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.
"The money was used, off budget to buy back debt which we otherwise would have had to pay interest on. Besides that the official figures showed about $18 billion of increase in the debt. Compared to every other year since 1981 a pittance.
and there is your mistake
everyyear (no matter what POTUS) we are PAYING THE INTEREST
not once during the clinton years (or any other) has the PRINCIPLE decreased
you say bushs unfunded offbudget wars
same as obamas carpet bombing of civilians in somolia, libya, pakistan, syria, etc
same as EVERY OTHER EMERGENCY (katrina, 911, sandy, the midwest floods happening right now)...all MONIES for them...OFFBUDGET (some emergency funding is within the fema budget, but very little)
sorry but facts are facts, clinton never had a real surplus..all he ever had was a projected surplus...a wish list if you want to use a more common phrase
everyyear (no matter what POTUS) we are PAYING THE INTEREST
not once during the clinton years (or any other) has the PRINCIPLE decreased
you say bushs unfunded offbudget wars
same as obamas carpet bombing of civilians in somolia, libya, pakistan, syria, etc
same as EVERY OTHER EMERGENCY (katrina, 911, sandy, the midwest floods happening right now)...all MONIES for them...OFFBUDGET (some emergency funding is within the fema budget, but very little)
sorry but facts are facts, clinton never had a real surplus..all he ever had was a projected surplus...a wish list if you want to use a more common phrase
Not true. The GOP controlled Congress balanced the federal budget by 1997. During fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000 there were budget surpluses. It had absolutely nothing to do with Clinton, who vetoed many of the budgets the GOP passed, only to have his veto overridden. The GOP controlled Congress dragged Clinton kicking and screaming toward a balanced budget and ultimately three years of budget surpluses.
Just because there were budget surpluses does not mean it went to paying off the National Debt. It obviously did not, as you correctly pointed out. Deficits and surpluses only pertain to the budget, not the National Debt. The National Debt includes revenues, the budget does not. The budget is suppose to be based upon projected revenues, but the Democrats have completely ignored that.
If Congress budgets $3.8 trillion, and only spends $3.7 trillion, and revenues are only $2.8 trillion, then Congress has a $100 billion surplus while increasing the National Debt by $900 billion.
Not true. The GOP controlled Congress balanced the federal budget by 1997. During fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000 there were budget surpluses. It had absolutely nothing to do with Clinton, who vetoed many of the budgets the GOP passed, only to have his veto overridden. The GOP controlled Congress dragged Clinton kicking and screaming toward a balanced budget and ultimately three years of budget surpluses.
Just because there were budget surpluses does not mean it went to paying off the National Debt. It obviously did not, as you correctly pointed out. Deficits and surpluses only pertain to the budget, not the National Debt. The National Debt includes revenues, the budget does not. The budget is suppose to be based upon projected revenues, but the Democrats have completely ignored that.
If Congress budgets $3.8 trillion, and only spends $3.7 trillion, and revenues are only $2.8 trillion, then Congress has a $100 billion surplus while increasing the National Debt by $900 billion.
Glitch,
I see what you are saying, but you are off a little
yes newt ballanced the budget, yes clinton faught it, yes they had PROJECTED budget surpluses, but those projected surpluses got SPENT on other things, therefore WIPING OUT the surplus, makng a deficit
Quote:
If Congress budgets $3.8 trillion, and only spends $3.7 trillion, and revenues are only $2.8 trillion, then Congress has a $100 billion surplus while increasing the National Debt by $900 billion
when actually...If Congress budgets $3.8 trillion, and only spends $3.7 trillion, and revenues are only $2.8 trillion, then Congress has a projected 1 trillion dollar deficit, but ends up with a real $900 billion DEFICIT while also increasing the National Debt by $900 billion
everyyear (no matter what POTUS) we are PAYING THE INTEREST
not once during the clinton years (or any other) has the PRINCIPLE decreased
you say bushs unfunded offbudget wars
same as obamas carpet bombing of civilians in somolia, libya, pakistan, syria, etc
same as EVERY OTHER EMERGENCY (katrina, 911, sandy, the midwest floods happening right now)...all MONIES for them...OFFBUDGET (some emergency funding is within the fema budget, but very little)
sorry but facts are facts, clinton never had a real surplus..all he ever had was a projected surplus...a wish list if you want to use a more common phrase
That's not true.
