Fox News Has Love Fest for Edited Clinton Remarks

[Grassy Knoll]

Run time: 03:55 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y80YM2pYiF8   Posted on YouTube: September 22, 2011 By YouTube Member: VideeWell Views on YouTube: 37   Posted on DU: September 23, 2011 By DU Member: Grassy Knoll Views on DU: 792

 
What Bill Clinton Really said:

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/218231/20110922/bill-clinton-raising-taxes-won-t-work-bill-clinton-newsmax.htm

[stockholmer]

1. the link you give repeats the same old myth that Clinton left a budget surplus

I know this is off topic of the post, but I just cannot let the main article posted slide on this fallacy.

Here is why there never was a 'Clinton Surplus':


Whilst the public debt-based deficit went down under Clinton,intra-governmental debt went up, wiping out the surplus. It was and is an accounting parlour trick, played by BOTH the Republicans and the Democrats.

as of 09/21/2011

10,080,805,928,039.98 Debt Held by the Public

4,624,382,158,952.04 Intragovernmental Holdings

14,705,188,086,992.02 Total Debt

go here to the US treasury Dept and plug in any dates to see what I mean and where I got that number from http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np


--------------------------------------------------------------------

Fiscal Year .. End Date .. Claimed Surplus .. Public Debt .. Intra-gov Holdings .. Total National Debt

FY1997 .. 09/30/1997 .. n/a .. $3.789667T .. $1.623478T .. $5.413146T

FY1998 .. 09/30/1998 .. $69.2B .. $3.733864T .. $1.792328T .. $5.526193T (increase of $113B)

FY1999 .. 09/30/1999 .. $122.7B .. $3.636104T .. $2.020166T .. $5.656270T (increase of $130.1B)

FY2000 .. 09/29/2000 .. $230.0B .. $3.405303T .. $2.268874T .. $5.674178T (increase of $17.9B)

FY2001 .. 09/28/2001 .. $76.4B.... $3.339310T .. $2.468153T .. $5.807463T (increase of $133.3B)




http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124277530070436823.html

In the late 1990s, the government was running what it -- and a largely unquestioning Washington press corps -- called budget "surpluses." But the national debt still increased in every single one of those years because the government was borrowing money to create the "surpluses."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://books.google.se/books?id=GAV2ZUZ6qPIC&pg=PA27378&lpg=PA27378&dq=Republicans+are+all+running+this+year+and+next+and+saying+surplus,+surplus.+Look+what+we+have+done.+It+is+false.+The+actual+figures+show+that+from+the+beginning+of+the+fiscal+year+until+now+we+had+to+borrow+$127,800,000,000&source=bl&ots=0Ph4YQaTRF&sig=5leuoRCOaEcY3Y0a26CZvX1LiBo&hl=en&ei=63MhTqHhGI7IswbEnISfAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Republicans%20are%20all%20running%20this%20year%20and%20next%20and%20saying%20surplus%2C%20surplus.%20Look%20what%20we%20have%20done.%20It%20is%20false.%20The%20actual%20figures%20show%20that%20from%20the%20beginning%20of%20the%20fiscal%20year%20until%20now%20we%20had%20to%20borrow%20%24127%2C800%2C000%2C000&f=false

So the table itself, according to the figures issued yesterday, showed the Federal Government ran a surplus. Absolutely false. This reporter ought to do his work. This crowd never has asked for or kept up with or checked the facts. Eric Planin--all he has to do is not spread rumors or get into the political message. Both Democrats and Republicans are all running this year and next and saying surplus, surplus. Look what we have done. It is false. The actual figures show that from the beginning of the fiscal year until now we had to borrow $127,800,000,000. - Democratic Senator Ernest Hollings, October 28, 1999

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa101500b.htm

An overall "downsizing" of government and a virtual end to the arms race have contributed to the surplus, but the vast majority is coming from excess Social Security taxes being paid by the workforce in an attempt to keep Social Security benefit checks coming once the "baby-boomers" start to retire.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa080899.htm

Of the $142 billion surplus projected by the end of 2000, $137 billion will come from excess Social Security taxes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1654

When these unified budget numbers are separated into Social Security and non-Social Security components, however, it becomes evident that all of the projected surplus throughout this period is attributable to Social Security. The remainder of the budget will remain in deficit throughout the next decade.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/20/news/economy/social_security_election/index.htm?cnn=yes


Despite a revenue shortfall, full benefits are expected to be paid out between 2017 and 2041. The system will draw on its trust fund, a collection of special-issue bonds from the government, which borrowed prodigiously from the program's surplus over the years. But since the country is already running a deficit, the government will have to borrow more money to pay back its debt to Social Security. That's a little like giving with one hand and taking away with the other.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Intragovernmental debt is every bit as real as the public debt. It's not canceled out simply because the government owes the money to itself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/30/AR2009033003291.html

The Treasury Department has for decades borrowed money from the Social Security trust fund to finance government operations. If it is no longer able to do so, it could be forced to borrow an additional $700 billion over the next decade from China, Japan and other investors. And at some point, perhaps as early as 2017, according to the CBO, the Treasury would have to start repaying the billions it has borrowed from the trust fund over the past 25 years, driving the nation further into debt or forcing Congress to raise taxes.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/31/politics/washingtonpost/main4906936.shtml

[JDPriestly]

2. What we are complaining about is that the Bush administration

spent so, so much more of the Social Security surplus and had no plan to pay it back.

Of course, the Social Security surplus was always there and was under the control of the Department of the Treasury. But the Bush administration gave that surplus away instead of replenishing it.

It did not need to be replenished until the baby boomers' retirement loomed. That is now, so now is when it needs to be replaced. It should not have been spent on the tax cuts to the rich or the wars.