5 ms·

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFSD https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFSD Because the deficit was positive between 1997 and 2001, during Bill Clinton’s

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFSD https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFSD Because the deficit was positive between 1997 and 2001, during Bill Clinton’s second term as POTUS.

jameslk 1y ago
Here’s federal debt: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEBTN https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEBTN A surplus in the billions for a few years did not meaningfully change a federal debt that’s in the trillions. Further, the surplus that paid down public debt was completely wiped out by social security and Medicare liabilities during that time Better than nothing you might say, but not the structural change needed to get the US out of the hole
- jmye 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - jameslk 1y ago
    I’ve been consistently discussing the federal debt through this whole thread. Your accusations seem trollish, disregarding my larger point about fiscal policy/debt and the context of the article (the debt), so I won’t be responding further. Good day, sir
    - seanmcdirmid 1y ago
      This was your original question: > How did you come to the conclusion that Clinton balanced the budget? Having a surplus means your budget is balanced and then some. > When have any of these presidents successfully pushed for reducing the federal deficit during their tenures? Any actual reductions to the debt you’ve seen? You specifically mention deficits, and a surplus leads to an actual reduction in debt. > What’s causing you to focus on presidents rather than congressional actions? The same congress that was in charge during surplus was more than happy to put us in high deficit again. > How do you think fiscal policy keeps getting passed through congress when there’s largely two parties that have to agree to get it done? Gridlock is a great way of not spending money. More to the point: Clinton was ok with cutting spending as much as he was with raising taxes. He treated the deficit as if it were actually important unlike Bush, Obama, Trump, Biden.
    - const_cast 1y ago
      If the budget is balanced and there is a surplus, then you will eventually have zero debt. Eventually. That means you have to stick to it, and not get sabotaged by low-effort conservative fiscal policy. The story of US policies since the 70s is the republicans fuck some shit up, democrats almost fix it or rarely sometimes actually fix it, then people say the democrats are bad with money because reasons, and then the republicans come back in and fuck it up even more. I mean, after the con that we call Reaganomics how are we still entertaining this bullshit? Do we truly never learn?

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFSD https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFSD Because the deficit was positive between 1997 and 2001, during Bill Clinton’s second term as POTUS.

jameslk 1y ago

Here’s federal debt: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEBTN https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEBTN A surplus in the billions for a few years did not meaningfully change a federal debt that’s in the trillions. Further, the surplus that paid down public debt was completely wiped out by social security and Medicare liabilities during that time Better than nothing you might say, but not the structural change needed to get the US out of the hole

jmye 1y ago
[flagged]
- jameslk 1y ago
  I’ve been consistently discussing the federal debt through this whole thread. Your accusations seem trollish, disregarding my larger point about fiscal policy/debt and the context of the article (the debt), so I won’t be responding further. Good day, sir
  - seanmcdirmid 1y ago
    This was your original question: > How did you come to the conclusion that Clinton balanced the budget? Having a surplus means your budget is balanced and then some. > When have any of these presidents successfully pushed for reducing the federal deficit during their tenures? Any actual reductions to the debt you’ve seen? You specifically mention deficits, and a surplus leads to an actual reduction in debt. > What’s causing you to focus on presidents rather than congressional actions? The same congress that was in charge during surplus was more than happy to put us in high deficit again. > How do you think fiscal policy keeps getting passed through congress when there’s largely two parties that have to agree to get it done? Gridlock is a great way of not spending money. More to the point: Clinton was ok with cutting spending as much as he was with raising taxes. He treated the deficit as if it were actually important unlike Bush, Obama, Trump, Biden.
  - const_cast 1y ago
    If the budget is balanced and there is a surplus, then you will eventually have zero debt. Eventually. That means you have to stick to it, and not get sabotaged by low-effort conservative fiscal policy. The story of US policies since the 70s is the republicans fuck some shit up, democrats almost fix it or rarely sometimes actually fix it, then people say the democrats are bad with money because reasons, and then the republicans come back in and fuck it up even more. I mean, after the con that we call Reaganomics how are we still entertaining this bullshit? Do we truly never learn?