President Clinton left America in a State of Wealth, Peaceful, Stable, and a yearly SURPLUS

[opihimoimoi]

to pay off the National Debt....

Bush is leaving back a SLEW of Problems...on a Mega Scale,,,From War to a collapsed Economy, etc etc...What a difference of the 2 men. The National Debt is now 10.5 Trillion...up from $6 Trillion 8 years ago....

Pathetic.

Bushies stewardship has been Losership

[riqster]

1. True!

A lot of people have been bashing Bubba, but overall he did a damned fine job, which Bush promptly undid so as to serve the Core Reep constituency at the expense of the nation (and world) overall.

[eridani]

2. But the people at the bottom didn't get much of it

And then there was the skyrocketing prison population.

[w4rma]

5. His 'free' trade agreements destroyed many industries that had been in America since the industrial

age.

[wyldwolf]

8. like what?

[w4rma]

12. If only you worked as hard for Main street as you spin for Wall street, wyldwolf.

Even though I think you already know exactly which industries were decimated during the Clinton years, wyldwolf, I'll come back with some hard data later, if someone hasn't beaten me to it by then.

[wyldwolf]

15. see, I ask for examples and a connection and you offer up insults.

:shrug:

[w4rma]

17. I repeat, "I'll come back with some hard data later, if someone hasn't beaten me to it by then."

Even though I think you already know exactly which industries were decimated during the Clinton years, wyldwolf, I'll come back with some hard data later, if someone hasn't beaten me to it by then.

If only you worked as hard for Main street as you spin for Wall street, wyldwolf.

[wyldwolf]

18. OK, but make sure you also provide the connection to Clinton policies

After all, these industries had been declining since the late 70s... but don't let the facts get in your way.

[w4rma]

19. "these industries had been declining ..." Which industries would those be, wyldwolf? (nt)

[wyldwolf]

21. Instead of coming back with hard data, you came back with a diversion

[w4rma]

25. It sounds to me like you already know which industries I am going to talk about, as I expected.

I just wanted to see which ones you think have been on the decline.

[wyldwolf]

28. sounds to me you're still avoiding the question

[w4rma]

61. respond to #26. NYC_SKP is accurate enough for now. (nt)

[wyldwolf]

68. as inaccurate as it is, it still doesn't prove your point

No case had been made by him/her or you the Clinton policies did that.

[w4rma]

73. What did Clinton do to make these industries more competitive?

It is easily shown that his 'free' trade agreements made these industries less competitive, through lower wages elsewhere, less regulation elsewhere and lax enforcement elsewhere.

[wyldwolf]

93. Why divert from the topic?

t is easily shown that his 'free' trade agreements made these industries less competitive

Then show it. :shrug:

[w4rma]

98. This is the topic. The topic is how Clinton's policies decimated American industries.

A lack of policy is also a policy. One can choose to allow industries to die out by not helping them.

[wyldwolf]

100. which you haven't proven beyond the standard "because I said so."

[NYC_SKP]

26. Textiles, home appliances, light and heavy tools and machinery...

Surely you know these.

In fairness, may were on their way toward decline, but instead of finding ways to help make these industries more competitive somebody in the whitehouse greased the skids.

[wyldwolf]

6. the people at the bottom got tons of it

[eridani]

9. Incomes for the bottom 20% barely budged, and then only by 1998

The huge GI-Bill-in-reverse known as our prison system greatly expanded as well. Instead of increasing the general population skill base, we were decreasing it.

Official "poverty rates" have exactly jackshit to do with actual poverty. Taking the price of a basic food basket and multiplying by three is a totally asinine approach to measuring poverty. You'd think that people would know that rent and utilities are the big budget busters for urban poor, at least until this year.

[wyldwolf]

14. the bottom 20% is a BIG amount of people, but your post is still wrong

Under Clinton policies 15 million additional working families received additional tax relief because of the President's expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit. In 1999, the EITC lifted 4.1 million people out of poverty - nearly double the number lifted out of poverty by the EITC in 1993.

The Family and Medical Leave Act allows workers to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for seriously ill family members, new born or adoptive children, or their own serious health problems without fear of losing their jobs.

Fastest and Longest Real Wage Growth in Over Three Decades -- faster than the rate of inflation.

