PDA

View Full Version : Flashback.....that debt thing.



Qtec
07-18-2011, 05:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Clinton: Pay debt by 2015June 28, 1999: 6:05 p.m. ET

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>President sees $1 trillion more in surplus; fiscal '99 $20B more in black</span>

NEW YORK (CNNfn) - President Clinton on Monday proposed paying off the national debt by 2015 after issuing a new budget outlook that <u>adds $1 trillion more to the overall budget surplus over the next 15 years.</u>
The president, who plans to unveil a major Medicare reform initiative on Tuesday, <span style='font-size: 17pt'>said he wants to use the surplus to add decades of solvency to the Social Security and Medicare systems, which are otherwise expected to go broke as the "Baby Boom" generation retires </span></div></div>

WOW!!!!!!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"If we maintain our fiscal discipline, using the surplus to pay down the debt and using the savings to strengthen Social Security, America will entirely pay off the national debt by 2015," Clinton told reporters on the White House lawn.
Clinton said the budget surplus for fiscal year 1999 would be a higher-than-expected $99 billion, compared to an earlier projection of $79 billion. For fiscal 2000, which begins Oct. 1, Clinton sees the budget surplus rising to $142.5 billion from an earlier projection of $117.3 billion.
"Improvements in the outlook since February have added $179 billion to the projected budget surplus over five years, half a trillion over 10 years, and a trillion over 15 years," Clinton said.
In February, the White House forecast a five-year surplus of about $700 million, a 10-year surplus of about $2.41 trillion and a 15-year surplus of about $4.47 trillion.
</div></div>

Those were the days.

Q........... nothing you will ever hear on Fox. (http://money.cnn.com/1999/06/28/economy/clinton/)

Soflasnapper
07-18-2011, 01:35 PM
Technically, that's all true.

In reality, it was never going to happen.

CBO had projected the last years of Clinton's terms to show sizable, if vastly improved, deficits, not surpluses. Basically in a $100 billion dollar range.

What was the difference? For one, maybe most important thing, a speculative unsound frenzy bubble in NASDAQ high-tech internet company stocks, which threw off a lot of capital gains before it crashed some 50% down (prior to the end of the term). If you remember those times, companies that hadn't earned a nickel yet, and had no business plans that showed them having profits any time soon, still got IPOd at essentially an infinite price per earnings ratio figure. Irrational exuberance, indeed.

That, and an astonishing sub-4% UE rate (reaching about 3.8% iirc), and a record level of workforce participation, further plumping up the rolls of the employed and tax receipts.

If all of that had kept going, the supposed projected surplus would still have required that the austerity hard caps that had been imposed back in the 'read my lips' tax increase of Bush the wiser be maintained indefinitely (all during the period of time it took for the projection to play out, 10 years).

It also assumed that despite there having been no recessions for a (near?-)record amount of time-- 8 years-- we'd still have had none for another 10 years.

CBO estimates are not inaccurate, per se, but they are constrained to assume various unrealistic things at times. All of the above were highly unrealistic, as economic policy wonks all knew to be the case.

Nonetheless, this supposed large accumulative surplus (projection, on phony assumptions) was used by W to claim we were really overpaying, that it was 'our' money and 'we' should keep it (from the government). Even when the recession hit (yes it waited until April of the first Bush term, but really, was in the works and actually overdue even in the Clinton economy), the identical return of the exact monies was then repurposed as the correct answer to stimulate the economy while in recession.

Which explains in gross arithmetical terms exactly what happened. Originally, W's plan was to return the 'surplus' to tax payers. What was that alleged total surplus? About $5 trillion, enough to pay off the total debt. Since that surplus was actually closer to zero under any normal assumptions, what then happened when W 'returned' 'the surplus' to the taxpayers? About a $5 trillion increase in the debt, doubling it, instead of paying if off.

That's not entirely accurate, but as a first approximation, more true than not.

Also of key importance was what must have been the Fed decision to 'solve' the fallout from the crash of the NASDAQ bubble's bursting by inflating other bubbles-- first the NYSE, and later, housing, each to 'solve' the last one's failure.

Gayle in MD
07-19-2011, 09:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Clinton: Pay debt by 2015June 28, 1999: 6:05 p.m. ET

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>President sees $1 trillion more in surplus; fiscal '99 $20B more in black</span>

NEW YORK (CNNfn) - President Clinton on Monday proposed paying off the national debt by 2015 after issuing a new budget outlook that <u>adds $1 trillion more to the overall budget surplus over the next 15 years.</u>
The president, who plans to unveil a major Medicare reform initiative on Tuesday, <span style='font-size: 17pt'>said he wants to use the surplus to add decades of solvency to the Social Security and Medicare systems, which are otherwise expected to go broke as the "Baby Boom" generation retires </span></div></div>

WOW!!!!!!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"If we maintain our fiscal discipline, using the surplus to pay down the debt and using the savings to strengthen Social Security, America will entirely pay off the national debt by 2015," Clinton told reporters on the White House lawn.
Clinton said the budget surplus for fiscal year 1999 would be a higher-than-expected $99 billion, compared to an earlier projection of $79 billion. For fiscal 2000, which begins Oct. 1, Clinton sees the budget surplus rising to $142.5 billion from an earlier projection of $117.3 billion.
"Improvements in the outlook since February have added $179 billion to the projected budget surplus over five years, half a trillion over 10 years, and a trillion over 15 years," Clinton said.
In February, the White House forecast a five-year surplus of about $700 million, a 10-year surplus of about $2.41 trillion and a 15-year surplus of about $4.47 trillion.
</div></div>

Those were the days.

Q........... nothing you will ever hear on Fox. (http://money.cnn.com/1999/06/28/economy/clinton/)

</div></div>

Can you imagine the yelping, huffing and puffing we would have been hearing from the right if the Clinton Administration had been spending and borrowing and failing to pay for any of it for eight years like Bush and the Blank check Repiglicans!!!!

IIARIOK!

Yep, we were far, far better off after eight years of Clinton, than we were after eight years of Bush et al, that's for sure!!

Bush doubled our deficits. Clinton didn't do that! Obama hasn't done that either.

G.

LWW
07-19-2011, 03:48 PM
Have any of y'all ever figured out how the Clinton regime:

1 - Balanced the budget.

2 - Ran a surplus.

3 - Paid down part of the debt.

4 - Increased the national debt all 8 years.

Soflasnapper
07-20-2011, 04:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Have any of y'all ever figured out how the Clinton regime:

1 - Balanced the budget.

2 - Ran a surplus.

3 - Paid down part of the debt.

4 - Increased the national debt all 8 years. </div></div>

I've explained it at least twice. It has to do with double entry bookkeeping, and how the trust funds are paid/not paid their interest.

LWW
07-20-2011, 04:25 PM
So he paid down the debt by not paying down the debt and he increased the debt by not increasing the debt?

You are smarter than that, why do you cling to such insane positions?