A total of Nearly $400 billion more was taken in in revenue than was spent in fy's 1998, 1999 and 2000. Bill Clinton had the most successull two terms in the last 50 years. It amazes me how Republicans manufacture their own set of facts and ignore the truth. I guess it all gets back to the bold faced lies told on Fox News 24/7.
That's not true.
A total of Nearly $400 billion more was taken in in revenue than was spent in fy's 1998, 1999 and 2000. Bill Clinton had the most successull two terms in the last 50 years. It amazes me how Republicans manufacture their own set of facts and ignore the truth. I guess it all gets back to the bold faced lies told on Fox News 24/7.
where do you get your lies???
if MORE was taken in than spent, then the DEBT would have done DOWN
fact more was PROJECTED to be taken in than spent...but our government likes to SPEND, and they did....the final tally...we spent MORE than taken in, that's why the debt INCREASED....its in the math, man
clinton had the most successfull 2 terms in 50 years???? wow putting him on some pedistal there, guy
yep the sucesses of clinton:
1993 NAFTA-originally pushed by Brezezenki and his puppet carter,,moved along by reagan----negotiated by another brezezenki puppet bush1--- passed in 1993 by the democrat controlled congress, pushed by clinton, signed by clinton-inceased with CAFTA by bush2--the consequence ...... 60+ million HIGH PAYING jobs have been lost, 2 trillion worth of debt from the lost wages.(and obamy wants to increase it too,,,hmmm)
1995 clinton (through his chief of HUD (Henry Cisneros and later his second chief andrew coumo)) eased the rules on obtaining mortgages allowing more 'exotic' mortgages and 'no-doc/low doc' mortgages-----the consequence ......housing SKYROCKETED causing low inventories causing a 'not normal' increase in home prices, sellers got greedy, buyers got even greedier (looking to PROFIT in a skyrocketing market by flipping) and bought THINKING that prices would still increase and their ADJUSTABLE mortgage would pay it self off in MINIMUMAL years...EVEN THOUGH THESE INCREASES IN HOME VALUES WERE TOTALLY UNHEARD OF, AND MORTGAGE RATES WERE AT 40 YEAR LOWS( what did they think an adjustable mortgage gotten at 40 year lows would do in the term(3 months-3years) when it adjusted...of course it would go up, their CONTRACT even said after the term it would be 6% PLUS PRIME)))
For many potential homebuyers, the lack of cash available to accumulate the required downpayment and closing costs is the major impediment to purchasing a home. Other households do not have sufficient available income to to make the monthly payments on mortgages financed at market interest rates for standard loan terms. Financing strategies, fueled by the creativity and resources of the private and public sectors, should address both of these financial barriers to homeownership."
The above is the start of the mortgage meltdon: Clinton's National Homeownership Strategy
1996 clinton signed The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (The Act was claimed to foster competition. Instead, it allowed industry consolidation whose actions reduced the number of major media companies from around 30 in 1993 to 10 in 1996, and reducing the 10 in 1996 to 6 in 2005.) causing MONOPOLIES, which can RAISE PRICES
1998 clinton does not allow drilling for OUR OWN OIL..the liberals say 'it will take ten years before we seee the oil'...guess what its been ten years
1999 Clinton DEREGULATES the banking industry
2000 clinton signs the China trade bill
2000 clinton signs the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000..(which paves the way for ENRON)
2000/1 clinton pushes to get china into the world bank
That's not true.
A total of Nearly $400 billion more was taken in in revenue than was spent in fy's 1998, 1999 and 2000. Bill Clinton had the most successull two terms in the last 50 years. It amazes me how Republicans manufacture their own set of facts and ignore the truth. I guess it all gets back to the bold faced lies told on Fox News 24/7.
It was Newt Gingrich who worked with Clinton to get welfare reform.. yes,, a democrat can work with a republican.. unlike Obama who keeps the hate going with class warfare, race , and division as his tool to keep the democrats listening.. and they are such a hateful bunch of people who want tolerance and give none. Like president , like follower.
