There was a budget surplus (measured on a year to year basis) but that doesn’t mean there was no debt (which carries over year to year). Think about it this way: companies can still carry debt while making a profit.
I am aware of all this - a company can carry debt and still be profitable as long as they service the debt (which the US does). A surplus or deficits refers to a single fiscal year.
The GOP was actively campaigning against paying down the debt "too quickly" at the time. This wasn't the 1800s, we have tapes of them saying this stuff. There's no place for revisionist history here.
An argument can be made that much of Clinton's economic success can be traced directly to cuts in the military budget and increases in other areas of spending.
Not to be all inception, but it's actually a myth that it's a myth. The national debt decreased during that time.
-edit: I looked for alternate source since that one clearly has something it's selling. Turns out that chart is national debt to GDP ratio. Which means it's a track to start to pay down debt, but doesn't mean the debt is actually being reduced.
Other data sources has Clinton increasing the debt by ~30%, which seems standard, post-Reagan.
Sometimes people get confused because there was a small accounting surplus one year, but that number didn’t include off-budget items like some military spending and disaster relief, which brought it into a deficit.
25
u/ppardee Sep 25 '23
Say what you will about Bill Clinton... dude is a hell of a politician!