First round of Bush tax cuts were passed and signed in 2001; which could account for the drop in expected and actual revenues that year cited earlier.
Or raise taxes to pay for it , yes.
Sidenote: Love the vigor with which some are defending Bush’s actions here. I thought he was long ago thrown under the bus with McCain, Romney and all other “globalists” 
It wasn’t in effect until the next year but passed before 911. Which means it wasn’t budgeted for. Hence my comment what happened in 2001.
He who laughs last . . . laughs best.
I’m not laughing about the market being down, trust me.
It’s a temporary reaction, let’s hope. Job report is still good but rate hikes are anticipated.
No it effected the next year’s revenue. The time between passage and Oct 1 was in Clinton revenue you showed. In between that time 911 hit and expenditures went up unexpectedly.
I am not defending his tax cuts. I am pointing out the notion 2001 tax cuts was not the sole cause. 911 could not have been predicted. After that he owned not properly funding it.
Next year being 2002 fiscal year, right ? Which is the budget in question here.
Expenditures actually did not rise as much as the revenues shrank (requested vs. actual)
Even if we say that 9/11 as an unpredictable event obviously threw everything into chaos so give him a pass on that budget -
What then is the excuse for not balancing the budget going forward afterwards ? He had a Republican congress until 2007.
I guess you missed this
Last time unemployment was this low was Jan 1970.
Let me repeat that
Last time unemployment was this low was Jan 1970.
What happened next?
As it turns out (and I did not know this until today) that once unemployment bottom it turns on a dime. (many examples one exception)
Fine, then we’ve reached an impasse on this.
And to bring it full circle. - what started this was my inquiry which president was the last one to preside over a balanced budget and some posters retort that this was due to the GOP congress controlling the purse strings. I think we’ve seen that it isn’t.
Best job market in generations, no question about that. Millions of people took the opportunity to make life-changing career moves.
In the past it has always turned out to be boom-to-bust.
(Many examples one exception)
So yes. . . lower unemployment is a good thing.
But on a personal level, be cautious.
One of the following must be true:
What else happened in 2001? It was a big event, so I know you know the answer…
What happened in 2001? I am sure you know.
Already was debated ad nauseum . Bottom line, if you don’t feel like reading through all that discussion - even if excuse that one year, it wasn’t the last time a Republican president governed with a Republican Congress.
Am I the only one who remembers the fed is trying to get UE to go up to quell inflation?
If you want to credit Clinton with a balanced budget than you also have to credit the other side of the aisle as well. Clinton would not have had a balanced budget without the GOP forcing him into it.
No coincidence job market jumped the way it did after Republicans taken control of congress. 
Fine; but he was the last president to have done so, was he not ?
Why wouldn’t a GOP president/GOP congress be able to replicate that ? or have even greater surplus ?
Hmmmm. It’s been pretty good to me lately.
