Clinton - The Master at work

[clk]

You are right that it has always been done that way. Just as social security has always been used to decrease the deficit. In the end the only thing that really matters is the debt. Did it go up? Yes!

Well, this debate started out over the surplus. You claimed there was never a surplus. I claim that using the following definition of the surplus, which is accepted by the government and by the major news organizations, Clinton in fact had a surplus:
The budget has a surplus if government revenues exceed government spending. There is a deficit if the opposite is true.
This is the definition that is commonly used. So there was no spin when Clinton claimed that he had a surplus. I don't see what the debt has to do with anything. Yes, you can argue that we don't have a surplus because they're not counting the debt, but he was using the accepted definition of surplus.

He didn't even do that. If the debt goes up it can't be said to be going down (paying off). No all Clinton did (assuming that he did anything is slow the rate of growth.

No. Clinton in fact started paying off the debt at one point. The yearly debt still went up. But here's how it could have happened: let's suppose at the beginning of the year, the debt was $6 trillion, and from January to June, the government added $500 billion to it, making the total debt $6.5 trillion. Now suppose we start paying it off in July, and by the end of the year, its down to $6.1 trillion. So yes, there was an increase that year. But it was going down for a time. That's why the debt clock started counting backwards in the latter part of 2000.
The debt was being payed off. The rate of growth did not slow down. The debt was being payed off.

 

[clk]

Sorry, but I thought the reason the debt's growth slowed was because we had a Republican Congress in 1994. Prior to that, I distictly recall Robert Reich saying "We don't want to pay off the national debt." No, that's not the whole quote, but if someone has it, I'd appreciate seeing it.

Ah, yes. When the debt goes up, it's because of Clinton. But when it goes down, it's because of the Republican Congress. The Republicans are true fiscal conservatives, alright. That's why they're not spending like crazy, as Clinton was doing. That's why Bush's 2004 budget is $2.4 trillion, as opposed to Clinton's $1.84 trillion 2001 budget. That's why Bush has a $500 billion deficit, and Clinton had a $200 billion surplus. Oh wait...

 

[Dorian Gray]

^^^^^^^^^

 

[clk]

For those who are intelectually honest (and I don't mean to suggest that you are not clk) we must admit a couple of facts.

1. The debt grew 1.4 trillion under Clinton (the debt is not calendar but is calculated from Sept to September. We need 8 years to determine how much growth there was) It would seem fair to calculate the debt for clinton from 9/1994 to 9/2001 since his policies would have had more of an impact for those years.
   
2. We only have two years of numbers for Bush. Under Bush the debt grew a stagering 920 billion.[/list=1]

1. 
   
   I wasn't trying to be intellectually dishonest. I was simply looking at the data epepke posted earlier. He said:
   

   Here's some math: http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm
   
   It doesn't show particular mismanagement during the Clinton years. For the eight years from 9/30/93 to 9/28/01, the public debt climbed about 1.3 trillion dollars. However, from 9/28/01 to the present, about 2.5 years, it's gone up about 1.3 trillion dollars. The four years preceding Clinton, it went up by about 1.1 trillion dollars.
   
   I've chosen later rather than earlier dates on the grounds that economic policies take some time to become implemented.
   
   Assuming that national debt is something that people are concerned about, this doesn't seem particularly well suited toward the notion that the Clinton years were ones of particular mismanagement, at least compared to his temporal neighbors. Even assuming that, say, 200 billion out of the 1.3 trillion the US had to borrow outright for the invasion of Iraq, the remaining 1.1 trillion is still an awfully big number for 2.5 years.
   
   Of course, this will convince nobody of anything, because people will always attribute good things to administrations that they already decided they like and bad things to administrations they already decided that they don't like. People who wouldn't bat an eyelash over claims that Bush is responsible for the "economic recovery" I keep reading about in the papers but don't actually see happening will gleefully claim that Clinton had nothing to do with the economic prosperity of the 1990s. And vice versa.
   (emphasis mine)

   
   So assuming epepke is right, the debt under Clinton went up by $1.3 trillion, but this took 8 years, while the debt has gone up the same amount in just the 3 years Bush has been in office. So I think my comment is justified.

 

[Chaos]

Ah, yes. When the debt goes up, it's because of Clinton. But when it goes down, it's because of the Republican Congress. The Republicans are true fiscal conservatives, alright. That's why they're not spending like crazy, as Clinton was doing. That's why Bush's 2004 budget is $2.4 trillion, as opposed to Clinton's $1.84 trillion 2001 budget. That's why Bush has a $500 billion deficit, and Clinton had a $200 billion surplus. Oh wait...

Doesn´t the president have some kind of veto on bills the congress passes?
If he has, then you CAN blame him for congress´ spending, since he could have prevented it.

 

[clk]

Doesn´t the president have some kind of veto on bills the congress passes?
If he has, then you CAN blame him for congress´ spending, since he could have prevented it.

