The Clinton Surplus Myth...

Yes, technically my HELOC can appear temporarily smaller on Tuesday when I make a payment, then larger on Wednesday when I borrow more money than I paid down on Tuesday, in order to fund the lifestyle that I have "budgeted".

Then, I run up and down the street telling everybody that I had a "surplus". The neighbors are very impressed.

 

How utterly fascinating.

That sounds like something you would do.

 

sounds like something you did do, on this very forum, in this very thread.

 

Maybe to people who live in that weird fanatsy world of yours.

 

Awe shucks, you say the nicest things when you can't think of a good argument.

 

IF you are looking at the figures ON 12/31/2000. You would be justified in saying, "So far, so good!" But looking back from 12 years in the future, you are being completely dishonest by picking out a date in FY 2001 and claiming there was a Govt surplus in 2000. If you WERE honest and are talking about GOVERNMENT SURPLUSES, then you have to use Govt accounting years. If you wish to claim that the national debt was down through the first 3 months of FY 2001, FINE! It was down through the first 3 months and much more. But when the books were closed for the year and all incomes and outflows were posted, the debt went UP for FY2001. And FY 2000, and FY 1999, and FY 1998.

But if the intention is to present a dishonest picture to a blatantly stupid liberal, then your manipulations are fine.

The combined compromises of Clinton and Gingrich were good. Vastly better than the mindless boob heading the "Occupy White House," bowel movement of today.

With Clinton and Gingrich going nose to nose, BUT acting like intelligent human beings, we had a BUDGET SURPLUS, and small increases in the national debt.

Much better than the dolt that followed, and nearly immeasurably better than the buffoon that followed the dolt.

 

You are mistaken. I picked out no date in FY2001. You wrote in a post that the debt never went down any year Clinton was president.

I simply provide your statement was false.

I didn't say anything about Govt surpluses. What does this have to do with Govt surpluses? We are talking about the debt.

Don't tell me your still confused about what a surplus is after you've been educated so many times.

I deny I've done anything dishonest or that was a lie.

Once again, we are seeing one of our consevative friends who has been proved completely wrong by indisputable evidence resort to ad homs and calling folks dishonest and liars.

It's not very honorable, IMO, but we see it all the time here.

The advantage Clinton had compared to Obama (aside from not having the worst recession in 80 years to deal with) was that the Dems passed a huge tax increase before the Republicans took control of the Congress. Gingrich and the Republicans tried to force Clinton to accept massive tax cuts, but his veto power held them off, and they only got a small compromise on cutting capital gains taxes passed in 1997.

I used to give the Republicans some credit for the surplus, but when Bush was selected, they slashed revenues and spent like drunk sailors and squandered the surplus in no time returning us to new record deficits. The only thing that changed was the occupant of the White House.

How anyone could give them some credit, but with record its hard to see how anyone would give them much credit.

The national debt actually decreased $114 billion in 2000.

 

The dishonesty of liberal number manipulations is ongoing and constant. Thanx for proving it once again. I KNEW YOU WOULD.

Clinton was FORCED into a compromise. You no longer give Republicans credit for that because it violates your deeply held liberal brainwashing. Liberals "think" they can change history by "thinking" it was different than it is. And, of course, by making statements that are lies.

And however bad or minor b.o.'s recession was, he was and is completely incompetent to fix it. Romney will have the burden of fixing Bush's/Democrat Congress problems and the more major problems left by the miserably incompetent buffoon, b.o.

But since Romney HAS experience AND a record of success, and he is not an ideological demagogue, Romney will get us back on track. b.o. is just a presentable dummy wandering in the dark.

 

You keep calling me dishonest when I have proved my statement with irefutable evidence.

Here it is once again, the US Treasury Department link proving the debt decreased $114 billion in 2000, for anyone to verify for themselves who the dishonest person here is.

ftp://ftp.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opds122000.pdf

I acknowledged he did compromise with a small tax cut of capital gains. Income tax rates were never changed until Bush took office when they, and revenues, were slashed.

To the contrary.

When Obama took office, the economy was tanking at a -9% real rate, losing 700,000+ jobs a month, unemployment was skyrocketing upward, and the stock markets were crashing in the worst recession in 80 years. The housing market was destroyed and the economy was headed straight for a depression.

But now the economy has been growing steadily for almost three straight years, the private sector has added more jobs every month for 30 months in a row, stock markets are up 100% from their recession lows, the unemployment rate has fallen from above 10% to 8.1%, and over 4.6 million additional private sector jobs have been added since Jan 2010.

And this despite an obstructionist Tea Party Republican party whose stated top priority is not to work with the president to improve the economy but get him out of office.

Only those invested in failure for political purposes would claim Obama failed.

Obama has been president for almost 4 years.

Romney has ZERO experience in operating the federal Govt.

Bwhahahahahahaha

 

Obviously you fully know the Dems approve the budget resolutions with deficit spending, but since you are drunk on the political Koolaid, all you can do is blame everything on others...in this case the Reps.

Your comments about other people's money, other people's taxation, other people's faults...always the 'other people'...is detrimental to this discussion and the nation...

 

My money is my money. Your money is your money. Wealthy people's money is their money. This is not a complicated concept except when you allow political bias to do all of your thinking for you.

When did Obama and the Dems introduce legislation to increase taxes on the American public and business?

 

I like the comment from Obama two days ago in Ohio; If you elect Romney and Ryan they will give a $5 TRILLION tax credit to the wealthy'!

So the president lies and the sheep follow...doesn't this bother anyone??

 

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act commonly called Obamacare, is a United States federal statute signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010.

 

Maybe it was the same Bush who used the existence of nonexistent WMD's to justify war.

 

Cutting taxes and expanding the military and fighting wars does that.

They only possess it if they got it in the first place, which thanks to "trickle down" policies that redistributed income, meant the 1%er got a lot more of it.

 

Fine. All we got to do is reverse the trickle down policies that redistibuted so much money to the 1% they got so they are getting less and the middle classes more.

 

I haven't run the numbers, but if you add in making the Bush tax cuts permanent, a 20% additional tax cut on top of that, complete elimination of the estate tax, and complete elimination of all taxes on investment income up to $200,000, I would be surprised if that ran up to about $5 trillion over 10 years.

 

Are you referring to the same WMD's that THEN President Clinton told the nation Saddam had? Those WMD's? Or the WMD's that Saddam used to kill Kurds? Or the WMD's that Saddam used to kill Iranian soldiers in the Iran/Iraq War? Or the same WMD's that Bashar al-Assad now has in his possession?

There are many videos of Clinton [both] claiming Saddam's WMD's and Kerry and Gore and many other Democrats ALL saying that Saddam had WMD's long before Bush ever came to Washington.

 

I'm not referring to any WMD's. They were nonexistent. Didn't you read what I said?

 

I don't recall President Clinton saying that Iraq had WMD.

Could you link to a quote where he says that?

 

HOW did the Kurds get killed and the Iranian troops get killed by non-existent WMD's?

They did exist, they were used, and they're now in Syria.

 

oh, those were WMD's they made with ingredients sold to them by the Reagan administration.

The attack on the kurds was in 1988.

That was long before GW came into office.

 

Hussein did have some poison gas type WMDs that the Reagan administration cleared for him to acquire.

But by 2003 those WMDs were all either destroyed or beyond functional capability.

 

I see! The WMD's did not exist, and if they did exist, they were booty from Reagan. I was on your street the other day, ONE WAY. Or was it Brainwashed Blvd.?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5p-qIq32m8&feature=related