Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Only a Republican Congress Has Run a Budget Surplus
Congressional Budget Office ^ | Jan 09, 2009 | avacado

Posted on 01/09/2009 8:42:27 AM PST by avacado

This is just an FYI post regarding budget deficits and surpluses. It's interesting to note that since 1968 only a Republican Congress has run a budget surplus and that was from 1998 - 2001. In fact, Clinton was running quite a healthy yearly deficit until Newt Gingrich showed up with the 'Contract with America.' In terms of public debt, that increased 5% during Clinton's terms and about 5.1% during Bush's terms.

The surplus/deficit is listed under the column 'Total' at the link.

(Excerpt) Read more at cbo.gov ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Education; History; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: budget; congress; deficit; gingrich; gop; newt; surplus
Just an FYI post for those who like raw numbers/data.
1 posted on 01/09/2009 8:42:27 AM PST by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: avacado

The public doesn’t care. They simply don’t care.


2 posted on 01/09/2009 8:48:35 AM PST by Poison Pill (Help, I've voted Republican and I can't get up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: avacado

The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on “public assistance.” Cicero - 55 BC


3 posted on 01/09/2009 8:50:16 AM PST by Jeffrey_D.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Poison Pill

They might care if GOP peeps were vocal and not lemmings


4 posted on 01/09/2009 8:50:32 AM PST by JaneNC (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JaneNC
"They might care if GOP peeps were vocal and not lemmings"

Exactly!!!

5 posted on 01/09/2009 8:51:16 AM PST by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: avacado

If you take major expenditures off budget and call it “discretionary spending” that doesn’t mean you are running a budget surplus. It just means you are fudging the numbers.

FACT: There has never been a year in recent history where our debt DID NOT increase. So that budget surplus marlarky is just smoke and mirrors. If you are increasing your debt, THERE IS NO SURPLUS.


6 posted on 01/09/2009 8:51:57 AM PST by bolobaby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: avacado
only a Republican Congress has run a budget surplus and that was from 1998 - 2001.

Then, after a Republican was sworn in as President in Jan. of '01, they dramatically reversed course. The result: the GOP was slaughtered in both the '06 midterms and '08 general. Lesson learned? Doubtful.

7 posted on 01/09/2009 8:53:19 AM PST by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bolobaby
"If you take major expenditures off budget and call it “discretionary spending” that doesn’t mean you are running a budget surplus. It just means you are fudging the numbers."

The monthly and yearly statements include on and off budget expenses. You can read an actual statement here for further review: http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/index.html

8 posted on 01/09/2009 8:55:16 AM PST by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: bolobaby
"FACT: There has never been a year in recent history where our debt DID NOT increase. So that budget surplus marlarky is just smoke and mirrors."

You are not understanding the budget statements. It is simply receipts minus outlays for on and off budget expenses. That's it. It's a number. You are adding in things that have nothing to do with the BUDGET statements. I am posting ONLY the budget results.

9 posted on 01/09/2009 8:57:25 AM PST by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo

The Republican Congress from 1995 - 2006 ran a total budget deficit of $1.6 trillion.

The Democratic Congress from 2007 - 2009 will have run a budget deficit of $1.7 trillion or more.


10 posted on 01/09/2009 8:59:26 AM PST by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: avacado

It was an oversight they’ve since corrected.


11 posted on 01/09/2009 9:00:08 AM PST by Grut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grut
"It was an oversight they’ve since corrected."

LOL!!! Good one!!!

12 posted on 01/09/2009 9:00:55 AM PST by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: avacado

No doubt.


13 posted on 01/09/2009 9:01:11 AM PST by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: avacado

Good finding!

I once told a moderate/liberal person that “that mean Gingrich slashed spending; and Clinton gave us a surplus.” I was repeating liberal talking points in such a way that their absurdity became apparent. It was almost a bluff on my part, because I did not have the facts. Now I do. Thanks!

What I gleaned from the first table is that the Republican Congress gave us a budget surplus from 1998 to 2001. Government revenues and outlays both grew in those years, but revenues were larger than outlays.


14 posted on 01/09/2009 9:06:40 AM PST by ChessExpert (The Dow was at 12,400 when Democrats took control of Congress. What is it today?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: avacado

Hmmm - actually, http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np shows a slight decrease in debt in the year 2000, but that’s it.

So I’d be willing to concede that there was a surplus in 2000, but none of the other years.


15 posted on 01/09/2009 9:10:38 AM PST by bolobaby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: bolobaby
"So I’d be willing to concede that there was a surplus in 2000, but none of the other years."

We are discussing apples and oranges. You are discussing the total public debt and I am simply discussing the BUDGET (surplus/deficit). The budget statements are simply the receipts minus the outlays per month for on and off budget expenses. A positive difference is surplus and a negative difference is a defficit.

Here is a monthly budget statement that you can look at: http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/index.html

16 posted on 01/09/2009 9:16:02 AM PST by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Poison Pill
The public doesn’t care. They simply don’t care.

It's not so much that they don't care as it is they don't know. Most people don't have time to spend on FR and rely on the MSM.

Fox is only conservative enough to be just to the right of the others but still slightly left of center.

While Fox has the majority cable viewership, the combined viewership of CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS dwarf Fox viewership.