All I'm saying is that if you're (not you, Chaos) going to blame Clinton for the debt rising, then you have to give him credit when he started to pay it off. That's it. I don't think it's fair to blame him for it rising, and then say that somebody else was responsible for it decreasing. There should be a level of consistency.

 

[RandFan]

Well, this debate started out over the surplus. You claimed there was never a surplus. I claim that using the following definition of the surplus, which is accepted by the government and by the major news organizations, Clinton in fact had a surplus:

That is just spin clk. So what if the government and news organizations accept that definition? If you want to see things with rose colored glasses that is fine.

There was no surplus.

The budget has a surplus if government revenues exceed government spending. There is a deficit if the opposite is true.

Agreed. Servicing of the debt is by definition spending.

This is the definition that is commonly used. So there was no spin when Clinton claimed that he had a surplus. I don't see what the debt has to do with anything. Yes, you can argue that we don't have a surplus because they're not counting the debt, but he was using the accepted definition of surplus.

So if you go in debt every year because you have to borrow to pay your mortgage you call that a surplus?

Come on, this is silly. Just because the media refuse to hold government accountable for their Bull ◊◊◊◊ is no reason we have to play that game.

No. Clinton in fact started paying off the debt at one point. The yearly debt still went up. But here's how it could have happened: let's suppose at the beginning of the year, the debt was $6 trillion, and from January to June, the government added $500 billion to it, making the total debt $6.5 trillion. Now suppose we start paying it off in July, and by the end of the year, its down to $6.1 trillion. So yes, there was an increase that year. But it was going down for a time. That's why the debt clock started counting backwards in the latter part of 2000.
The debt was being payed off. The rate of growth did not slow down. The debt was being payed off.

No it wasn't. You are torturing logic. If this makes you feel better then fine. Believe what ever you want to.

Oh, and one more thing. The federal government used surplus revenue from social security to achieve the faux surplus. So even by your logic there was no surplus.

 

[RandFan]

Doesn´t the president have some kind of veto on bills the congress passes?
If he has, then you CAN blame him for congress´ spending, since he could have prevented it.

Simplistic. Yes the president must accept responsibility but so does congress and the senate.

Politically the president has no choice but to accept responsibility. But we can be honest and admit that a politician must make compromises to get what he wants.

In the end I think President Bush failed when it comes to economics. But that is because of his social agenda that is more in line with Democrats.

 

[WildCat]

Doesn´t the president have some kind of veto on bills the congress passes?
If he has, then you CAN blame him for congress´ spending, since he could have prevented it.

Not really, he can sign the bill or reject it. But bills have so much stuff added on to them the president has to accept the stuff he supports as well as the stuff he doesn't.

This is why there should be a constitutional amendment giving the president line-item veto powers, as nearly every state governor has. Then blame could be placed on a president for the deficit.

 

[RandFan]

RandFan
For those who are intelectually honest (and I don't mean to suggest that you are not clk)

Originally posted by clk
I wasn't trying to be intellectually dishonest.

I thought I made it clear that I didn't think you were?

So assuming epepke is right, the debt under Clinton went up by $1.3 trillion, but this took 8 years

1.4 but what is 1 hundred Billion between friends?

while the debt has gone up the same amount in just the 3 years Bush has been in office. So I think my comment is justified.

2 years!!!!! and it went up by 920 billion.

Bush 9/30/2003 6,783,231,062,744
Bush 9/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597
Clinton 9/28/2001 5,807,463,412,200
Clinton 9/29/2000 5,674,178,209,887
Clinton 9/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615
Clinton 9/30/1998 5,526,193,008,898
Clinton 9/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397
Clinton 9/30/1996 5,224,810,939,136
Clinton 9/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709
Clinton 9/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013

Clinton took office Janury 1993 but it would be unfair to give him 93's numbers since it is not a full year and it is unlikely that his policies would affect the economy so soon. If we assume that, then we must give the first 9 months of Bush to Clinton.

So assuming epepke is right, the debt under Clinton went up by $1.3 trillion, but this took 8 years, while the debt has gone up the same amount in just the 3 years Bush has been in office. So I think my comment is justified.

Which comment?

 

[Roadtoad]

Ah, yes. When the debt goes up, it's because of Clinton. But when it goes down, it's because of the Republican Congress. The Republicans are true fiscal conservatives, alright. That's why they're not spending like crazy, as Clinton was doing. That's why Bush's 2004 budget is $2.4 trillion, as opposed to Clinton's $1.84 trillion 2001 budget. That's why Bush has a $500 billion deficit, and Clinton had a $200 billion surplus. Oh wait...

Unfortunately, we ARE spending like crazy. I don't like Bush, either, but while it isn't a hell of a lot, at least Bush is calling a deficit a deficit.

 

[RandFan]

Unfortunately, we ARE spending like crazy. I don't like Bush, either, but while it isn't a hell of a lot, at least Bush is calling a deficit a deficit.