Lowest Poverty Rate in Two Decades. The poverty rate has fallen from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 12.7 percent in 1998. That's the lowest poverty rate since 1979 and the largest five-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years (1965-1970). The African-American poverty rate has dropped from 33.1 percent in 1993 to 26.1 percent in 1998 -- the lowest level ever recorded and the largest five-year drop in African-American poverty in more than a quarter century (1967-1972). The poverty rate for Hispanics is at the lowest level since 1979, and dropped to 25.6 percent in 1998.

Largest Five-Year Drop in Child Poverty Rate Since the ‘60s. Under President Clinton and Vice President Gore, child poverty has declined from 22.7 percent in 1993 to 18.9 percent in 1998 -- the biggest five-year drop in nearly 30 years. The poverty rate for African-American children has fallen from 46.1 percent in 1993 to 36.7 percent in 1998 -- a level that is still too high, but is the lowest level in 20 years and the biggest five-year drop on record. The rate also fell for Hispanic children, from 36.8 percent to 34.4 percent - and is now 6.5 percentage points lower than it was in 1993.

[eridani]

23. The EITC was to a large extent cancelled out by welfare "reform"

Poverty rates are meaningless because how they are calculated has nothing to do with the real world. Expansions are useless if they don't benefit people at the bottom. If all that stuff is supposed to be "prosperity," how come an increase homelessness and food banks? Why would normal people give a flying fuck that a few people benefitted from the tech bubble? It's all been downhill for the bottom half since 1973, the peak postwar year for median income. That Clinton slowed down the slide is certainly better than not having done that, but it isn't anything to be ecstatic about either.

1. Homelessness

http://www.nhlp.org/html/hlb/299/299conference.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/9691/homelessnesshowmany.html

2. Food insecurity and use of food banks

http://www.seedsofchange.org/hunger_malnutrition.htm

Is the situation in the U.S. getting better or worse? "The U.S. Government just recently began gathering data on hunger and food insecurity. But the dramatic growth of private charitable feeding efforts since the late 1970s suggests growing hunger. . . . There were few in 1980, but an estimated 150 thousand private feeding agencies are . . . passing out food to hungry Americans ." (Beckman & Simon., p. 27) ". . . Catholic Charities, Lutheran Services of America, the Salvation Army and other assistance networks all reported sharp increases in requests for emergency food in the late 1990s . Catholic Charities reported a 26 percent increase between June 1997 and April 1998. The U.S. Conference of Mayors reported a 14 percent increase in requests for emergency assistance in 1998, and said that 21 percent of all requests went unmet." (Id., p. 29)


3. Prison population (continuing trend started by Reagan)

http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/law15.htm

As of June 1999, prisons and jails held 1,860,520 people, according to a Bureau of Justice Statistics report. That's an increase of more than a million people since 1985, when the figure was less 800,000.


4. Income disparity

http://pnews.org/ArT/YuR/DiS.shtml

During the years of the Clinton administration, the rich became richer at much faster rate than during Reagan's regime. In Clinton's first term, from 1993 to 1996, the average income of the richest five percent of households rose from $173,784 to $201,220. 46 Even during the Reagan years, the plunderers had not seen their income rise as fast. And in 1997 - the first year of Clinton's second term - it leapt to $215,436. All the statistics reveal that since Clinton has resided in the White House, the rich have experienced a financial bonanza unprecedented in modern times.


As economist Paul Krugman noted, "These widening disparities are often attributed to the increasing importance of education. But while it's true that, on average, workers with college education have done better than those without, the bulk of the divergence has been among those with similar levels of education. High-school teachers have not done as badly as janitors but they have fallen dramatically behind corporate CEOs, even though they have about the same amount of education." Insofar as corporate chief executives pay themselves and thus are able to collectively drive up the level of their own wages, thereby establishing the appearance of a "market-driven" norm, that should hardly be surprising.

[wyldwolf]

27. ahem

Poverty rates are meaningless because how they are calculated has nothing to do with the real world.

Tell that to the people who's income rose above the poverty level in the 90s. I'm sure they'll enjoy knowing their increase prosperity isn't "real world."

Expansions are useless if they don't benefit people at the bottom.

On the contrary. People in poverty ARE at the bottom. But I was lower middle class and the expansion was quite useful to me.

Why would normal people give a flying fuck that a few people benefitted from the tech bubble?

