Did you read the entire link I posted? yes or no

I copied and pasted to make it easier for you. But you need to go to the site to see the chart.
I've wasted too much time with you already.

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton
By Brooks Jackson
Posted on February 3, 2008 | Updated on February 11, 2008


1.4K
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.
FULL ANSWER
This chart, based on historical figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, shows the total deficit or surplus for each fiscal year from 1990 through 2006. Keep in mind that fiscal years begin Oct. 1, so the first year that can be counted as a Clinton year is fiscal 1994. The appropriations bills for fiscal years 1990 through 1993 were signed by Bill Clinton’s predecessor, George H.W. Bush. Fiscal 2002 is the first for which President George W. Bush signed the appropriations bills, and the first to show the effect of his tax cuts.

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.


Update, Feb. 11: Some readers wrote to us saying we should have made clear the difference between the federal deficit and the federal debt. A deficit occurs when the government takes in less money than it spends in a given year. The debt is the total amount the government owes at any given time. So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus. The debt the government owes to the public decreased for a while under Clinton, but the debt was by no means erased.
Other readers have noted a USA Today story stating that, under an alternative type of accounting, the final four years of the Clinton administration taken together would have shown a deficit. This is based on an annual document called the "Financial Report of the U.S. Government," which reports what the governments books would look like if kept on an accrual basis like those of most corporations, rather than the cash basis that the government has always used. The principal difference is that under accrual accounting the government would book immediately the costs of promises made to pay future benefits to government workers and Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries. But even under accrual accounting, the annual reports showed surpluses of $69.2 billion in fiscal 1998, $76.9 billion in fiscal 1999, and $46 billion for fiscal year 2000. So even if the government had been using that form of accounting the deficit would have been erased for those three years.
– Brooks Jackson
Sources

Congressional Budget Office, "Historical Budget Data," undated, accessed 6 Sep 2010.

Are you retarded, or do you just have a learning disability?
I gave you direct information from the gov treasury and you still don't get it. Your information is about the Budget, not the national debt. Are you really that dense that you can't see the difference? Or are you some kind of liberal troll attempting to divert from the subject?

Tell me which year that you want to argue in the Government's figures that I posted. You do see that I actually posted the national debt by year, for the years that Clinton was in office, right? Do you see ANY year where the national debt went down from the preceding year? A budget does not mean anything. Anyone can make up a budget. Obama didn't even have one for how many years?

try again

Update, Feb. 11: Some readers wrote to us saying we should have made clear the difference between the federal deficit and the federal debt. A deficit occurs when the government takes in less money than it spends in a given year. The debt is the total amount the government owes at any given time. So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus. The debt the government owes to the public decreased for a while under Clinton, but the debt was by no means erased.

Are you the same person who can't figure out what a felon. I feel like I'm wasting my time.

Like I said before, you are reading someone's opinion. I gave you facts and figures. If you can't add and subtract, blame your teachers. If you have a problem with my figures, then blame your government, the treasury. You still haven't shown me an error in my figures. So, be a petulant child and stomp your feet, but it won't change the figures. Your information does not come from the gov. It comes from a guy that thinks he knows it all. I am not taking one person's figures at face value. I am using the government's figures. I posted them above, so if you can't figure it out, then that is your problem. No wonder you believe everything that Hillary tells you. I've seen other blond women brighter than you.

Which one of these numbers do you find fault with? I copied them directly from the gov website. Do you see anywhere in those figures where the debt went down? That means that it was not paid down.

Government - Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32

I couldn't understand this at all. Would you mind rewriting it? I've got time.

Let's be fair. Clinton gets no credit for budget that looks pretty good, because it came from a Republican majority Congress. So why does Obama get the blame for a budget that looks bad?

How many years did Obama go without a budget? Did he ever have one when he had a Democrat majority?

Clinton DOES get credit for a good budget. And he should give the credit to the Republicans that did it for him, including Gingrich.

I never said Clinton had a bad budget. I just corrected the poster that said Clinton had a surplus and paid down on the national debt. According to the Treasury, Clinton did NOT pay down the national debt.

Clinton stole from the SS fund to get the money he spent.

He NEVER had a yearly surplus.

There seems to be a discussion gap regarding budgets between Democrats Clinton and Obama. How did the eight years in between play out?

That's probably because you are the one that raised the question regarding both Clinton and Obama. The only one to raise the question regarding the lack of discussion during the intervening years is you. So, that is probably why no one else discussed it. It wasn't a topic of discussion.

You seem to have a good understanding of this subject so could you explain what happens to deficiet and debt when Social Security trust funds are so-called cashed to pay benefits. There are no assets and I understand the borrowed funds are already included in debt. The money being paid out will be real so where will it come from and how is it accounted for. There has to be more borrowing somewhere, or spending cuts, or tax increase?
Thanks

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.


same link

I only know what I find online. I do research. I don't make it up.

It's a good question. Research this out and get back to us.