes up over 30 percent of our annual deficit a year. Obama's followers? Are you insane? Their not being biased and the main reason Obama was elected was due to his plans, It's

[drathjon]

@reportcard2000 proven in countless doucmentaries, and statistical evidence how this large deficit accumlated, Easy stats, When Bush left office he was at 10.3 Trillion dollars, Rose it 5 Trillion dollars, Obama extended His tax cuts which did another 3 Trillion, Simple math, 14.3(Which is our current deficit)-13.3 Which is what the costs were without Obama's plans. It goes to approimately .9 billion, This is outrageous, It's beyond proven that Bush was the major reason(Not him alone but under

[drathjon]

@reportcard2000 stand, The war, Tax cuts, were all pushed by him and the republican party). This is basically an argument of stats, Now is Obama wasting money, Of course he has too, The hole we were dug into by Bush. FDR was a great example, Wasted like crazy due to the deficit, The economy started rising again then WW2 happened and it sky rocketed. The only difference is that WW3 won't happen, Which means we have to fix it ourselves. The simple way to fix this would be to raise taxes on the

[drathjon]

@reportcard2000 rich and cut defense spending from 756 billion dollars(Which is 7 times more than the second largest army cost) at least 20 percent. Of course we can't keep living like this but somehow labeling obama's and according to you "his followers" fault is outrageous. Now other politcal party? You mean the republican Party? Hmmm, i wonder why? Maybe when most large problems happen(Bush goes into office) Country does a nose Dive, Funny though then afterwards a democratic president enters

[drathjon]

@reportcard2000 and if doesn't fix the mess the other party left, Then he is somehow deemed a failure, which is what your doing right this moment and what everyone else seems to be doing, however statistcally. Obama has lowered the unemployment as well as Killed Osama Bin laden and Gave 16 million Americans Healthcare. All Bush did was destroy the economy(Again not only Bush but main concern was him) and enviormentally murder the planet.

[reportcard2000]

@drathjon The only thing that separates America from the rest of the world is our free thinking and ability to innovate. For this country to succeed the people must have a sense of freedom, which leads to motivation to succeed. A fact lost on Obama (or is it because he extended the tax cuts.) With a $60+ trillion unfunded liability for health care and social security facing us in the next 20-30 years, you can take everything the rich have and cut defense spending and we are still broke.

[drathjon]

@reportcard2000 lol actually thats very false, japan is much more innovative than any other country bar none. They create all our techonology and more, Free thinking would work except with so much ignorance, doesn't work as well. Where did you ever get that fact? Please state the website where we will go up with 60 trillion dollars? They did state however that we would go up 10 trillion dollars but in the long run would make a profit. Not only that but highering taxes and cutting defense

[drathjon]

@reportcard2000 spending, and we will be in the hole 60 trillion? Please state where you got that fact, mine are all factual, Please present yours.

[reportcard2000]

@drathjon USA Today June 6, 2011 "The $61.6 trillion in unfunded obligations...." Title: U.S. funding for future promises lags by trillions

[drathjon]

@reportcard2000 Did you read this article? The 61 Trillion isn't going to add up because of "obamas proposals". Quote from the article "That brings to a record $61.6 trillion the total of financial promises not paid for", The total amount that is accumlating from all items that have are being added up, Mentioning social security and medicaid. However other main reasons of course would be defense spending and again this is happening due to the(what did i say before) LOW TAXES, we have. If you

[reportcard2000]

@drathjon $61 trillion is beyond our ability to visualize. History tells us that a spike in population plus a technological advancement leads to an economic boom, followed by a huge drag when the spike in population ages and becomes non-productive. Look at the industrial revolution and many others. The period from the 1990s through today and what is projected fits perfectly with prior population spikes. You can argue politics all you want but the economy is largely based on our demographics.

[drathjon]

@reportcard2000 Of course it is due to the fact that the reason we have risen to this amount is quite obvious. Of course our economy is greatly based on demographics but thats exactly what I'm arguing, What your basically arguing is that if we continue to stay in this financial burden we will reach the 61 Trillion, Apprently you didn't read my argument or completely ignored it for the most part.

[reportcard2000]

@drathjon •Medicare: $24.8 trillion

•Social Security: $21.4 trillion

•Federal debt: $9.4 trillion

•Military retirement/disability benefits: $3.6 trillion

•Federal employee retirement benefits: $2 trillion

•State, local government obligations: $5.2 trillion

This is the breakdown by Heritage. We have an aging population that is also 2/3rds overweight or obese, 50% of which don't pay taxes. The high entitlements show a culture based on dependency. Tax rates on rich is a political diversion.

[drathjon]

@reportcard2000 Again like I said before, your basically hitting the points i just stated, Medicare was a wasted amount of money like I said before. Read my posts, The reason we are the one of the lowest industrial countries that pay taxes is for a reason, Like i said before we have to RAISE taxes as well as cut defense Spending. What your basically saying is the one were living right now is wrong I again agreed with you however you seem to be tip toeing around the point that again were in this

[drathjon]

@reportcard2000 hole but again your trying to someone show how 50% of the overweight class does not pay taxes? Also can you please show me where you got these numbers? Is the the numbers of how much we owe or how much were going to owe? I believe this is for future numbers am i correct?