Clinton's economic plan in 1993 called for raising taxes on the wealthiest. The economy was humming several years before the tech bubble. He undid "Reaganomics" and disproved the trickle-down theory. By empowering the middle and lower classes by shifting more of the tax burden to the rich.

While the right wing and sadly now the left wing only focuses on the tech bubble in the stock market (which actually happened after the economy had already starting humming along), they neglect the breadth of Clinton's economic accomplishments. Political hubris is the most obvious reason for this denial. Clinton proved many important points. The two most obvious are you can balance the budget and grow the economy.

The tech bubble didn't kick into high gear until 1998 when interest rates decreased allowing start up capital amounts to increase. By then, millions of new jobs had already been created.

It's all been downhill for the bottom half since 1973.

Thank god Bill Clinton gave us some hope in the 1990s.

homelessness

President Clinton and Vice President Gore have been committed to helping homeless Americans become more self-sufficient. HUD alone has invested nearly $5 billion in programs to help homeless people since 1993 -- more than three times the investment of the previous Administration. The Continuum of Care approach has helped more than 300,000 homeless people get housing and jobs

Food insecurity and use of food banks

As your source said, "the dramatic growth of private charitable feeding efforts since the late 1970s suggests growing hunger. . ." Well, sounds like some poor planning in the 70s and 80s caused a spike in the late 90s. :shrug:

Prison population (continuing trend started by Reagan)

The president has nada to do with local and state law enforcement, trial, and sentencing. But good thing the Biden plan to put more cops on the streets kicked in because the 90s saw lower crime rates.

Income disparity - During the years of the Clinton administration, the rich became richer at much faster rate than during Reagan's regime.

Umm... so? Every economic class as a whole became better off. :shrug: That's why the 90s were known as an era of prosperity.

[eridani]

33. Incomes did not keep up with expenses in the 90s

"Poverty level" is an utterly meaningless analysis of actual expenses in the real world. If your income goes up, but your expenses go up more, that's a net loss.

Whatever Clinton tried to do about homelessness failed, as it increased in the 90s. If you read the food bank article, you will notice that utilization continued to increase in the 90s. Slowing the downhill slide is a good thing, but not adequate.

The president has everything to do with promoting the War on Some Drugs, and therefore with increasing prison populations. Local cops didn't decide that we needed such a thing as a "Drug Czar."

[wyldwolf]

34. the stats show they did

[eridani]

36. Not on the planet I live on

On my planet, real incomes for working class people peaked in 1973.

[wyldwolf]

37. your planet is Bizarro world... incomes rose faster than the rate of inflation

In the 1990s, incomes rose faster than the rate of inflation

[eridani]

41. Infllation is another bullshit indicator which ignores food, energy, rent and utilities

Cheaper computers are nice, but about 1/3 of the population has almost no discretionary income.

[wyldwolf]

44. I see a trend of yours: If it contradicts you, it's a "bullshit indicator."

poverty rate and inflation being two examples.

[eridani]

63. Those are bullshit indicators.

What does a "poverty rate" calculated by pricing a bare bones food budget and multiplying by three have to do with anybody's real life? What does "inflation" that leaves out food, energy, rent and untilities have to do with anybody's real life? Explain, please.

[wyldwolf]

65. suuuuure they are. wink wink

[eridani]

70. You still refuse to explain what they have to do with real life

"Inflation" that takes no account of food, energy, rent and utilitis has absolutely zero to do with my life.

[wyldwolf]

71. now you're not only calling anything inconvenient to your beliefs "bullshit," you now...

... try to turn it around and say I HAVE TO prove leading economic indicators have relevance. :rofl:

[eridani]

77. They aren't relevant to real people's lives.

Why not try rationality? Explain what "inflation" that does not take into account energy, food, rent and utilities has to do with anybody's life.

[wyldwolf]

84. they are to people in poverty. Hey, I guess LBJ's war on poverty was bullshit according to you

[eridani]

95. There is real world poverty, and then there is statistical "poverty"

Only the former matters. LBJ's actual success is demonstrated by the high point of the earning power of American workers, which occured in 1973. By 1998 the conservative damage had been slowed down to the point of some actual gains in average earnings, but that still came nowhere near their peak in 1973.

[wyldwolf]

96. So statistical poverty are those that did better under Clinton - the ones that weren't real. Got it

Clinton's actual success was incomes rising faster than inflation and the lowest poverty rate in a generation.

