Only a Republican Congress Has Run a Budget Surplus

Congressional Budget Office ^ | Jan 09, 2009 | avacado

[avacado]

"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!

[bolobaby]

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.

[avacado]

"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.

[SunkenCiv]

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.

[Senator John Blutarski]

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.

[Ramius]

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.