Horvath wrote in message . ..
On 13 Dec 2003 07:13:53 -0800,
(Crackhead Millionaire) wrote this crap:
Facts from the Treasury:
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm.
During the Clinton Administration years the National Debt was as
follows:
09/30/2000 5.67 Trillion
09/30/1999 5.65 Trillion
09/30/1998 5.52 Trillion
09/30/1997 5.41 Trillion
09/30/1996 5.22 Trillion
09/29/1995 4.97 Trillion
09/30/1994 4.69 Trillion
09/30/1993 4.41 Trillion
09/30/1992 4.06 Trillion
Even with the new age math being taught in public schools today, a 6th
grader can see there was no surplus when the government debt continued
to
climb all during the Clinton years.
As you can see, the debt held by the public, one component of the
national debt went down. Unfortunately, at the same time, others
debts such as promises to pay Medicare benifits, or bonds issued
against money taken from the Social Security Trust Fund. Therefore it
is entirely possible to take in more money than was spent (hence a
surplus) while having a greater debt load into the future. Had there
not been budget surpluses in 1999 - 2001, the figures you provided
would be higher by approximately 460B.
To put it in simple terms, Klinton BORROWED money to pay our bulls,
and when he had money left over, he claimed a surplus.
This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe
Hi Horvath -
No. The reason that you continue to post false information is
precisely becuase you insist on attemping a siplified explanation when
it fits your personal world view. You came out pretty strongly
against a sixth graders analytical skills in a previous post, why not
keep applying the same high standard to yourself?
To put it in simple terms, there was an annual budget surplus! Do you
deny that the federal government took in more dollars than it spent in
the 1999-2001 fiscal years? If your simple explanation is true, how
do you explain the fact that the amount of debt held by the public has
increased since fiscal 2001 as evidenced by the link I provided
previously? Why wouldn't Bush simply come out, 'borrow money to pay
our bills' and announce that there was a surplus? It seems like he is
getting beat up on the massive deficits we are encountering for no
reason. Maybe you should be on his econonmic team; they could use
some straight shooter advice.
Suppose you owe $40 of debt. Suppose you make $100 a year. Suppose
you spend $90 a year. You now have $10 (a surplus). Suppose you
promise to pay for services in the future that you must pay for five
years from now at the cost of $20. At the end of the year, you still
have $10, which you use to pay down your debt of $40 to $30. However,
because of the promise to pay for services in the future, your debt
amount rises to $50. There was a surplus of dollars and the debt
continued to rise. It is very, very difficult to put things more
simply than this.
Do you deny that there was a budget surplus in fiscal 1999 - 2001?
cm