[eridani]

114. You aren't doing better if your real expenses outpace your income growth

Real espenses are rent (half of income or more for lower income urban people), food, energy and utilities. Those things are not counted in calculating the inflation rate. Official inflation rates track that part of the economy that is meaningless to people with little discretionary income.

Poverty = minimum food basket times three = meaningless to what people's actual living costs are.

[wyldwolf]

122. except they weren't

[eridani]

123. They were for most people I know

People riding the tech bubble probably have different experiences.

[Jamastiene]

80. ...

:yourock:

[wyldwolf]

85. ..and it's absolutely jaw dropping watching eridani declare poverty and inflation is bullshit...

... just to try to dis Bill Clinton.

[quickesst]

89. Construction worker here....

...who has suffered at least one or two layoffs a year since 2000. Compare that with one two-week layoff due to a delay in construction start for one job during the entire nineties. We didn't benefit? What horse-shit. You can't argue logically with someone stricken with malaria. The same goes for Clinton fever. I'd suggest saving your breath for something, or someone more worthwhile. Mind you, it is only a friendly suggestion. Thanks.
quickesst

[wyldwolf]

94. I couldn't agree with you more

[JVS]

3. This is true, but things were already coming unraveled in 2000.

The surplus would have shrunk significantly or perhaps even turned into a slight deficit as the economy slowed if his policies had continued. Of course, we'd still be in much better shape than now because there wouldn't have been the balooning deficits that Bush is so fond of.

[opihimoimoi]

46. Had Gore been President...we woulda been spared a load of HURT

and recieved a load of good shit....

Bush has ruined many lives...he is a very bad Leader

[JVS]

47. Yes, but the tech bubble had still burst.

We probably would have had lackluster economic performance rather than terrible economic performance.

[opihimoimoi]

51. Techie world woulda gone Wild with growth and profits...much more than it did under Bushie Boy

[JVS]

54. What makes you say that? In 2000 tech was already crashing.

Unless Bill Clinton had a magical way to make really fucked up business models start providing yields, tech was doomed to decline from its bubble.

By Jan 2001 (still during Clinton's administration) it had shed about half of its peak value.
http://www.amateur-investor.net/Nasdaq_Chart_History.htm

[opihimoimoi]

67. There are other Bubbles besides the Techie One...which I am wrong about

it being on the rise...when according to your data, it was cleasrly on the decline

However, the State of the Economy was still relatively strong and as the Nat Debt declined investment capital could grow. The Dow, minus 9/11 and wars, would be in the neighborhood of 15,000+...thats just a guess.

[Grateful for Hope]

91. I don't think so

Outsourcing had already become the rage, and, the corporations were not going to stop it regardless of who was in office.

As an example, I worked for a consulting company in 1998 as a programmer. The company threw a Christmas party for it's consultants that Christmas season. I had never socialized with my fellow contractors up to that point. I was shocked to see that, out of about 150 contractors, there were three of us who were not from India. Three. And, the three of us had similar skills (statistical skills and experience with statistical software) which I think were unusual enough at that time to have spared us being replaced like so many other American IT workers had been.

It was like "this has been happening right under our noses, and I didn't even notice". It was a definite eye-opener -- and, very, very frightening.

[opihimoimoi]

102. Had Bush bothered to think...he woulda invested the surplus more wisely than giving it awayt

to rich friends/contacts/allies...

He used our liquid energy in a very foolish manner...thats only on the fiscal side of things...

He coulda done what Obama is embarking on...our DOW woulda been 16000 by now....15000 minimum...thats my gut feeling..

[Festivito]

55. NOPE, that's just anti-Dem hype. That was not an "unraveling".

During March of 2000, before election time, good investors hedge their bets. They prepare for the uncertainty of American elections. Some make bets that one candidate will win.

YES, there was an internet Ponzi scheme THAT COST TAXPAYERS NOTHING. In case one doesn't think, try to understand that we employ FBI, police and judges full time in this country because such things do happen.

It was in the last year, in the last part of the year that Clinton's surplus shown, DESPITE THE MARCH CHURNING.

Republicans started immediately borrowing money and turned the first quarter that is shared by Clinton and the new Bush into a deficit. That's 20 days of Clinton, 70 days of Bush and the problem borrowing occurred DURING THE LATER BUSH TIME.

