| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
OT - Another Democrat lie bites the dust.
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 |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| OT--Another one bites the dust | General | |||
| World Trade Towers the truth | General | |||
| OT - More Democrat lies | ASA | |||
| Democrat Candidates Concede 2004 Election to Bush | ASA | |||
Threaded Mode
