The real truth NEVER WAS A SURPLUS!!!

I got to thinking how could there be a surplus and a deficit when Clinton left office, When did he and Congress pay off the deficit? Well it's all been psycho-babel leftist "demacrack" bull**** He and the Republican held Congress may have slowed down the growth of the deficit, but in my view it was just a economic upturn due to the advent of the Internet and new computer technology. We should really be praising Bill Gates and Steve Jobs for that one. IBM for that matter too. So here is a link I found about the surplus and deficit at the end of Clintons term. The Myth of the Clinton Surplus :feedback:

 

Honestly, I don't know why these posts get me to react. The definition of insanity must be discussing politics on a big dick site.

The problem is that you link to an obviously political site and the numbers are simply not right.

Here are the numbers from the Congressional Budget Office (Congressional Budget Office - Home Page), which is generally considered authoritative (numbers in billions, duh).

1992 -290
1993 -255
1994 -203
1995 -164
1996 -107
1997 -22
1998 69
1999 126
2000 236
2001 128

So, to answer your question. The reason why people (at least those that care about facts) refer to the budget surplus is because it is ... true.

 

at:

Halfway threw the article I posted explains the CBO numbers... I guess people just want too believe what they want. :34:

 

Hey, it's 2008, and Clinton isn't running for office...let me know how the 90's are treating you though

 

Curious, they can 'explain' anything they want, but your source is not credible. Pierre Salinger found conclusive evidence that TWA 800 was shot down by a missile on the net too. (Keeping with Lucky's 90's theme.)

 

Look that's one of the major thing The "demacracks" campaign about for not voting Republican so it's still relevant now.

 

That website is owned by some ol' Hucklebuck who writes all of the articles himself and refuses to reveal his identity. 100% of his articles are right wing propaganda... the site is a joke and has about as much journalistic integrity as a White Castle hamburger.

 

Medication alert! Medication alert! Homeland Security? Emergency injection needed at curious n str8's left buttocks!

 

Gates or Jobs? No, Clinton slid through his presidency riding on the economic wave Ronald Reagan created and anybody that believes a budget surplus actually existed likely cannot even balance their own checkbook.

 

In the word's of the infamous "Riddler" riddle me this then, Why didn't Clinton and Congress pay off the deficit... perhaps because there was no real surplus to pay it off with. And please let's not be childlike and be adults. Granted I did call Democrats "Demcracks" but hey if they don't rely on the truth then what are they but Crackpots right?

 

He might need a hot beef injection right down the middle. Any volunteers?

 

The economic boom that created the enormous problem we now have began in 1992. The bubble began to deflate in March 2000. The truth is it was the technological revolution that started it. Just like the industrial revolution, things got out of hand, people spent too much money, and the world is in a tail spin. I still don't believe you can have a budget surplus if you have a national debt. I don't care what party you support. If you have big debts, that extra cash in your pocket is not a surplus.

 

Trickle Down Economics is, and continues to be, a complete failure. Reagan didn't create ANY kind of economic wave. At least not for the common man. The rich got their kickbacks and the rest of us still had to suffer. Don't fool yourself.

And for those complaining that Clinton didn't pay off the deficit? Why don't you ask yourself THIS question... Why did Bush more than triple it?

 

When Clinton came to office he found the national debt to be larger than he anticipated. Clinton paid on the debt but there was not enough funds to pay off that debt in his 8 years in office. Clinton estimated that it could be paid off in 30 years if the government continued to be as frugal with spending as in his era. Unfortunately he was succeeded by the borrow and spend regime of G.Bush II.


How George Bush Sr. Almost Got Indicted for Fraud

 

So what your saying is that there was no surplus either right? PS I'm off to read your quote on Bush Sr. Plus we all need to stop our finger pointing and try to get our elected Officals to slove this mess.

 

No. There was the historic 3 consecutive years of budget surpluses, as sparky has shown.:smile:
A Budget surplus -- The amount each year by which government income exceeds government spending.

 

• Trickle down economics has been a smashing success for everybody in this country but I think you may want to look into “supply-side economics” when thinking of Reagan also.
• I think there may be three others in the world that agree with you when stating Reagan created zero economy-wise and you must have missed the Carter years completely!
• Take a look at the federal deficit during Clinton’s term, just where exactly did he pay anything down again when the federal debt balance went up every year? And what economic policies did he enact that allegedly created this alleged windfall again?

 

I have not forgotten that Clinton asked Congress to borrow from the federal employees thrift savings plan. They stuck a multi-billion dollar IOU in there. It wasn't federal dollars they took back but money employees themselves had put in the plan. Sheesh what crooks.

 

I take it you never had to live paycheck to paycheck then? Just a guess... because where exactly do the lower class benefit from "Trickle Down" theories? I was born poor and grew up poor. I can tell you first hand from experience that none of these so-called wealthy establishments give a damn about people beneath them.

Are the rich providing any jobs or funds to those beneath them? Of course not. But the people with the wealth are making sure to take care of themselves AND their own.

Well, I was only 3 when Carter became president so the only things I cared about then were Saturday morning cartoons, Santa Claus and Jell-o. :biggrin1:

But it does sound as if you're just phishing for a person to blame. Truth is, after Reagan & Bush I did their thing in the white house for 12 years, or economy was in a downward spiral. And luckily, I can look things up like this and verify it for myself.

United Stated National Debt
U.S. National Debt: 53-Year High on Sept. 22, 2008
The National Budget, Debt & Deficit :: MarkTAW.com (Chart #3)

Notice how these are several graphs demonstrating the National Debt and notice how all of them produce the same results even though none of the sites are related to one another? If anything, one conclusion that can be drawn is that it took Clinton 8 years to get things heading in the right direction. And thanks to 8 years of Bush and his bad administration it went right back up.

I have looked at the numbers, and they don't lie. But maybe a story from a news source that has nothing to do with being "Democrat" or "Republican" can tell you the facts. After all, if we're looking for a non-biased opinion, why not get it from someone from the outside looking in?

BBC News | BUSINESS | Bill Clinton's economic legacy

 

I'll go even further and say that the entire budget and GNP is theoretical. None of it actually exists... I mean, there are realms in which they do seem quite real, but they really aren't. There are many factors with which you can weigh against projected figures that diminish them. Likewise, there are many factors that can inflate a projected figure. It's all bullshit anyway you look at it.