Then Bush admin tortured "recession" rules to include non-consecutive periods and played with the accounting and played with math rounding to get a barely negative growth they hid between to stellar periods, and with that negative rounded accounting number combined with the negative of their own lousy time in office they announced a recession and called it Clinton's.

That March change did not unravel our economy, Bush unraveled it and then like a little punk, pointed at Clinton and shot off his smirky little mouth.

[wyldwolf]

58. shhh! None of that debunking allowed on DU

We wouldn't want to bury another rightwing/leftwing Clinton myth.

[JVS]

60. When a bubble bursts, although there need not be a bailout, tax revenue falls.

This has a bearing on the size of a surplus or deficit.

[Festivito]

87. Despite the bubble pop, Clinton managed a surplus.

His economy was that good, that his economy could handle a segment run amok.

[Grateful for Hope]

90. Yes, things were already coming unraveled -- at least at the end

The Fed stepped in in the Fall before the election and lowered the interest rate for the first time in a series of similar actions.

The economy was starting to tank prior to the election.

But, as you say, we would not be in such dire straits if it had not been for Bush's last eight years.

[zbdent]

4. and that surplus was from a CONSERVATIVE estimate ...

[wyldwolf]

7. right wing inspired disagreements forthcoming... duck and cover

[dmallind]

10. Yep ...and a bunch of DUers HATE him for it. Go figure. NT

[eridani]

11. The hate is for the ongoing destruction of our industrial base, deregulation

(repeal of Glass-Steagall is directly related to our current financial meltdown), welfare "reform" leading to incrases in homelessness and food bank usage, and the completely whacked-out escalation of the War on Some Drugs.

[wyldwolf]

16. ha ha... nope

You can parrot what you've heard other say, but you're having difficulty providing proof.

[eridani]

20. I have to prove that Clinton pushed financial deregulation?

Sort of like proving that water is wet, correct?

[wyldwolf]

22. You don't have to prove anything

You can just keep saying what you're saying. :shrug:

[eridani]

24. So you're enjoying the repeal of Glass-Steagall and our current meltdown? n/t

[wyldwolf]

29. Clinton didn't repeal Glass-Steagall

[eridani]

30. He signed it, and advocated deregulation in general

See also the 1996 Telecommunications Act.

[wyldwolf]

31. so? Veto-proof majorities mean something.

[eridani]

35. And why were there veto-proof majorities?

Because the Democratic Party was seriously degraded as an organization during the 90s, refusing to put the effort in to fill up the pipelines with candidates at state and local levels. That came from the high-roller funded swing-state only strategy.

[wyldwolf]

38. left wing myth

The Democrat party was declining electorally since the late 60s having most to do with cultural issues.

And Swing state strategies have been the method of operation since the 1800s.

[eridani]

42. Having to do with entirely giving up on cultivating small donors

Also completely dissing local Dem organizations. The Repukes beat the shit out of us in the 90s with donors of less than $100.

[wyldwolf]

43. see..

... you're a victim of misinformation. Small donors to the extent you're referring to were not possible until the dawn of the internet.

The Repukes only "beat the shit out of us in the 90s" once - 1994. And that was because of gerrymandering and a large number of Democratic retirements in districts trending red, the first massive mobilization of the Christian Right against abortion, rubbergate, and a general mistrust of Congress that led to a "throw the bums out" mood.

Democrats won in '92. Democrats won in '96. And Democrats won net seats in '98.

[eridani]

62. And we lost state houses and governorships by the dozens

The Republicans cultivated small donors via direct mail. To be sure, the Internet is better, but the basic fact is that Dems stopped giving a shit about the continued erosion of the New Deal. If you drop economics, the cultural crap is the only selling point left, and Repubs took advantage.

[wyldwolf]

66. right, but that had very little to do with donations

it was the post-'68 Democrats, the most liberal the party has ever been, that pushed us down that road.

[eridani]

69. Those "liberals" threw out all their grassroots mailing lists and focused on large donors only

--thus ceding the populist demographic to the Repubs.

You may be nostalgic for Jim Crow, Help Wanted--Male and Help Wanted--female, gays and battered women in the closet, illegal birth control and abortion, but most Americans are not.

[wyldwolf]

72. it doesn't take long for you to spiral into irrelevancy

[eridani]

78. Why not tell us all what was so great about Jim Crow and illegal abortion?

You're the one disapproving of the post 60s cultural changes.

