The Clinton Surplus Myth...

LOL - couldn't even address my question, could you? : )

Yes. I will tend to believe the bi-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Management and Budget, the Treasury Department, and even the Bush Administration over some unknown computer blogger who obviously doesn't know what he is talking about.

You've very aptly demonstrated in this thread the power of blind ideological faith over reason. Thanks. It explains a lot of the conservative position.

 

I will believe in raw numbers and mathematics.

 

LOL - couldn't even address my question, could you? : )


Where's the raw numbers you claim prove there was no surplus. Link please. Thanks.

 

So why are you trying so hard to avoid looking at them. The BLS numbers are plain as day, and yet you avoid them to take the word of a blogger.

 

I don't even remember your question, and I couldn't care less. Move along with your liberal drivel.

 

Move along. I am convinced already of what I believe.

 

Ok, but just so we're clear you believe a blog site over multiple other reputable sources?

Sheesh:

 

Here you go:

+++

Onalandline:

Here's a chance for you to defend your source and prove we (and the CBO, OMB, Bush administration etc.) are all wrong.

Here is the link Steiner provides as his evidence there was no surplus under Clinton: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPD...application=np

Feel free to review Steiner's link, and then quote for us where it says anything about surpluses or deficits, or even where you find those words.

If you can show us where Steiner's source says there was no surplus under Clinton or even where it has the word surplus, then we can look at them and what his source says about Clinton's surplus.

If you can't, then: 1) if you have any interest in objective truth, fact and honesty at all, maybe you'll question the veracity of your biased right wing source; and 2) I'll show you where you can find actual information about surpluses and deficits on the Treasury Department's website.

Or you can ignore the challenge and wallow in blissful ignorance and false beliefs because it fits your predisposed beliefs.

+++

You have amply showed us your preference.

 

As someone said earlier people are confusing (intentionally sometimes, I'm sure) deficit vs. debt. Yes, Clinton erased the deficit (the per year budget deficit/surplus) however the national debt actually increased under the Clinton administration. Would I like to see a budget surplus? Sure, because eventually it would make a difference in the debt. But that ain't gonna happen under Obama and probably not under Romney either in the current economic situtation. The most we can hope for at this point is slow/stop the increase in the debt. Obama doesn't think the debt is something we should even be concerned about in the 'short term' as he said on Letterman the other night. Fiscal conservatives do think the debt matters so they will never buy into this logic (or lack thereof). Quite frankly a budget surplus 12+ years ago is meaningless in the conversation today.

 

Whatever makes you happy, my friend.

 

I already posted material, and have done other research. I am done.

 

Would be an idiotic and impossible task, it happened, sorry your partisan blinders don't allow you to acknowledge that fact. Would it make it easier if I called it a Newt surplus? After all, congress creates the budget not the President....

 

Lol. The ol' every source by my right-winger source is lying to you! trick. That only works of Fox "News" bub.

 

Then it's a fact, and I don't hold this belief, that the Republican tax cuts were even dumber and the Republicans drove the US even further underground than previously thought by spending a TON of money and getting us involved in two long-term and VERY costly wars among other things.

 

Then it's a fact, and I don't hold this belief, that the Republican tax cuts were even dumber and the Republicans drove the US even further underground than previously thought by spending a TON of money and getting us involved in two long-term and VERY costly wars among other thing

 

Bush is a political knob. what's your point ?

 

a budget surplus funded with an increase in intra-government holdings, not revenue.

Borrowing to create a surplus, what a neat idea.

 

Regurgitating fabricated right wing propaganda. What a neat idea.

The 2000 surplus was also and "on-budget" (excluding SS) surplus.

 

Why does it make any difference whatsoever if the USA had a deficit or surplus at any given time in the past?

It has zero meaning except to those who look at politics like a professional sport which is just brainless entertainment.

How about the novel idea of looking at the data from TODAY? IF we don't like what we see, then take action which will force change for tomorrow. It's 100% math! Income minus receipts equals deficit/surplus. There are ONLY two variables; income and receipts. The ONLY action to take is increase or decrease income and/or receipts. Whining about who had or did not have deficits/surpluses in the past is NO form of productive action; it is 100% political...

 

It matters, because it shows that with the application of a little bit of arithmetic, increasing taxes which increases tax revenues and trimming the growth of spending, we can indeed go from record high deficits to a surplus budget without the wholesale dismantelling of social programs.

Which is precisely why conservatives try to mightily to pretend it didn't happen. They cannot accept that an tax increase would help bring us to a surplus, because that runs counter to the number one, top priority: Never increase taxes for their billionaire and multi-millionaire controllers.

That is why you get folks like onalandline who religiously follow the conservative mantra, to the point of blindly following some online blog from a computer programmer she knows nothing about, even though she can answer no quetions to defend his position, and even though it is contracted by objective and bi-partisan sources like the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Treasury Department, and even the adminissions of her own political party through the Bush administration.

It's actually quite an amazing thing the legnths of self-deception some will go to to avoid the cognitive dissonance of their preconceived partisan beliefs disproved by indisputable fact.

 

in a fixed system, which does not exist. Sorry you had to be wrong.

 

perhaps you should learn the difference between accrual and cash accounting.

 

You don't have a clue. Sorry to be the one to inform you.