[reportcard2000]

@drathjon Yes $60 trillion is in future. My point relates to motivation of the work force. When you live in a dream world that allows you to think you are going to be taken care of by gov't it affects your motivation. In addition, when 2/3 rds of the population is overweight it affects motivation. I know this because I am a dog trainer and a fit dog does not even recognize the required physical effort that is overwhelming to an unfit dog. I've not stated overweight don't pay taxes.

[drathjon]

@reportcard2000 Okay the future point, I see what your arguing now. The main point is that your arguing the soviet union point where if the government helps, they tend not to work as hard but again that system is far different since the government was controlling all aspects as control of production, What gets made when it gets made, why it gets made, who makes it, and how much of it to make it. That's nothing like our society, Were completely capitlist, However government giving Universal

[drathjon]

@reportcard2000 healthcare to the people is completely different, This is something that is completely needed in our country, What your arguing is that some people deserve to die if they don't work hard enough for the country. If they don't do enough then the system shouldnt help em, That sounds like commuism to me, something stalin would say " Yeah i killed 12 million people but they didn't do enough for the system".

[reportcard2000]

@drathjon My argument has nothing to do with Soviet Union, etc. It has nothing to do with who should get health care. My argument solely relates to what a nation can provide when 2/3rds of the people don't see the need in taking care of themselves (increasing demand on health care services and a reduction in productivity.) How much can we reasonably expect to provide to the nation's population when we have an aging population that is 2/3rds overweight?

[drathjon]

@reportcard2000 Your arguing that they won't have the motivation which was a soviet union Issue. But the main problem with your argument is that 2/3rds being overweight, thats a problem with the united states. Were the fatest nation in the world due to the amount of fast food we make, Our ideals and capitalistic personas have made us this way. Your argument is that since the 2/3rd's can't help the system. Then the system shouldn't help them. Your argument is based on who gets to live and who

[reportcard2000]

@drathjon Not once have I said only the fit should get health care. My point is that a population that is aging (requiring more health care) and a population 2/3rds overweight (requiring more health care) is not going to meet the desired health care requirements for all its citizens. This is before considering the requirements of Social Security. We are moving from 35 million retired to 75 million retired.

[drathjon]

@reportcard2000 Thats basically what your saying, Ethier that or no one gets healthcare. Those are your two points, Due to them being overweight then no one should get healthcare.

[reportcard2000]

@drathjon Allocation of a limited resource to a population demanding more than should be required will almost always lead to shortages.

[drathjon]

@reportcard2000 Your stating that the American Population is demanding for more than it should have, And it only leads to shortages if not properly Managed. Europeon Countries have 10 times better healthcare and It's free in the sense that thier taxes pay for it. Understand all these costs have to much to do with taxes, Social Security and the aging population was something that was comnig for 50 years. Everyone saw this coming, yet no one did anything. That is not an argument that should be

[drathjon]

@reportcard2000 left out of the healthcare debate. Espcially in these times.

[Spicabibi]

@drathjon

The poor pay taxes as well. All Americans contribute to the system. I would rather the FEDERAL taxes that get ripped off of my UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE every week go towards helping the poor people of this nation instead of nation building overseas.

Just like how if you own one stock in a company, you are an INVESTOR and YOUR WORD COUNTS.

[drathjon]

@reportcard2000 gets to die. That sounds like communism to me, Thats like what stalin would say "yeah I killed 12 million people but they werent doing enough for the system". So people need to die needlessly day in and day out just because you believe that we shouldnt help them due to the fact that they choose to be fat? So me whos a in shape guy going to college paying 31 thousand busting my ass yearly and I can't afford health insurance, I have to pay an extra 1,500 dollars for healthcare

[drathjon]

@reportcard2000 that i shouldnt have to pay, which in all other europeon countries are free, is insane. I'm not rich, I am very much poor and im in fantastic shape, I work out 3 hours a day. So what? Am i going to be the exception? Should people in shape get healthcare? How would your system work? So rather than give everyone healthcare, Give no one healthcare? how can you be for a system where no everyone gets healthcare against a system where everyone gets the medical attention to survive.

[drathjon]

@reportcard2000 how can you justify that on a personal level rather than saying you worked for the money so goddanmmit im gonna keep it. So People have to die needlessly every day because people like you refuse to pay more so you can fund it, Fine you know what? I hope your not insured and I hope you get sick and i hope you experience how terrible the U.S healthcare system is first hand.

[drathjon]

@reportcard2000 this article, it says that the acculmation of the years before 2008-2010 and now it is starting to accumlate more and more, Well no duh buddy, 5.6T-10.3 Trillion, I wonder where it came from? Hmmm, 3 trillion more 13.3 Trillion. The main problem is again defense spending is much to high, over 30 percent of the year rate and Higher taxes, Its quite simple. Again you have to read the article, It doesn't say with all that inacted this will still happen, merely says if we do noithing

[drathjon]

@reportcard2000 we are going to be completely screwed, well we already are, but all the other proposals have been completely shutdown.