[wyldwolf]

83. why not learn the difference between discussing events and endorsing event...and stay on topic?

[Raineyb]

121. It means that a veto would be overturned

But at least he'd be on record opposing it. Signing a bill puts you on record as supporting it. What is so hard to understand about that?

Regards

[Mojorabbit]

76. Don't bother

You can throw out a thousand legit links and this poster will pretend none of the facts exist. It is a waste of time.

[wyldwolf]

86. ah, another one who thinks poverty and inflation are meaningless to real people

[Mojorabbit]

88. I don't feel like playing. nt

[wyldwolf]

92. or being rational, for that matter.

[Raineyb]

106. Poverty and inflation are quite meaningful

Unfortunately, the government bullshits those numbers to make things look better by manipulating the stats.

That's why the CPI is always so damn low despite how much higher prices rise. Here's an interesting article discussing just that from 2005.

http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/2005/0624.html

Regards

[wyldwolf]

109. of course... the numbers were fudged to make Clinton look better... ok....

[Raineyb]

119. I didn't say that.

And you damn well know that. The numbers were also fudged to make Bush look less bad as well. The point is the numbers were fudged in order to artificially reduce COLA payments to people on Social Security. The inflation numbers are a load of crap.

BTW so are the unemployment numbers.

Regards

[11 Bravo]

50. Glass - Steagall went down by a vote of 90-8 in the Senate and 362-57 in the house, so of course ...

it's all Clinton's fault.

[Raineyb]

107. Did someone drag his hand with the pen in it to the bill to sign?

Veto-proof it may have been but he did not a damn thing to stop it and then had a photo-op to celebrate the signing. That's not the sign of someone who is unhappy with what he's signing.

Regards

[wyldwolf]

113. A president can't stop something that's veto proof. If he could, it would be a veto

[Raineyb]

120. Where is it writtten that you can't veto if there's a veto proof majority.

I didn't say Clinton couldn't stop it. I said he didn't have to sign it which is a completely different thing. Nor did he have to do the photo op signing for it. You cannot argue that the man did not want to pass a law when he did NOTHING to actually attempt to stop it's passage. So since he did not actually make the attempt he must have been in favor of the bill in the first place.

As a result, you cannot logically argue that the passing of the bill wasn't his fault when he signed it. Presidents who don't like bills don't sign them and don't do photo ops while signing them. So you cannot have it both ways and say that Clinton was against the bill before signing and therefore shouldn't take any blame for its passage or its aftermath. That is bullshit.

Regards

[Raineyb]

124. To clearify

No he couldn't stop it per se. However he made no attempt to do so which is what I mean when I say he didn't do anything to stop it. His actions were as good as endorsing the bill and as he signed it he certainly had no issues with it or he would have not had the photo op.

Apparently, it would appear that in your world when I say he can stop it, if he couldn't actually stop it he shouldn't make the attempt. I would argue that even if he knew the veto would be overridden he should have vetoed it if he did not feel the bill was a good one. Clearly as he did not only sign the bill into law but also had a photo op for the signing he did not feel the bill was bad. As such any arguments that he was against the bill is nonsensical as he did nothing to even attempt to stop it.

I also need to stop answering posts in the middle of the night.

Regards

[BeyondGeography]

13. The past eight years have been nothing short of tragic

Especially taking into account he wasn't fairly elected in the first place.

And they wonder why we're "angry."

[opihimoimoi]

32. Its been a Travesty of Common Sense and Logic....Truth and Sanity went into hiding

Reason was taken to Gitmo

Bush and the GOP really took us to the cleaners...

[suston96]

39. He put his money where his mouth was.......

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/05/01/clinton.debt/

Clinton announces record payment on national debt

By John King/CNN

May 1, 2000
Web posted at: 5:13 p.m. EDT (2113 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) - President Bill Clinton said Monday that the United States would pay off $216 billion in debt this year, bringing to $355 billion the amount of the nation's debt paid down in the three years since the government balanced the budget and began running surpluses.
Clinton debt

In a written statement, Clinton said the $216 billion payment represented the largest debt paydown in American history, and he said that the federal government's long-term debt is now $2.4 trillion lower than projected to be when he first took office.

However, the U.S. government still has a long way to go before it pays down the entire national debt, which now stands at $5.7 trillion.

