What's with republicans saying Clinton's surplus was only "projected?"

In countless chat rooms when I chat with republicans and the conversation gets to the Clinton presidency vs the Bush presidency in terms of accomplishments, I always, among numerous other things, point out one of Clinton's accomplishments was a balanced budget and the largest budget surplus in history.
When I always point out that Clinton left Bush this huge surplus and in under 3 years Bush has managed to wipe it out and spend it all, numerous republicans are now trying to tell me this budget surplus that I was bragging about was not a surplus at all. In stead they said it was a "projected surplus" and only existed on paper.
One republican hoping to prove his point sent me a report allegedly done by a federal budget expert stated that surplus was only a surplus if we stayed within certain budget spending caps and on and on.The final paragraph on this report however did conclude that while the amount stated Clinton left as the surplus was too high, he still concluded that the surplus was at least $100 billion. I don't think this republican was aware of this final conclusion I just mentioned as he expected this report he sent to totally refute there being a surplus at all.
So what's going on here? Was there in fact a surplus in the budget that Clinton left to Bush and if so what's with the republicans and their trying to call the suplus as this "projected one"? and didn't really exist? Can anyone help me on this. Thanks
Trahurn

I don't have a link, but under Clinton a record annual deficit was turned into a record annual surplus. There were also surpluses projected into the future, but there was already a real annual surplus.

not mean we were in surplus -

until Bush ended both current and projected surplus - he was so scared that fiscal year numbers - 10/1/2000 to 9/30/02 - would also ahpw a decreased in National Debt that he postponed 25% of corporate taxation (in the budget corporations were told no problem not paying 9/15/01 - take some extra time and pay in the governments next fiscal year - a silliness that we have and will continue until the 10-1-04 budget is announced just before the election and the 5 "quarterly" payments projected for that year makes the numbers look better). Indeed getting the Special Terrorist Billions passed after 9/11 - an event scheduled for the first week in Oct - was rushed and passed in Sept 01 ao as to get the monies spent in the
10-1-00 to 9/30/01 budget.

Then the Federal Web pages were changed to remove the annual calender year tracing of the National Debt (to make it harder to see the Clinton decrease in National Debt), and replace with a front page fiscal year results page - and then the media called and told there never was a Clinton surplus

And the whores in the US Media actually printed this lie - never checking the calendar year results.

not that the US media is right wing GOP controlled - they just act that way.

*puts on his Kiss the Political Operative hat on*

The deal is this - by definition it was a projected surplus. What it meant was "IF the current policies stay in place, and the economy stays basically the same, this will be the surplus in 10 years."

But what happened was Bush took office, tanked the economy, changed every working policy, and now contributes to the total flip-flop form a huge billions of dollars surplus to a billons of dollars projected DEFICIT.

That's your spin.

Don't try to argue that it was not projected becuase it was. But the projection was, if the same administrative policies are kept in place, we'll have this much extra money in x years. Bush came in and undid all of that, and created a policy where we will LOSE this much extra money in x years.

Now go get em! :D

That is exactly the help I needed so I can be educated and confident when slamming republicans against the wall on this. This is great!
Thanks

If Clinton had a "projected" surplus, then Shrub has a "projected" deficit.

If Shrub was doing his job, we'd still have a "projected" surplus.

However, this line of reasoning leads nowhere if anyone wants to seriously discuss the subject. Any talk of surpluses and deficits usually ignores the massive amount of "off budget" items that are still checks being cut by the gummint and have to be paid somehow. It also ignores accounting tricks, such as changing the fiscal year on a moment's notice, moving projected revenues and expenses into various arbitrary years, the effects of eliminating long-term debt, underfunded pensions, and foreign currency fluctuations.

Much of this, of course, is highly illegal in the private sector, and even Enron couldn't get away with some of these tricks in its best years. Government accounting has certain mystical qualities.

When arguing with Republicans about deficits, I just keep it simple and use the obvious-- Clinton made money and Bush is losing money. Even Bush's own budget office agrees with that. It just claims it's not such a bad thing.

If you go to wingnut sites....you will encounter wingnuts.

The Clinton surplus was real as we all know..and the Bush deficit is also real. Nuff said.

You are right about what you say. Only I do not intentionally go to right-wing rooms as they nauseate me but do find these wackos in chat rooms that are supposed bo be chats on pertinent news subjects like "rebuildingd Iraq" for example. Right, why should I be surprised?

:-)

Sometimes they'll tell you that there WAS a surplus, but it was caused by the conservative economic policies of Ronald Reagan a decade prior. They'll say anything to further their agends. The scary part is that they start to believe their own lies.

They just validated the Clinton economy. They can't say Clinton has a projected surplus without giving Clinton due credit for the fantastic economy while he was in office. I love it when they are stupid.

Clinton dug out of the fiscal hole from Bush I and left a REAL surplus. It was gone so f***ing fast with Bush II.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/usbudget/blueprint/bud01.html

That was from Bush's 2001 budget... and I quote:

With the advent of surpluses, the United States has begun to make real progress in paying down its debt. During 1998–2000, debt held by the public fell from $3.8 trillion to $3.4 trillion—a $363 billion drop. By the end of this year, more than $200 billion in additional reduction is due to be achieved.

The President's plan will accelerate this trend to record rates by retiring an historic $2 trillion in debt over the next 10 years. Under the President's budget, the national debt will be only seven percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2011, its lowest share in more than 80 years. (See Chart 1–1.)


You're talking to republicans - you should expect revisionist history.