[reportcard2000]

@drathjon The real question is whether Obama and his followers can continue blaming Bush as a means to stay in power or will a majority of Americans realize that incurring $1.4 trillion annual deficits is a result of current problems. Regardless of whether Americans figure it out by 2012, eventually we will not be able to borrow more money to sustain our lifestyle.  The same thing is happening in other countries right now, but most Americans only blame the other political party for problems.

[drathjon]

@reportcard2000 especially on the deficit, Entered at 5.6 T, Left at 10.3 T and a huge defense spending budget. As well as The Tax cuts on the rich was outrageous. Again Obama Extending Bush's tax cuts again wasted another 3Trillion dollars which means in Bush's work, He went from 5.6-13.3 Trilion dollars, Its ridiculous. Abraham lincoln was considered the worst due to his moral values, His views on certain topics. Not that he smashed the economy. Bush is undeniably the reason.

[drathjon]

@reportcard2000 recession we are however I don't see why your telling me that I have to know how the surplus was generated? I suppose your assuming I didn't know how it was created and thus didn't know our defense budget heavily rose during the 2000's due to the war however im arguing the magnitude and it was far weaker than and that period was not a recession that was powerful such as the one we are experiencing.

[reportcard2000]

@drathjon To understanding the current economic events versus the past is during Clinton the 77 million baby-boomers were in their peak income years. A huge boost to any economy. Now there are 77 million boomers retiring at the rate of over 1,000 per day. If you will read the CBO 10 year budget projection issued in January 2001 you will see that even if the temporary Clinton economy would have continued, the CBO said the debt from retiring boomers would "overwhelm" us. And here we sit.

[reportcard2000]

@reportcard2000 Correction: 77 million over 18 years is 10,000 retiring per day.

[brewmaster95060]

Date Debt Held by the Public Total Public Debt Outstanding

09/15/1994 Not Available Not Available 4,683,900,250,184.36

09/15/1995 Not Available Not Available 4,962,989,568,088.23

09/13/1996 Not Available Not Available 5,217,304,758,895.91

09/15/1997 Not Available Not Available 5,388,983,472,859.37

09/15/1998 Not Available Not Available 5,511,724,391,342.63

09/15/1999 Not Available Not Available 5,622,781,375,940.99

09/15/2000 Not Available Not Available 5,649,458,049,076.86

what surplus?

[Gracelandification]

Clinton didn't leave a surplus but a $1.4 trillion debt over eight years. He borrowed from Social Security, part of a $115 Trillion unfunded liability, to make it seem he left a surplus. See my about me for links.

[drathjon]

@Gracelandification Actually thats false, he did leave a surplus, even George W. Bush Spoke about wasting the surplus, Look at my comments below it so i can explain it to u because i don't want to retype everything.

[michealati]

your info doesnt change that fact that more people were working under Clinton than under Bush. So if your argument is that Clinton is responsible for wasting our money in Iraq, youre wrong.

[reportcard2000]

@michealati Not my arguement at all. I just point out how the surplus happened and how it was based on the massive investments in the tech boom that lead to increased high paying employment and ensuing tax revenue, how the hyped NASDAQ created huge capital gains taxes and how the post cold war allowed for cuts in Defense spending. This is before you consider the fact the baby-boom generation was in their peak income years and now they are retiring.

[michealati]

@reportcard2000 ok, fair enough. I still contend that Pres Obama cant be expected to fix 8 years of mis-management in 18 months-2 yrs.

[reportcard2000]

@michealati No Pres Obama cannot fix this. The temporary tech bubble that occurred from the time Netscape went public in 1995 until the NASDAQ fall in 2000 marks the only temporary interuption in the growing deficits that started back in the Nixon administration. Once we learn our current situation cannot be fixed with the election of one Party or the other, we will be one step closer to being able to improve our situation.

[leebee39]

why aint anyone bringing up what ross perot said would happen when he ran against clinton he said things would get better with free trade for a while i think it lasted longer than he thought then we borrowed to keep going now we are where we at now

[ryanhewett466]

Bill Clinton pushed back payday from Dec 31 to Jan 1 for the entire Government. That cut the year's spending without saving any money. It's called "Cook The Books", a tactic often used by mobsters.

[reportcard2000]

Oh the games that are played! Thank you for the information.

[SiloAAOlis]

Why? Bush was already elected by then. Why cook the books?

[ryanhewett466]

Silo, We're aware of Bush's financial irresponsibility, the media kept us informed on him. However during the Clinton era, CNN (Clinton News Network) and others refused to acknowledge even the lewinski scandal much less his insidious financial policies. So people like me are here to expose these issues to the light of day.

[SiloAAOlis]

Ummm, not an answer to my question but ok. You repubs have always been a little touchy.

[Clyaton]

@SiloAAOlis because it looks good for the liberals in general... Why do former politicians or current congressmen raise money for their party and not JUST for themselves? Same reason.. Clinton wanted to look good, he wanted his party to look good... What was touchy about his answer? Reasons for cooking the books is only opinion, but it is a fact that it happened.

[Attau]

Nice work.