"We should take advantage of this historic opportunity to use the benefits of debt reduction to extend the life of Social Security and Medicare and pay off the entire national debt by 2013 for the first time since Andrew Jackson was president," Clinton said.

Clinton has asked Congress to dedicate the interest savings from paying down the national debt to the Social Security Trust Fund, which will add 54 years to its life, according to White House estimates.

Clinton also used the announcement to take issue with Republican tax cut plans, noting that "the debt quadrupled in the twelve years before I came into office," a reference to his Republican predecessors, Ronald Reagan and George Bush.

"We should not jeopardize the longest economic expansion in history with risky tax cuts that threaten our fiscal discipline," said Clinton, who credited his administration's 1993 and 1997 budgets as well "tough choices in each and every year" for the debt turnaround.

"As a result, interest rates are lower, leading to stronger investment and growth while saving money for American families," he said.

[opihimoimoi]

45. Boy...did Bush ever fuck that up...damn///5.7trillion compared to the 10/4 Debt we got now

What a difference between the 2 Parties

This is why the GOP is in disarray and confused///during Bush's years...the Far Right Ruled with the dire consequences seen today...

They are taking the hit for the flawed decisions coming outta Bush....

Thats why the very Best they could do in the past 11/4 election was McCain/Palin,,,,,a joke rejected by the American people

[kiva]

40. K&R n/t

[mvd]

48. NAFTA should have never happened

Welfare reform should have never happened. Telecom deregulation should have never happened. I think Gore learned some things and would have turned things around in 2000, though. Bush put the decline on a fast track.

[mvd]

49. Just to clarify..

Other things in Clinton's administration like a more reasonable tax/spending policy and peace kept the country prosperous - there were just some weaknesses there that the RW extremist Bush exploited. Bush gets the lions-share of the blame for where we are now.

[opihimoimoi]

52. He was in charge...he gets the Heat...he LIED to us....the biggest LIE was WMD

and them GOP Dudes Noes it

[mvd]

53. Certainly did lie - over and over

Clinton can't be blamed for that.

[atimetocome]

56. YES he did.

[WHAT]

57. This is the context the Hillary nomination makes sense...

to me.

If threats to the United States are valued and ordered, I'd think economic collapse would be a most imminent and pressing concern...a national security concern. In that sense, I see Hillary as competent and pragmatic. Her heart would be in the work and it would be a good choice. International experience is an extra.

The silver lining, if you will...

[opihimoimoi]

64. If it makes sense...economic and otherwise, then by all means go for the Best available...

and if the Hill is among the Best...then select Her First...which Obama did today...

Silver Lining ..from my perspective...she is the Assest...the main Cargo. The Main Main.

[slackmaster]

59. The company I was working for in 2000 got hit very hard when the dot com bubble burst

Their timing was horrible, and I neither praise nor blame Bill Clinton for my situation.

[slipslidingaway]

74. Did the surplus include the SS Trust Fund money? n/t

[opihimoimoi]

79. To my knowledge....no.....

in the last year...I believe the surplus was about $350 Billion....In the past 7 years...we had nothing but deficits...mega sized...National Debt is like 10 Trillion plus...this is insane

[slipslidingaway]

108. I agree the debt is insane and handing over the bailout money

so quickly was also insane.

On the SS money in the budget, guess it depends on what numbers are being cited...

http://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html

"...So where matters stand presently is that the transactions to the Social Security Trust Funds and the operations of the Postal Service are "off-budget" and everything else is "on-budget."

However, those involved in budget matters often produce two sets of numbers, one without Social Security included in the budget totals and one with Social Security included. Thus, Social Security is still frequently treated as though it were part of the unified federal budget even though, technically, it no longer is.

To illustrate the difference between the "on-budget" and "off-budget" parts of the federal budget, we can observe that for fiscal year 2004 the following figures were reported by OMB:

Unified Budget --- Without "off-budget" items

Receipts $1.8 trillion --- $1.3 trillion
Expenditures $2.2 trillion --- $1.9 trillion
Deficit $412 billion --- $567 billion

[slipslidingaway]

110. Link with graph and notes...

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html

"February 3, 2008
Updated: February 11, 2008

Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.

