Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This has been posted MANY times before. Some still don't get it: [SIZE=4]"The Myth of the Clinton Surplus[/SIZE]
"The government can have a surplus even if it has trillions in debt, but it cannot have a surplus if that debt increased every year. This article is about surplus/deficit, not the debt. However, it analyzes the debt to prove there wasn't a surplus under Clinton.
For those that want a more detailed explanation of why a claimed $236 billion surplus resulted in the national debt increasing by $18 billion, please read this follow-up article"
Complete article: The Myth of the Clinton Surplus
I can't help it if you don't understand the difference in the total national debt and the annual budget debt or surplus. Moderator cut: Personal attack.
One thing modern Republicans have in common...they all lie. That's another reason I'm no longer one of them.
Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 08-11-2010 at 01:28 AM..
No...what the Republicans want people to believe is that cutting taxes for the wealthy and borrowing from foreign banks...even Communist Chinese banks makes no difference.
I disagree, but what does that have to do with your false claims of a Clinton surplus?
Quote:
The fact of the matter is that because of low taxes for the wealthy under Reagan and the Bushes that the annual interest we must pay our debtors has increased from less than $40 billion each year to more than $400 billion... that's the truth. Not that you want to hear it.
So how much will Obama's and the Democrat Congress' astronomical spending add to the national debt and the interest we must pay?
Furthermore, how do you explain the fact that the annual deficit spending decreased after Bush's 2003 tax cuts, and didn't start rising again until the Democrats gained control of Congress in 2007?
In the 1950's anyone who earned more than $300,000 per year paid 91% interest on the excess to the government. 'Course back then a corporate executive earned four or five times what a carpenter earned. Now the elitist bastards earn 500 times that. It's GREED!! When they think they should not be taxed on it they are stupid and greedy!
the rich no longer pay their way? get real yes back as late as 1980 top tax bracket was 90%, and the top 1% of wage earners paid 19% of all taxes collected by the IRS. after reagan left office through today with a top tax rate of 36%, the top 1% of wage earners pay 40% of all taxes collected by the IRS, and the top 50% pay 97% of all taxes collected by the IRS. now tell me who is not paying their way?
one more thing, i noticed that you stopped the debt level at 2009, and blame most of it on bush. but since obama became president, you remember him, the one that campaigned on fiscal responsibility? since obama became president, the debt has been pushed up another $3 trillion because of obamanomics, and is scheduled to rise $1 trillion per year for the next ten years!! and you blame republicans for heavy spending? you are right on one thing, there is no honor among thieves and teh democrats are not only thieves, but liars as well.
I can't help it if you don't understand the difference in the total national debt and the annual budget debt or surplus. Moderator cut: Personal attack.
You really don't understand that if you spend more than you have, it is a budget deficit which causes you to borrow more thereby increasing your debt?
The national debt INCREASED each year of Clinton's falsely claimed 'surplus.'
Quote:
One thing modern Republicans have in common...they all lie. That's another reason I'm no longer one of them.
It's not a lie. It's math. Sorry.
Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 08-11-2010 at 01:29 AM..
Reason: Edited quoted text
You really don't understand that if you spend more than you have, it is a budget deficit which causes you to borrow more thereby increasing your debt?
The national debt INCREASED each year of Clinton's falsely claimed 'surplus.'
It's not a lie. It's math. Sorry.
Let me ask you something. If there was no surplus why was the administration arguing with the congress about how to spend it? It's in the congressional record and I watched it on CSPAN for a year or more. Why would the congress of the United States of America waste hundreds of hours arguing about how to spend something which did not exist??
Let me ask you something. If there was no surplus why was the administration arguing with the congress about how to spend it? It's in the congressional record and I watched it on CSPAN for a year or more. Why did the congress of the United States of America waste hundreds of hours arguing about how to spend something which did not exist??
Here is how it worked. If I plan to build a house and estimate that it will cost 100k; I borrow 100k. My debt is 100k. When I build the house, I find out that it will only cost 90K. I can claim a surplus of 10K, but I still went 100k into debt.
I can't help it if you don't understand the difference in the total national debt and the annual budget debt or surplus. Go Somewhere And Educate Yourself!!!
One thing modern Republicans have in common...they all lie. That's another reason I'm no longer one of them.
I can't help it if YOU don't understand common english. Why don't you EDUCATE yourself and read the article.
You BDR has gotted the best of you.
Talak about lies, do you want a list of Clinton, found GUILTY in court, and Obama lies.
And let's not forget the current dem party. You know the one that said "We will have the most ethical Congress in history" among many others.
Your hate has blinded you from common sense.
Do us all a favor and you go someplace else.
" "Life's tough......It's even tougher if you're stupid."
-John Wayne
Let me ask you something. If there was no surplus why was the administration arguing with the congress about how to spend it? It's in the congressional record and I watched it on CSPAN for a year or more. Why would the congress of the United States of America waste hundreds of hours arguing about how to spend something which did not exist??
It was a dog and pony show to attract and/or retain voters who didn't look at what was going on too carefully. It seems to have worked on some.
Just for reference - tax cuts cost nothing because if tax rates are reduced, the money never gets to the government. How can it cost the government money if it never gets there? They may have to re-budget some items - but it doesn't cost them anything.
Tax credits do come from the government - so it is a different animal.
Tax cuts (to a certain point - 0% taxes obviously won't work) help bring in more money to the government because it allows for more economic activity. The more money is transferred between two parties, the more taxes are collected. If taxes are too high and people are restricted by unemployment (less income taxes) and by not being able to purchase goods, less taxes will be collected by the government.
Ever get a loan?
Theres this thing called interest. We're spending so much on wars, that our interest is up. Thats what tax cuts cost, we can't pay the loans as quickly (or at all), and that makes us spend more money on interest.
Complain about current spending all you want, but its the old spending thats got us in a funk.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
