Is the Clinton Surplus a Myth?

[giblets]

This pertains to all administrations and congresses, not just the Clinton years, in which, by the way, what little spending austerity that existed then was mainly forced by republicans.

When the Republican Congress gained a Republican President the austerity suddenly vanished. How mysterious.

[Jaguar]

When the Republican Congress gained a Republican President the austerity suddenly vanished. How mysterious.

I half expected this to be another post of yours claiming that I'm condescending to leftists.

[Asher]

This man says the official accounting is wrong. You respond "but it's how the accounting is done officially." That doesn't prove him wrong. He knows he's at odds with the official accounting. That's the entire point of the article.

Here's what proves him right, and the official accounting wrong.

You do not understand what I'm saying.

I don't care that you nor him are at odds with the accounting. Every business accounts differently, despite GAAP. Governments are no different.

The issue with the article is it's a partisan article for a non-partisan issue. Which is why he's not completely correct and why he's a tool.

[Dinner]

The right wing is completely correct about this - or, at a minimum, the left must necessarily be wrong, because it claims two mutually exclusive things about the budget.

Basically the argument has been "if the rules for government accounting were different then..." but to bad, so sad, the rules are what they are and they are not different. The surplus existed. Deal with it.

[Jaguar]

Every business accounts differently, despite GAAP. Governments are no different.

This doesn't entitle you to count bonds as an asset without counting them as a corresponding liability for someone else. Reduced to absurdity, you could issue an arbitrarily large number of bonds directly to social security, and claim to have covered the social security trust fund for centuries without increasing the debt at all.

The issue with the article is it's a partisan article for a non-partisan issue.

I thought the issue was that he was "misunderstanding" something, or that he had a doofus-looking animated .gif. What was he "misunderstanding?" And if he isn't misunderstanding anything, why does it matter that he's partisan?

[Asher]

This doesn't entitle you to count bonds as an asset without counting them as a corresponding liability for someone else. Reduced to absurdity, you could issue an arbitrarily large number of bonds directly to social security, and claim to have covered the social security trust fund for centuries without increasing the debt at all.

I'm sure I don't need to tell you about the absurdity of some corporate accounting. I'm not arguing if it's right or wrong, because I don't care on many levels:
1) It's a US government problem, and your government has far bigger fish to fry than navel-gazing and whining about what's a surplus and what isn't
2) The topic is utterly boring to anyone with a shred of humanity
3) Who the **** cares?
4) His animated GIF is so hideous I cannot stomach the article

I thought the issue was that he was "misunderstanding" something, or that he had a doofus-looking animated .gif. What was he "misunderstanding?" And if he isn't misunderstanding anything, why does it matter that he's partisan?

As my post clearly stated, I read for only 30 seconds before I quit reading. On the surface, he seemed like a hyper-partisan douchebag who didn't understand the standards of accounting the US government uses and its definitions. It turns out he's just a hyper-partisan douchebag who does understand the standards of accounting the US government uses and its definitions, but chooses to make it a partisan article because he is a hyper-partisan douchebag with an awful animated GIF.

[Jaguar]

Basically the argument has been "if the rules for government accounting were different then..." but to bad, so sad, the rules are what they are and they are not different. The surplus existed. Deal with it.

It's not about whether the rules were different. It is about what happened in reality.

[Jaguar]

I'm sure I don't need to tell you about the absurdity of some corporate accounting. I'm not arguing if it's right or wrong, because I don't care on many levels:
1) It's a US government problem, and your government has far bigger fish to fry than navel-gazing and whining about what's a surplus and what isn't
2) The topic is utterly boring to anyone with a shred of humanity
3) Who the **** cares?
4) His animated GIF is so hideous I cannot stomach the article


As my post clearly stated, I read for only 30 seconds before I quit reading. On the surface, he seemed like a hyper-partisan douchebag who didn't understand the standards of accounting the US government uses and its definitions. It turns out he's just a hyper-partisan douchebag who does understand the standards of accounting the US government uses and its definitions, but chooses to make it a partisan article because he is a hyper-partisan douchebag with an awful animated GIF.

[Asher]

It's not about whether the rules were different. It is about what happened in reality.

Nope. It's about trying to make democrats look bad for a systemic problem with the US government.

[DaShi]

Why would Common Sense American Conservatism do that?

It's not like he's comparing Facebook to Obama or something absurd like that. He's talking common sense. And common sense is always right.

[MrFun]

How about another myth? That Obama is a BIG, HUGE spender.

[OzzyKP]

Nope. It's about trying to make democrats look bad for a systemic problem with the US government.

I don't care about making anyone look bad. People say over and over again how Clinton had a massive surplus. If that isn't true, then that is new information for me and thus something interesting to look into. I was thinking someone here would debunk that, but no one has. Instead people are just *****ing and moaning about the fact that the issue was even brought up. If someone has an axe to grind here it is clearly you.

[The Mad Monk]

How about another myth? That Obama is a BIG, HUGE spender.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]172100[/ATTACH]

I guess you didn't get the memo.

[giblets]

That's nominal growth, isn't it? What would the chart look like if you used real growth in spending and gave credit where credit is due for the 2009 fiscal year?

[giblets]

If prices went up around 50% under Carter, then he really only increased spending at a rate of ~2.6% a year. And Reagan at only ~2.7% a year. That graphic is very manipulative.