...The Clinton years showed the effects of a large tax increase that Clinton pushed through in his first year, and that Republicans incorrectly claim is the "largest tax increase in history." It fell almost exclusively on upper-income taxpayers. Clinton's fiscal 1994 budget also contained some spending restraints. An equally if not more powerful influence was the booming economy and huge gains in the stock markets, the so-called dot-com bubble, which brought in hundreds of millions in unanticipated tax revenue from taxes on capital gains and rising salaries.

Clinton's large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the "Social Security surplus" makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn't counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while..."

[opihimoimoi]

111. Thanks for the facts and update

:toast:

[slipslidingaway]

116. No problem :) n/t

[TankLV]

75. Yep! We could do a LOT worse if we "returned" to his policies!

Hard to argue with SUCCESS!

[sohndrsmith]

81. I agree with you on your analogy of Bush, but... what is the statement you're trying to make?n/t

[opihimoimoi]

82. The point is simple: Clinton leaves Bush a Nation intact and running smoothly

and in turn, Bush is leaving President Elect Obama a Nation in the worst shape since the Depression

ITS JUST NOT fAIR...

[derby378]

97. If Clinton had just left the Second Amendment alone...

...the Republicans wouldn't have taken Congress in 1994, and we'd be bidding farewell to President Al Gore after two terms in which he signed the Kyoto treaty, pushed domestic production of hybrids and wind farms, and kept arsenic out of our drinking water.

[wyldwolf]

99. three comments on that

1. Clinton was certainly trying to appeal to the left of the party with that gun control measure, and to this day I still support it.

2. That only played a small part in the debacle of '94. Other factors include a large number of Democratic retirement in districts that had previously been gerrymandered to favor Republicans, a general distaste for the entrenched power in Washington (that would be the Democrats), rubbergate, the first nation-wide mobilization of the Christian right targeting pro-choice candidates, and a healthcare plan targeted by both the left and the right (the right felt it went too far, the left felt it did not go far enough)

3. We'd be bidding farewell to President Al Gore after two terms if Nader and the Supreme Court had not intervened.

[derby378]

103. I think too many analysts overemphasize Ralph Nader's role in 2000

The debacle over butterfly ballots in Florida made Nader the flavor of the month, but that's it. More disturbing than the butterfly ballot fiasco was the wholesale disenfranchisement of eligible black voters in Florida, denied access to the polls because they might share a first initial and last name with some convicted felon.

The failure of the Clinton healthcare plan was big, but I'm not seeing where it translated into electoral votes for Republicans.

[wyldwolf]

104. you can disagree on how much of a role nader played, but not that he played a role...

... as did Michael Moore and Molly Ivens who endorsed Nader.

Yup, the disenfranchisement of eligible black voters in Florida was major.

The GOP scored political points off the failed healthcare plan the same way the tried to in 2008 - the "evil" prospect of socialism.

[derby378]

105. Duly noted

At least HIPAA managed to get through Congress to Clinton's desk. I have no confidence that Bush 43 would have ever signed increased patient confidentiality into law.

[martymar64]

101. But it all unravelled within 5 months of Clinton leaving

And he did nothing to help Gore secure the WH. So, in retrospect, his legacy was killed in its infancy and he did nothing to save it by helping to elect somebody to safeguard any advances that were made. In fact, his signing the repeal of the Glass-Stigall Act helped create the boomtown atmosphere in the banking industry and Wall St that is bedeviling our economy today.

Furthermore, Gore would've had a much better chance of winning had Bill kept Willie in his pants instead of in Monica's mouth.

[opihimoimoi]

112. And what did Bush do as things unraveled??? He got mooned for one, and went golfing after hearing of

Osama Coming to Town...to do Bad......

He went Golfing...."Watch my drive".....

and Condi? "We thought they were going to be hijackings...."

and Wasn't Cheney supposed to take care of National Terrorist Security after Bush rejected/ignored the Rudman/Hart Terrorist Report... sent to Bush early 2001.....?

There were so many things Bush coulda done....clearly his mind was not up to snuff.

and what kind of a lazy ass crew did he have? They couldn't/wouldn't cover for the Boss.....Damn....what a choice...?

[w4rma]

115. Noone is saying Bush is better than Clinton (or anyone else who held the power of the Presidency).nt

[ShortnFiery]

117. Clinton implemented much of the banking deregulation that helped usher in this impending Depression.

No, I don't have a high opinion of Bill Clinton. :thumbsdown:

[opihimoimoi]

118. As an MBA he soulda known the dereg was no good and taken measures to reverse the effects