On 29 Jun 2004 10:42:59 GMT, (Bobsprit) wrote this
crap:

Nonsense. There was money left over. It should have gone to reduce
the debt, but the President decided to give it back to us.

Ahhh, so now Horvath admits Clinton did create the surplus. Gore wanted to
protect it for a rainy day.

I know it's hard for you to understand. Slick Willie borrowed more
money than he needed, and called it a surplus. So there was money
left over, but it certainly wasn't a surplus.

Suppose you needed $1000 to pay off your bills at the end of the year?
You borrow $3000 and have $2000 left over. Now go tell your wife you
have a $2000 surplus to use for a HDTV.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

I know it's hard for you to understand. Slick Willie borrowed more
money than he needed, and called it a surplus. So there was money
left over, but it certainly wasn't a surplus.


Ahhhhh, I see! So then Bush lied and used the "fake" surplus to give everyone
300 dollars!
Got it!

RB

Horvath wrote:

There never was a surplus. Here's the figures for the National Debt:


09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
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
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00

SOURCE: BUREAU OF THE PUBLIC DEBT

As anyone can see, the debt increased every year. There never was a
surplus. It was another Clinton lie.

That's total debt, including both public and *government* owned
obligations. Only the public owned obligations reflect the budget
surplus (or deficit) -- the government owned ones reflect federal
agencies buying government securities as investments.

Public-owned debt was:

09/28/2001 3,339,310,176,094.74
09/29/2000 3,405,303,490,221.20
09/30/1999 3,636,104,594,501.81
09/30/1998 3,733,864,472,163.53
09/30/1997 3,789,667,546,849.60

Which clearly shows budget surpluses (from tax revenues being
greater than expenditures) in 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001.
It's now up to 4,218,409,719,114.26 (as of 6/25/04), an
increase of 879,099,543,019.52 for Bush's budgets so far.

At any rate your figures aren't accurate representations of
the budget process -- Clinton's last few budgets DID run
surpluses, more taxes being collected than the government
was spending. The difference between the *budget* and
the federal debt is government agencies -- trust funds, like
Social Security -- buying securities for investments.

Horvath wrote:

The budget HAS to be balanced every
year. If there's not enough, we increase the debt.

Right.

Clinton borrowed more money than he needed, balanced the budget, and
called the left over money a "surplus."

That's just nonsense. Clinton's last few budgets collected more
in taxes than the federal government spent, cutting the publicly
held portion of the federal debt. Meanwhile Social Security
(to name one) were buying federal securities because they were
collecting more money than they were spending as well, adding
to the overall debt by adding to the intergovernmental holdings.

Wolfie wrote:

At any rate your figures aren't accurate representations of
the budget process -

Of course not. The idea is not to tell the truth, but to tell a plausible
lie that supports the agenda... propaganda, in other words.


- Clinton's last few budgets DID run
surpluses, more taxes being collected than the government
was spending. The difference between the *budget* and
the federal debt is government agencies -- trust funds, like
Social Security -- buying securities for investments.

Carefuly, don't confuse the issue with facts. The basic point here is that
the Clinton-hatred industry has been *very* successful and is still
producing votes for the Republicans. This crowd has never been big on facts
& rational thought anyway.

DSK

DSK wrote:

The idea is not to tell the truth, but to tell a
plausible lie that supports the agenda...

It's a stretch to hope anyone would believe Congress,
controlled by Republicans, would have authorized
borrowing ~$200M more dollars (in one year, over
$300M total) than necessary to cover the budget so
Clinton could claim a budget surplus. So much for
plausibility....

I guess you are unable to answer a simple question with
your boyfriend in your mouth.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 01:14:51 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote this crap:

So there was or wasn't a surplus? So Bu**** spent money that wasn't
from a surplus or it was. If it wasn't, he lied about there being one.
If
there was, then Clinton presided over it. Which one stupid?

I suppose it's hard for you to understand. Too bad you never went
past sixth grade, Jethro.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

Whom did he borrow it from... your boyfriend?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On 29 Jun 2004 10:42:59 GMT, (Bobsprit) wrote this
crap:

Nonsense. There was money left over. It should have gone to reduce
the debt, but the President decided to give it back to us.

Ahhh, so now Horvath admits Clinton did create the surplus. Gore wanted
to
protect it for a rainy day.

I know it's hard for you to understand. Slick Willie borrowed more
money than he needed, and called it a surplus. So there was money
left over, but it certainly wasn't a surplus.

Suppose you needed $1000 to pay off your bills at the end of the year?
You borrow $3000 and have $2000 left over. Now go tell your wife you
have a $2000 surplus to use for a HDTV.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

His "constituency" was the American people dumbass.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On 29 Jun 2004 02:33:01 GMT, (Bobsprit) said:

Then Bush LIED. He payed out those refunds with the surplus he said was
there.
Gore said the surplus should be protected for a rainy day.

Only in the strange world inside the Beltway is a smaller increase in
spending than you projected deemed a "cut" in expenditures. Gore, of
course,
wanted to make sure that our taxes go to his constituency--the guvmint
bureaucrats, rather than back to the people who earned the money. They
might, after all, do something irresponsible like deciding that giving
more
tax money to the bureaucrats isn't a good idea, and then where would we
be?


Dave
S/V Good Fortune
CS27

Who goes duck hunting with Jamie Gorelick?

On 29 Jun 2004 14:10:08 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 13:02:21 GMT, "Wolfie" said:

Meanwhile Social Security
(to name one) were buying federal securities because they were
collecting more money than they were spending

And would that be the case if social security were operating on an accrual
basis, rather than a cash basis?

Are you suggesting that the Reagan and Bush deficits were the result
of more conservative accounting policies? Republicans love to spend
tax dollars just as much, if not more, than Democrats. The difference
seems to be that they don't want to actually pay for any of it.