Sorry about the so-called 'surplus'. What you liberals
NEVER mention is calling a spade a spade. The surplus
was a 'projected' surplus based upon pie in the sky.

So then Bush lied AGAIN when he defended his rebate program by saying that
"surplus" would cover it!

Too bad!

RB

"Simple Simon" wrote
The projected surplus was an optimistic Clinton fabrication
that did not take into account the recession that started
the last year Clinton was in office.

The recession did not start until Mar 2001, after Bush was inaugurated. This is
according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the official arbiter of
recessions and expansions, which is run by a Bush advisor. Although the
official recession (as defined by the "real GDP") was relatively brief,
unemployment increased and over a million jobs were lost during the "recovery."
Thus, the current growth is fueled entirely by increased productivity; those
with jobs are working harder, even though increasing numbers are unemployed.

On 9 Dec 2003 09:26:33 -0800,
(Crackhead Millionaire) wrote this crap:

Hi Simon -

If you are going to list the things that Bush inherited from Clinton,
don't you think the surplus should be in there?


Debt or deficit, the Clinton Administration projections of surpluses
were just that - projections.

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.



Hero@Horvath

I don't spend my money on food. I spend most of my money
on women, porn, booze, and recreation. The rest of it I just waste.

Thank you for clearing up the so-called surplus.
The Democrats wish everyone to believe there was an actual
surplus so they can claim it was squandered by President
Bush. People seem genuinely surprised when it's pointed
out that it was a projected surplus only - political sleight of
hand. It's amazing how easy it is to brainwash some people.

There needs to be an IQ test administered to all voters.
Stupid and ignorant people shouldn't be allowed to vote.

S.Simon


"Horvath" wrote in message ...
On 9 Dec 2003 09:26:33 -0800,
(Crackhead Millionaire) wrote this crap:

Hi Simon -

If you are going to list the things that Bush inherited from Clinton,
don't you think the surplus should be in there?


Debt or deficit, the Clinton Administration projections of surpluses
were just that - projections.

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.



Hero@Horvath

I don't spend my money on food. I spend most of my money
on women, porn, booze, and recreation. The rest of it I just waste.

The genius with the crappy hunter knows soooo much.
Go back to school. You're outclassed by everyone
here.

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On 9 Dec 2003 09:26:33 -0800,
(Crackhead Millionaire) wrote this crap:

Hi Simon -

If you are going to list the things that Bush inherited from Clinton,
don't you think the surplus should be in there?


Debt or deficit, the Clinton Administration projections of surpluses
were just that - projections.

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.



Hero@Horvath

I don't spend my money on food. I spend most of my money
on women, porn, booze, and recreation. The rest of it I just waste.

Hi Horvath -

Horvath wrote in message . ..
On 9 Dec 2003 09:26:33 -0800,
(Crackhead Millionaire) wrote this crap:

Hi Simon -

If you are going to list the things that Bush inherited from Clinton,
don't you think the surplus should be in there?


Debt or deficit, the Clinton Administration projections of surpluses
were just that - projections.

Bush didn't just inherit surplus projections, he inherited a country
taking in more dollars than it was spending. There were dollar
surpluses at the end of fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001 in the
approximate amounts of 70B, 120B, and 220B. There were also some very
large projections for future surpluses, but Bush came into office with
a three year history of budget surpluses which has since evaporated.


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.


You are using a sixth graders simplistic view of the phrase 'national
debt' to try to prove you point, but only wind up showing your
ignorance or lack of willingness to research the issue. While the
figures you provide are technically accurate, they do NOT prove that
there was not an annual budget surplus during 1999 - 2001. The
national debt is comprised of several different types of debts,
including debts owned by the public, intra agency debt or markers and
future promised benifits, such as Medicare. That numbers you provide
only show payment obligations, not dollars that were spent up and
above what was taken in.

To see what happened to the publicly owned component of the national
debt between 1999 and 2001, follow this link:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2...GFDPUN/5/10yrs

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.


cm