I don't want to upset anyone with this post, but everyone likes to talk about the 'surplus' that was had during the Clinton Administration. I agree there was a surplus, but, 'I' (this is my opinion and not one that i got from anyone else), Clinton was open about borrowing money from the Social Security fund, fine, but if you borrow money from other funds, its only taking away (in my opinion from that fund and not really a surplus. The way I see it is that there is still funds missing from the budget, and would in reality cause a deficit....) If someone can explain how this worked and actually made a surplus, I am more than willing to listen and to debate this.
So far the only place that talks about where he borrowed funds from outside of Social Security is Wiki-Answers, i have been unable to locate or confirm these amounts from other sources, so outside of the Social Security amount, there is a big ? mark on the validity of Wiki Answers given the problems of accuracy on Wikipedia.
I remember that Clinton borrowed money from Social Security to help balance the budget and give us a surplus.
I have been able to confirm other places on line the 150+ Billion borrowed from social security funds.
But the list given goes on to give many other places he 'borrowed money from'
>$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<
All these borrowed funds add up to 246.5 Billion dollars.
If you can explain to me how borrowed money from budgets equates to a surplus, please explain how. Because to me it seems to be robbing Peter to pay Paul, and Paul to pay Mary type situation. And in the end if this is true, we robbed people of money they deserved from Social Security and other funds.
Clinton is NOT the firt person to borrow against funds, especially against the Social Security funds, its the reason its bankrupt. Money that people are counting on when they retire. People saw this coming years ago back in the late 80s early 90s. Now that day is upon us.
To me this created a false security among people. The budget surplus. Times were good during the Clinton years, but my question is while it appears there was a surplus, was there really a surplus? And did this surplus set Bush up for failure when he refused to borrow funds from Social Security, and set the U.S. up for the recession? Did Clinton prolong the recession by borrowing and have the surplus? Would the recession have started in the Clinton years if he didn't borrow this money from Social Security?
I have another site
that confirms the borrowing, but not the amounts.
Another site from a conservative that disputes the surplus
>Entitlements and other obligations are driving the deficits. Specifically, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and net interest costs are projected to rise by 5.4% of GDP between 2008 and 2020. The Bush tax cuts are a convenient scapegoat for past and future budget woes. But it is the dramatic upward arc of federal spending that is the root of the problem.<
While in Clinton years the Nation Deficit was the lowest, it was projected that based on the bubble of security and increased spending, and economy growth that the deficit would be paid off, but that all broke just a few short years later.....and the economy came spiraling down. I can not find the table that I saw showing the national deficit. But the deficit, I don't see as having come from tax cuts.
'I' see the deficit having climbed astronomically from bailouts, stimuluses, health care bill, etc, etc, etc, that started during Bush's last 2 years of office.
Its easy to fall into a rut and blame the small things, but when I step back and look at the bigger picture, I see a lot of things to blame, and not just any one person, or thing.
Obama was elected, now while he may have some hand in the current sitution by his votes in the Senate, (small part but yes a part in it), he inherited the problems, people elected him because they believed he could change the direction of the country.
At some point in time, Congress (ALL PARTIES), and Obama need to work together to solve the problems that this country is in, regardless of who's fault it is. I hold my senator as much responsible for the mess of the deficit, they voted yes, knowing full well that I disagreed with them, and probably many others said the same thing.
So now I ask you if my understanding of what I have read in numerous sites on the net, and the numbers of 'borrowed funds are wrong'
If the surplus was a false security, I hold Congress as much responsible, if not more so, than I do the president. If its true that there were 2 sets of books, this should have never happened, Congress should NOT have passed the budget, allowing Americans to feel a false sense of security.
I am open to listening to what people have to say, about this.