And let's remember that 9/11 devestated the airline industry and hurt business significantly. It cost money to fight the Taliban (if you accept that Iraq was unnecassary then any spending can be chalked up as unnecassary.). Also the tech buble was artifician and stretched a false market to unprecedented levals which would result in a significant correction.

Again, politically Bush has no choice but to accept the reality of the deficit and national debt. He certainly has reason to be directly responsible but let's put it into perspective.

 

[epepke]

1.4 but what is 1 hundred Billion between friends?

Yes. That's what I get for trying to do subtraction in my head.

9/30/93 $4411 bil.
9/28/01 $5807 bil.

Difference = 1.396 tril, over 8 years, starting about 9 mos. after inauguration,
rounded to 1.4 tril with two significant figures.

For W. Bush,
9/28/01 $5807 bil
3/25/04 $7131 bil

Difference = 1.324 tril, over 2.5 years, also starting about 9 mos. after inauguration, rounded to 1.3 tril with two significant figures. I'm including the monthly data to try to get a more representative picture. I think this is justifiable, as the debt does not appear to fluctuate too wildly within a fiscal year.

Assuming $225 bil for the invasion of Iraq, which is greater than any estimate I've seen, and assuming that he outright borrowed the money for the war, which is probably not the case, both of which assumptions are liberal in the sense that they are intended to err in the direction of cutting the Bush administration as much slack as possible for the invasion of Iraq, that steal leaves 1.1 tril.

For Bush Sr,
9/30/93 $4411 bil.
9/30/89 $2857 bil.

Difference = $1554 bil over 4 years, also starting about 9 mos. after inauguration, rounded to 1.5 tril with two significant figures. Even if rounded to 1.4 or 1.3 tril on account of a war during that period as well, not so hot. (I don't have reliable figures for how much the gulf war cost, but it doesn't seem it could have cost the US nearly as much as the invasion and occupation.)

The Reagan years actually look pretty sweet by comparison. However, the further back you go in recent history, the more there was a Social Security surplus.

Clinton took office Janury 1993 but it would be unfair to give him 93's numbers since it is not a full year and it is unlikely that his policies would affect the economy so soon.

The 93 numbers aren't "given" to Clinton. These number are snapshots in time. They're assumed to be his starting point, that is, the level that he couldn't have been expected to affect. I'm assuming that the President can't significantly affect spending during the fiscal year in which he takes office, and furthermore that for the first nine months, the President is pretty much learning the ropes.

If we assume that, then we must give the first 9 months of Bush to Clinton.

Of course. The Clinton numbers end in 2001, 9 months after Bush took office. So Clinton ends with the 2001 snapshot, and Bush starts with the same 2001 snapshot.

Which also means that the total under the Bush administration would not be fully accountable using the same criteria until 9/30/2005.

 

[epepke]

The 93 numbers aren't "given" to Clinton. These number are snapshots in time. They're assumed to be his starting point, that is, the level that he couldn't have been expected to affect. I'm assuming that the President can't significantly affect spending during the fiscal year in which he takes office, and furthermore that for the first nine months, the President is pretty much learning the ropes.

Of course, it's worth pointing out that the $300 refund checks started to come out in autumn 2001. I remember this clearly, as I remember in the aftermath of 9/11 people suggesting that they donate their refund checks to reconstruction. As Bush usually gets the credit for them, it does seem possible that a President can have some effect in the first nine months.

 

[Roadtoad]

Sorry to bust everyone's bubble, but the refund was actually an advance on the refund you normally would have gotten as a result of your tax return. That's the way it worked out for my wife and me. It really wasn't much, when you think about it. It was a PR ploy.

 

[RandFan]

Sorry to bust everyone's bubble, but the refund was actually an advance on the refund you normally would have gotten as a result of your tax return. That's the way it worked out for my wife and me. It really wasn't much, when you think about it. It was a PR ploy.

And it is estimated that it will all be wiped out by high gas prices.

Hell, we invaded Iraq and didn't even get cheaper oil.

We got screwed and I say that with all sincerity. I know I sound all over the board sometimes but hang on. It's going to be a bumpy ride.

RandFan

 

[epepke]

Sorry to bust everyone's bubble, but the refund was actually an advance on the refund you normally would have gotten as a result of your tax return. That's the way it worked out for my wife and me. It really wasn't much, when you think about it. It was a PR ploy.

Yes, that's true.

However, the money did have to come from somewhere at the time when the checks were issued. Also, issues like interest had to be dealt with. So, it means at least that the President can draw on some funds even before the start of the next fiscal year.

Incidentally, I accidentally destroyed my $300 check and didn't replace it. Many months later, they sent me another one with a little interest on it.

In any event, we only have the choice between 9 months and 21 months after inauguration to start counting. 9 months seems a bit short, but 21 months seems too long. Either way, though, I think that the legacy of the Clinton years will turn out to be less than the W. Bush years.