NYT: Here Comes 'TAXMAGEDDON'

[gwb-trading]

Quote from 377OHMS:

My recollection is that Clinton completely eliminated the federal deficit at one point. Is my memory accurate regarding that?

The only reason that Clinton "eliminated" yearly deficits is because he raided the social security trust fund and other sources to "balance" his budget.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from gwb-trading:

The only reason that Clinton "eliminated" yearly deficits is because he raided the social security trust fund and other sources to "balance" his budget.

That slimy SOB.

 

[AK Forty Seven]

Quote from Lucrum:

That slimy SOB.

1.All Presidents use social security surpluses towards the current budget

2.I don't know if its true are not but many sources I read such as the one from fact check that I posted above says the the budget would have still been balanced even if SS wasn't used




Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.

 

[JamesL]

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

 

[gwb-trading]

Quote from JamesL:

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

This is excellent and complete detailed information. Good stuff.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from AK Forty Seven:

1.All Presidents use social security surpluses towards the current budget

Like I said "That slimy SOB"

 

[rew]

Quote from AK Forty Seven:

From fact check




The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton


Posted on February 3, 2008 , Updated on February 11, 2008


Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.




FULL ANSWER

This chart, based on historical figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, shows the total deficit or surplus for each fiscal year from 1990 through 2006. Keep in mind that fiscal years begin Oct. 1, so the first year that can be counted as a Clinton year is fiscal 1994. The appropriations bills for fiscal years 1990 through 1993 were signed by Bill Clinton’s predecessor, George H.W. Bush. Fiscal 2002 is the first for which President George W. Bush signed the appropriations bills, and the first to show the effect of his tax cuts.



The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton’s fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries.

Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.



Other readers have noted a USA Today story stating that, under an alternative type of accounting, the final four years of the Clinton administration taken together would have shown a deficit. This is based on an annual document called the "Financial Report of the U.S. Government," which reports what the governments books would look like if kept on an accrual basis like those of most corporations, rather than the cash basis that the government has always used. The principal difference is that under accrual accounting the government would book immediately the costs of promises made to pay future benefits to government workers and Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries. But even under accrual accounting, the annual reports showed surpluses of $69.2 billion in fiscal 1998, $76.9 billion in fiscal 1999, and $46 billion for fiscal year 2000. So even if the government had been using that form of accounting the deficit would have been erased for those three years.

Which should I believe -- the Enron accounting of the CBO or the simple statements of our outstanding debt put out by the U.S. Department of the Treasury? If we had balanced budgets then why did we have to keep borrowing more money every year? If I had debt of $100,000 last year and debt of $120,000 this year would you say that I had balanced my budget?