Deficit streak ends: Obama sees first monthly surplus

Are you a mind reader, or is that just another one of your own "lies".

Of course you might post a Limbaugh quote to back up your own "lie" about what he "wanted"

But you won't, will you?

 

Let's look at this. 2006 DEM's take control of both Houses. By 2008 election the economy is on the skids. 2010 economy isn't any better after 4 years of Dem's in congress and senate and a rookie Politician in the Whitehouse. 2010 REP's gain congressional majority and the DEMs barely have a majority in the senate. Now in 2012 economy is a little better, spending has been reigned in by the house but Senate is still wanting to follow the tax and spend programs of the President. April 2012 to make the Presidient seem better a feature comes out about having a surplus. Here the problem if you know anything about our Government you know the President has nothing really to do with how the Government spends it money he submits a budget to congress but congress isn't obligated to pass his budget and can make cuts from that budget, thus it is congress that sets spending and taxation not the President. Notice the last 2 years of G.W. Bushes presidency, the economy was faltering that was after the DEM's gained controlled of both houses and could override presidential vetoes on spending bills. The economy tanked thanks to that congress run by Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid, hopefully we see the REP. take control of the Senate and see congress gain the necessary 2/3 override ability. Mr. Obama will look real good to the American people if he is re-elected and has a Rep. congress much the way President Clinton looked with a Rep. Congress from 1996 to 2000 in his second term. The economy began an up swing and continued until well let's see 2006 when the DEM's took control of the legislative branch, coinedence or change of policy by a change in the legislative branch.

 

Or it could be Burgess Merideth

 

Thank you for pointing this out, rev.

 

THE MYTH OF THE CLINTON SURPLUS EXPLAINED (complete with graph):

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

 

If you study the history of our nation you will find the last President to have a true budget surplus was a man named "IKE". That means for about 5 decades or 50 years we have not had a true surplus budget in our nation. Not form the DEM's or REP's they have all manged to spend over the income. Even Reagan had deficit spending. Clintons so called suprlus was smoke and mirrors which he was very good at. He moved funds that were set for a few years down the line from a trust fund to make his budget look like a surplus, now what do we have that is supposedly a trust fund that's right it is social security. He moved funds from other places to his annual to show the surplus but it was borrowed from other funded things an therefore it was still deficit spending.

 

But, but, but....

It's all Bush's fault.....................Isn't it? :BangHead:

 

The Steiner link is certainly more detailed and gives a much better explanation for that position than dies the fact check.

 

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_was_the_last_time_the_US_had_a_budget_surplus

"Clinton did not have a surplus of $230B in the year 2000 because he had to borrow $246.5 From numerous other off budget funds. Clinton NEVER ran a surplus during his 8 years in office, he just borrowed yearly from different budgets, (primarily the SS budget) to offset the general fund losses. In 2000 the following funds were borrowed which resulted in a $16.5 deficit.

$152.3B from Social Security
$30.9B from Civil Service Retirement Fund
$18.5B from Federal Supplementary Medical insurance Trust Fund
$15.0B from Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund
$9.0B from the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund
$8.2B from Military Retirement Fund
$3.8B from Transportation Trust Funds
$1.8B from Employee Life Insurance & Retirement fund
$7.0B from others

Total borrowed from off budget funds $246.5B, meaning that his $230B surplus is actually a $16.5B deficit.
($246.5B borrowed - $230B claimed surplus = $16.5B actual deficit).

The last time the federal government ran a true suplus was 1969, the total surplus was $3.2B and before that was $1960, $.3 B

All of the above is invalid, the last time there was a real surplus was in 1957, which followed 1956 another surplus year.

At the conclusion of 1955 budget year, the deficit was 274 billion,
In 1956 the deficit was 272 billion
In 1957 the deficit was 270 billion.

Translation, when you are taking more than you are spending,, that is a surplus, and we were not taking in more than we were spending.

This is the United States budget numbers, I did not make it up."

All a quote from the website listed.


As for IKE:

http://www.shmoop.com/1950s/economy.html

"The economy overall grew by 37% during the 1950s. At the end of the decade, the median American family had 30% more purchasing power than at the beginning. Inflation, which had wreaked havoc on the economy immediately after World War II, was minimal, in part because of Eisenhower's persistent efforts to balance the federal budget. Except for a mild recession in 1954 and a more serious one in 1958, unemployment remained low, bottoming at less than 4.5% in the middle of the decade.

Many factors came together to produce the Fifties boom. The G.I. Bill, which gave military veterans affordable access to a college education, added a productive pool of highly-educated employees to the work force at a time American businesses were willing to pay handsomely for engineering and management skills. Cheap oil from domestic wells helped keep the engines of industry running. Advances in science and technology spurred productivity. At the same time, potential competitors in Europe and Asia were still recovering from being bombed into smithereens during World War II."


As for Nixon in the 1969 budget:

http://federal-budget.findthedata.org/l/71/1969

According to this it was Nixon but I had read IKE had the last true surplus. Seems it was Nixon. Sorry made an error.

 

Well Whoo-Pee!!!!!:smilewinkgrin: The deficit will still be $1.2 trillion [$1,200,000,000,000] this year and the big O baby killer that CTB adores has added $5 trillion to the national debt.:tear:

 

That's right, I won't! :laugh:

 

B@@#! CBT! Obama has been using that excuse since he has been in office. Your "dear leader" has increased the national debt more in three years than Bush did in eight and that is a fact. First thing he and his democrat Congress did was to create an $800 billion slush fund to distribute to unknown groups. This guy is a leech, he has always slopped at the government trough.

Actually CBT President Bush and the Republicans gave a bigger tax cut to the lower income taxpayer from 15% to 10%.

 

You can't have it both ways. First off, every taxpayer got a tax cut, not just the rich. Second, if you say that Clinton had been running budget surpluses (and it appeared to be a trend that was going to continue) in that environment why is giving everyone a tax cut a bad idea?

You are correct that funding the wars is the main reason we had deficit spending under Bush. However, Bushes final budgets were closing that gap. His fiscal 2007 budget had a deficit of 'only' $163 Billion. Compare that to Obama's $1.7 Trillion deficit. That's 10X higher than the deficit from just 5 years ago.

 

Hmm, was the ink still wet?

HankD

 

And does it mean that Obama can now go on a continued spending spree because after all he has all that new found money?

In all seriousness the increase in revenue is because anyone with any brains that owes taxes with their return waits to file at the last minute - in April.

And anyone with any brains that has a tax refund coming files as soon as possible - in Jan, Feb and March.

So the refunds went out before April and the taxes due came in during April...

Resulting in a windfall of revenue - in timing only. It won't be happening again for at least another year.