Skip to comments.Destroying the myth of the Clinton surpluses.
Posted on 10/17/2010 10:01:59 AM PDT by Lexluthor69
Destroying the myth of the Clinton surpluses.
This is going to be short and sweet. William Jefferson Clinton often claims to have left a budget surplus that George W. Bush and the Republicans recklessly squandered. The claim is parroted by the media and Democratic politicians in an attempt to show Republicans were irresponsible.
The truth is that the Clinton surplus was nothing more than a numbers game.
The following excerpts are from Craig Steiners Site and there are links to the government sites where the data that support the article may be found :
Time and time again, anyone reading the mainstream news or reading articles on the Internet will read the claim that President Clinton not only balanced the budget, but had a surplus. This is then used as an argument to further highlight the fiscal irresponsibility of the federal government under the Bush administration.
The claim is generally made that Clinton had a surplus of $69 billion in FY1998, $123 billion in FY1999 and $230 billion in FY2000 . In that same link, Clinton claimed that the national debt had been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years, presumably FY1998, FY1999, and FY2000though, interestingly, $360 billion is not the sum of the alleged surpluses of the three years in question ($69B + $123B + $230B = $422B, not $360B).
(Excerpt) Read more at silentmajority09.com ...
I have made this exact point numerous time. How in the world can you have a surplus when the debt continues to rise?
Thanks for posting that; very clear; plus whatever budget cuts were made came out of defense.
>>clinton was the luckiest moron ever to hold the presidency, he presided over a bubble economy, a republican controled congress, and the most uneducated electorate in history.<<
Respectfully, may I suggest 2 out of 3 — the 2008 Electorate was the most uneducated (and flat out dumbest) in history.
The ONLY reason Klintoon did anything that was not treasonous or communist/collectivist/statist is that he was forced to by Republicans.
Love it. We don’t see enough of the truth in the press and haven’t since that s-bag held office.
Thanks for the post.
This demonstrates, once again, the success the liberals have enjoyed by controlling the terminology in the discussion.
The tell us “We paid down the public debt”. What they don’t tells us “We did it by stealing from Social(ized) Security.”
Keep getting the word out. We can win this thing...
Here is an easier way to describe the truth about the debt and Clinton.
When Clinton took office the national debt was $4,535,687,054,406
when Clinton left office the national debt was $5,662,216,013,697
I second that. It rained a technology boom during his Presidency and he claimed to have caused the rain.He would be claiming to have invented the internet had Gore not beat him to the punch.His Presidency was going nowhere the first 2 years. No growth, deficits, stagnant economy then the Republicans took Congress, forced spending reductions, eventually reduced taxes and the GDP and job growth took off.100 years from now the only thing Clinton will be remembered for is leaving his DNA permanently imbedded in the White House rest rooms.
Bingo! That’s the answer.
>>I have made this exact point numerous time. How in the world can you have a surplus when the debt continues to rise?<<
How dum can you be?? Even the simplist libral “ecnomist” can break it down for you.
You have $10 your wallet. You borrow $1,000. The $1,000 will be paid by people not you. You have a $990 “surplus.”
Where did you learn your ecenomcs? harvard?
...which hastened multiple terror attacks and 9/11
You’re right. It is too complicated for normal mortals to comprehend. We should listen to the elite economists and just leave it to them. They know what they are doing.
>>Youre right. It is too complicated for normal mortals to comprehend. We should listen to the elite economists and just leave it to them. They know what they are doing.<<
You realize I was agreeing with you and enhancing your point, right? The Harvard reference was about O-bozo.
Ah, the posted word — facial expressions just aren’t there.
(and, FWIIW, I have been there: I have ripped into people who were agreeing with me so no hard feelings, FRiend).
You realize I was agreeing with you
>>What’s the emoticon for eye winking?<<
The oldest ever — ;)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.