superchunk said:
Timmah! said:
The Ghost of RubangB said:
I'm voting for Barack Obama because that man is a tax and spend liberal. It's been a while since we had one of those. I like them. Somebody fight me.
 |
1. Bill Clinton had a PROJECTED surplus.
Fiscal
Year |
Year
Ending |
National Debt |
Deficit |
| FY1993 |
09/30/1993 |
$4.411488 trillion |
|
| FY1994 |
09/30/1994 |
$4.692749 trillion |
$281.26 billion |
| FY1995 |
09/29/1995 |
$4.973982 trillion |
$281.23 billion |
| FY1996 |
09/30/1996 |
$5.224810 trillion |
$250.83 billion |
| FY1997 |
09/30/1997 |
$5.413146 trillion |
$188.34 billion |
| FY1998 |
09/30/1998 |
$5.526193 trillion |
$113.05 billion |
| FY1999 |
09/30/1999 |
$5.656270 trillion |
$130.08 billion |
| FY2000 |
09/29/2000 |
$5.674178 trillion |
$17.91 billion |
| FY2001 |
09/28/2001 |
$5.807463 trillion |
$133.29 billion |
According to the US Treasury, there was NEVER a real surplus under Clinton, and the national debt increased every year he was in office. It was a manufactured future surplus made by extrapolating a line graph and not taking into account all variables. I'm not saying Bush has a better record by any means, he clearly does not, I'm just saying that the 'Surplus' thing is a bunch of bull.
This surplus did not take into account the huge economic downturn & tax revenue decrease resulting directly from the 9/11 attacks and the financial strain of the resulting wars in Afghanistan (Justified, I believe), and Iraq (debatable).
2. The problem with this is, these guys weren't truly 'Fiscally Conservative', because they didn't cut spending to reflect their tax cuts. My biggest problem with Bush has been that he cut taxes, but increased spending, this is just STUPID. A TRUE fiscal conservative would cut spending to balance the budget if he cut taxes, and would only cut taxes AFTER spending had been cut. Calling Bush a "Fiscal Conservative" is another major problem with the cartoon. I have HUGE problems with his lack of fiscal responsibility in his years in the white house.
|
Did you even look at your own table. Sure, it *technically* never made it to the black, however, it was headed directly that way. Bush reversed it and made and almost made a larger deficit than the two Republicans Presidents before him.
|
If you knew how government budgets & policies actually work, you'd know that the 2001 budget and policies (where you say things 'turned around' for the worse) were all Clinton, and it had already turned around before Bush's policies took effect. This showed that the extrapolation by Billy was out of touch with reality, because it assumed that the economy would continue exactly as it had been going. Because the economy is cyclical in nature, this is impossible. No president can cause a recession just months into his term, his budget hadn't gone into effect yet (his first fiscal year started Oct 1, 2001, my table ends at the end of Clinton's last fiscal year budget, 9/28/2001), new policies had not been implemented yet, etc. When a new president takes office, things are pretty much on cruise control from the last guy for a while.
I stand by what I said. This table clearly shows that the last fiscal year of Clinton's budget (FY ending 9/28/2001) did not in any way line up with the projected, mythical surplus. This would have happened whether a democrat or republican were in the white house, because, like I said, all the policies and budget in effect at the beginning of the downturn were carryover from Clinton. Check the facts, please.
EDIT: I agree 100% that Bush was NOT good for the budget! He was a tax cut & spend republican, and I disagree with almost every decision he made regarding spending. My point is only that this mythical surplus never really existed, and may not have no matter who took office.