17 posted on 01/09/2009 9:16:39 AM PST by fso301
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: avacado

avacado wrote:
The Republican Congress from 1995 - 2006 ran a total budget deficit of $1.6 trillion.

The Democratic Congress from 2007 - 2009 will have run a budget deficit of $1.7 trillion or more.

..... I recently ran a “back of the napkin” analysis on the growth of the federal debt since 1976. It has grown every year since then, but it is irrefutably demonstrable that its rate of growth has been dramatically higher over that time when the Democrats have controlled Congress.

As to the growth of the federal debt during the Clinton administration -

1992-1994 [Democratic Congress] approx $300 bn per year.

1994-1996 [Republican Congress] approx $200 bn per year.

1996-2000 [Republican Congress] approx $100 bn per year.


18 posted on 01/09/2009 9:18:57 AM PST by Senator John Blutarski (The progress of government: republic, democracy, technocracy, bureaucracy, plutocracy, kleptocracy,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: avacado

What you report on your budget is irrelevant to the financial FACTS. If I decide not to report my mortgage “on budget” and spend my money without taking that into consideration, I can run a “surplus” too. But if my “surplus” is less than the actual expense of my mortgage, I actually incur debt.

So, assuming no change in net assets (savings on hand) if you want to determine if the government is *really* operating at a surplus, watch the debt number.


19 posted on 01/09/2009 10:10:04 AM PST by bolobaby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Senator John Blutarski
Excellent work! It's amazing that once the numbers are looked at, it is the Democrats who spend big. We, Republicans, need a better PR system. We are taking a bum-rap!
20 posted on 01/09/2009 10:10:38 AM PST by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: bolobaby
"What you report on your budget is irrelevant to the financial FACTS."

Dude, give it a frikin' rest already! I did an 'FYI' on the frikin' budget ONLY!!! Quit acting like a spastic!

21 posted on 01/09/2009 10:12:49 AM PST by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: avacado

Wow - calm down.

Here’s the rub: libtards are always throwing around the “budget surplus” myth. “We had surpluses as far as the eye could see when Clinton left office” and “Clinton balanced the budget.”

What they always fail to take in to consideration is that

a) Clinton actually wanted to spend more and it took a government shutdown to get the budget compromise we actually ended up with

b) The presidency does not control the power of the purse - that is Congress. Your post correctly identifies the party responsible for any budget surplus that might have been recorded

and, most importantly,

c) Most of the so-called budget surplus didn’t actually exist. It was smoke and mirrors.

So, I’ve been pointing out these arguments whenever a post comes up that talks about Clinton’s “surplus.” It would be ridiculous to suddenly ignore the facts just because we are trying to make the Republicans look good.

They *do* look good, but the truth is that we can’t really hold the 2000 timeframe as a good example of budget-balancing. I’m interested in REAL budget balancing. One that results in an actual surplus that reduces, rather than adds to, the debt.

I’m not being spastic - I’m being sensible.

One of the major problems with the economy these days is all of the voodoo accounting that the government uses. If, at some point, our debt ever becomes worthless (because there is simply too much of it) then our currency will become worthless. If you want an example of what hyperinflation looks like, research Weimar Germany. It’s not pretty. Sadly, I fear the United States is on a collision course with something similar - unless we act fast and with REAL accounting.


22 posted on 01/09/2009 11:00:36 AM PST by bolobaby
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: bolobaby
"c) Most of the so-called budget surplus didn’t actually exist. It was smoke and mirrors."

I agree with your a) & b) but have never understood the above statement. In the strictest terms of the budget, i.e. receipts and the subsequent outlays of on and off budget items, there indeed were surpluses from 1998 - 2001. No smoke and mirrors to it.

Given that, the 'budget' deficit is not the national debt. The budget deficit is simply part of the national debt. Public debt is merely the cumulative sum of the 'budget' deficits.

So yes, the 'budget' deficit is of great interest to me even if it's irrelevant to you.

23 posted on 01/09/2009 11:10:51 AM PST by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; Berosus; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Fred Nerks; george76; ...
It's interesting to note that since 1968 only a Republican Congress has run a budget surplus and that was from 1998 - 2001. In fact, Clinton was running quite a healthy yearly deficit until Newt Gingrich showed up with the 'Contract with America.' In terms of public debt, that increased 5% during Clinton's terms and about 5.1% during Bush's terms.
Funny, as I recall, the Contract with America brought about the Pubbie groundswell in the 1994 election, and that congress was sworn in early in 1995.
24 posted on 01/09/2009 12:40:46 PM PST by SunkenCiv (First 2009 Profile update Tuesday, January 6, 2009___________https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: avacado

avacado wrote:
Excellent work! It’s amazing that once the numbers are looked at, it is the Democrats who spend big. We, Republicans, need a better PR system. We are taking a bum-rap!

..... IMHO, we most certainly do need better PR.


25 posted on 01/09/2009 4:06:43 PM PST by Senator John Blutarski (The progress of government: republic, democracy, technocracy, bureaucracy, plutocracy, kleptocracy,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: avacado

No, there were never surpluses in the late nineties. There were *projected* surpluses that might have happened in about 2004-06 if the tech bubble had never burst.


26 posted on 01/09/2009 4:19:31 PM PST by Ramius (Personally, I give us... one chance in three. More tea?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson