The Night They Dumbed Our Country Down

[dogtowner]

I agree that Clinton never had a surplus. . .if you consider the TOTAL, ACCUMULATED National debt. HE DID have a budget surplus in his last 4 years, as demonstrated by the graph I provided.

if he never had a surplus how could he have a surplus ?

 

[Openmind]

if he never had a surplus how could he have a surplus ?

I know you're not that thick!

The WHOLE National debt was not erased under Clinton. . .but the last four years of his presidency, instead of going further in the hole (as his predecessors, and even him, to a very mild extend during his first four years), he had a SURPLUS for THAT TIME PERIOD.

Obviously he couldn't erase in 8 years the 5 trillions national debt that was already outstanding! No one ever claimed that.


Look at the chart, and read the analysis by FactCheck.Org. I know it's probably painful to you, but if you have an ounce of fairness, you owe it to yourself and to all of us to get your facts straight.

By the way, Wikepedia gives us the increase in National Debt from 1978 through 2005 under Republicans and under Democrats:

1978-2005 Democratic 4.2% (increase in National debt)
1978-2005 Republican 12.1% (increase in National debt)

 

[dogtowner]

I know you're not that thick!

The WHOLE National debt was not erased under Clinton. . .but the last four years of his presidency, instead of going further in the hole (as his predecessors, and even him, to a very mild extend during his first four years), he had a SURPLUS for THAT TIME PERIOD.

Obviously he couldn't erase in 8 years the 5 trillions national debt that was already outstanding! No one ever claimed that.


Look at the chart, and read the analysis by FactCheck.Org. I know it's probably painful to you, but if you have an ounce of fairness, you owe it to yourself and to all of us to get your facts straight.

By the way, Wikepedia gives us the increase in National Debt from 1978 through 2005 under Republicans and under Democrats:

1978-2005 Democratic 4.2% (increase in National debt)
1978-2005 Republican 12.1% (increase in National debt)

I saw that every single (fiscal) year of his presidency that the public debt went up. Here is what the Dept of Treasury reports (Clinton was in 1993-2001): (sorry for the two parter, not my idea)

21st century
09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86

20th century (2nd half)
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16

The increase from 1999 to 2000 is relatively small but an increase none the less.

 

[Openmind]

I saw that every single (fiscal) year of his presidency that the public debt went up. Here is what the Dept of Treasury reports (Clinton was in 1993-2001): (sorry for the two parter, not my idea)

21st century
09/30/2010 13,561,623,030,891.79
09/30/2009 11,909,829,003,511.75
09/30/2008 10,024,724,896,912.49
09/30/2007 9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/30/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86

20th century (2nd half)
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 2,602,337,712,041.16

The increase from 1999 to 2000 is relatively small but an increase none the less.

Until you read and understand the FActcheck.org analysis, I will not answer your statements.

At least, you are coming closer to recognizing what good Clinton did, especially compared to the preceeding and following Republican Presidents!

So. . .tata!

 

[dogtowner]

Until you read and understand the FActcheck.org analysis, I will not answer your statements.

At least, you are coming closer to recognizing what good Clinton did, especially compared to the preceeding and following Republican Presidents!

So. . .tata!

I understand your links but they do not prove the point you are trying to make. You claim that

the last four years of his presidency, instead of going further in the hole (as his predecessors, and even him, to a very mild extend during his first four years), he had a SURPLUS for THAT TIME PERIOD.

The "hole" got deeper every single year. At no point did the "hole" get filled in even a little bit. The only legitimate claim you could make is that thanks to the dot com boom the rate of increase slowed.

Clinton benefited being around during the Dot Com boom, Bush got the bust.

 

[GenSeneca]

The WHOLE National debt was not erased under Clinton. . .

Statements like that beg the question: Do you understand the terms being discussed here? Debt, Deficit, Surplus... Dictionary.com can assist you if you're confused.

If we have a surplus, by definition, we cannot have a deficit.
If we have a deficit, by definition, we cannot have a surplus.

And...

If we do have a surplus, by definition, the debt is lowered.
If we do have a deficit, by definition, the debt gets larger.

So let's review... A deficit will ADD to the debt while a surplus will SUBTRACT from the debt.

I'll try going over this again, with single digits, that way you won't have to use both hands to count along...

Lets say the debt is -2.
We have a surplus of +1
The debt then goes to -1.

That's how a surplus would work.
That's not what happened under Clinton.

Our debt was -2
Clinton's "surplus" was -1
The debt rose to -3

That's how a deficit works.

 

[Gipper]

Until you read and understand the FActcheck.org analysis, I will not answer your statements.

At least, you are coming closer to recognizing what good Clinton did, especially compared to the preceeding and following Republican Presidents!

So. . .tata!

Lets not overstate the 'good' BJ Bubba did. What Lefties ALWAYS forget is BJ had to deal with an R congress. The R congress forced him to spend less. So, we must conclude that if not for the R congress, BJ and his lib buddies would have spent like drunken sailors as they always do. So, heaping praise on BJ for APPROACHING a balanced budget is DUMB. The praise should be given to the R congress. Agreed? Evidence - under BO the Ds controlled both houses and exploded the debt and deficit.

Secondly, we know the Rs turned from conservative policies during the 90s to progressive policies under the progressive Bush in the 00s. This turn resulted in the election of BO and the explosive raise in government and debt caused by BO, which now threatens our republic.

All thanks to stinking progressives and their horrendous policies.

 

[Gipper]

It came up because FatherTime declared that Bush was left with a massive surplus and managed to throw it all away and drive the country into ruin.

He stated, "Bush took over with a government surplus and the previous administration creating a huge amount of jobs. He left bailing out the banks and with the country on the brink of depression, the worst financial situation since the 30s. Your logic doesn't include that. Your version of "logic" is rightwing Limbaugh loon dogma." - FatherTime

He then followed it up with: "It is a known fact that Clinton left with a surplus, this is unquestioned. Even articles saying that there is some debate about how large the surplus was admit that he left the country in great economic shape. You can state some conspiratorial theory but then again you probably think Obama was born in the Congo too. -FatherTime

After this post, I responded with a breakdown of the actual debt figures straight from the United States government....which in fact showed the exact opposite of FatherTime's statements.

He responded, "I love how the Repubs want to rewrite history. This is how they find Obama responsible for the financial state of the nation right now." -FatherTime

And, "It's a fact spoken on every mainstream news outlet that Clinton left with a surplus. I don't care about the moderator's fringe stats." -FatherTime

You then stated "The surplus wasn't enough to erase the national debt. . .however, the national debt DECREASED in the 8 years of Clinton's presidency and GREATLY INCREASED under the 8 years of Bush presidency" - Openmind

Also, "How many sources do you need that shows that Clinton's presidency was highly effective in terms of economy, including GREATLY lower national debt?" -Openmind

And, "No, dear. . .YOU are missing the point! The fact is that the national debt was decreased in the 8 years when Clinton was in office. . .by the amount of the surplus. . .which LOWERED the deficit!" - Openmind

And, "NO. I claimed a BUDGET SURPLUS that allowed for a DECREASE IN NATIONAL DEBT of 9.7%" -Openmind

You, Openmind, were a main voice in continuing to talk about a "surplus", which is why it must continue to be discussed. The simple fact (as easily seen from our government's own figures) shows that we never a surplus, and added to the debt every single year.

And according to FatherTime, for simply pointing this out (using Treasury figures) I am a person who "think Obama was born in the Congo" and full of conspiracy theories. It is a shame he has left and will not be back to attempt to back up his absurd position on the matter.

That is an excellent summation of the foolishness that some believe.

When shown the fallacy of their beliefs, they still refuse to accept facts. In fact, FT took his little ball and cried all the way home because he was shown to be incorrect.