Those nafta trucks coming over the border brought plenty illegals here.. you betcha.. Clinton shoved the unions aside and opened up his candy store to get the votes.. do you want a bridge,, give me your vote on this one.. and Perot was right.. the giant sucking sound of jobs lost.
if MORE was taken in than spent, then the DEBT would have done DOWN
fact more was PROJECTED to be taken in than spent...but our government likes to SPEND, and they did....the final tally...we spent MORE than taken in, that's why the debt INCREASED....its in the math, man
clinton had the most successfull 2 terms in 50 years???? wow putting him on some pedistal there, guy
yep the sucesses of clinton:
1993 NAFTA-originally pushed by Brezezenki and his puppet carter,,moved along by reagan----negotiated by another brezezenki puppet bush1--- passed in 1993 by the democrat controlled congress, pushed by clinton, signed by clinton-inceased with CAFTA by bush2--the consequence ...... 60+ million HIGH PAYING jobs have been lost, 2 trillion worth of debt from the lost wages.(and obamy wants to increase it too,,,hmmm)
1995 clinton (through his chief of HUD (Henry Cisneros and later his second chief andrew coumo)) eased the rules on obtaining mortgages allowing more 'exotic' mortgages and 'no-doc/low doc' mortgages-----the consequence ......housing SKYROCKETED causing low inventories causing a 'not normal' increase in home prices, sellers got greedy, buyers got even greedier (looking to PROFIT in a skyrocketing market by flipping) and bought THINKING that prices would still increase and their ADJUSTABLE mortgage would pay it self off in MINIMUMAL years...EVEN THOUGH THESE INCREASES IN HOME VALUES WERE TOTALLY UNHEARD OF, AND MORTGAGE RATES WERE AT 40 YEAR LOWS( what did they think an adjustable mortgage gotten at 40 year lows would do in the term(3 months-3years) when it adjusted...of course it would go up, their CONTRACT even said after the term it would be 6% PLUS PRIME)))
For many potential homebuyers, the lack of cash available to accumulate the required downpayment and closing costs is the major impediment to purchasing a home. Other households do not have sufficient available income to to make the monthly payments on mortgages financed at market interest rates for standard loan terms. Financing strategies, fueled by the creativity and resources of the private and public sectors, should address both of these financial barriers to homeownership."
The above is the start of the mortgage meltdon: Clinton's National Homeownership Strategy
1996 clinton signed The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (The Act was claimed to foster competition. Instead, it allowed industry consolidation whose actions reduced the number of major media companies from around 30 in 1993 to 10 in 1996, and reducing the 10 in 1996 to 6 in 2005.) causing MONOPOLIES, which can RAISE PRICES
1998 clinton does not allow drilling for OUR OWN OIL..the liberals say 'it will take ten years before we seee the oil'...guess what its been ten years
1999 Clinton DEREGULATES the banking industry
2000 clinton signs the China trade bill
2000 clinton signs the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000..(which paves the way for ENRON)
2000/1 clinton pushes to get china into the world bank
I'll hand you one thing....you've got a set of balls. Right in the face of Clinton creating 22 million new jobs, generating a surplus three of his last four years in office even though the Republicans were digging and trying to find something...anything to try to remove him from office the entire time, you have the balls to compare him to Reagan who cut taxes to the lowest in forty years, continued to spend like a drunken sailor then he and Bush41 quadrupled the national debt for the first time in history. After Clinton fixed the economy and left a balanced budget with surpluses projected all the way to the outyears Bush came in, cut taxes twice using reconciliation to block Democrat objection, started two wars...one totally unnecessary and doubled the national debt again. All the ignorant bastard had to do was leave things alone but he had to funnel borrowed Communist Chinese billions into the hands of the wealthy. None of them have ever cut spending a dime but the Democrats left tax rates in a place where they could pay for theirs. The Republicans are responsible for all the debt. If Bush hadn't wrecked the economy just before he left office Obama's rate of spending would have set new lows for the last thirty years....since Reagan screwed things up.
I'll hand you one thing....you've got a set of balls. Right in the face of Clinton creating 22 million new jobs, generating a surplus three of his last four years in office even though the Republicans were digging and trying to find something...anything to try to remove him from office the entire time, you have the balls to compare him to Reagan who cut taxes to the lowest in forty years, continued to spend like a drunken sailor then he and Bush41 quadrupled the national debt for the first time in history. After Clinton fixed the economy and left a balanced budget with surpluses projected all the way to the outyears Bush came in, cut taxes twice using reconciliation to block Democrat objection, started two wars...one totally unnecessary and doubled the national debt again. All the ignorant bastard had to do was leave things alone but he had to funnel borrowed Communist Chinese billions into the hands of the wealthy. None of them have ever cut spending a dime but the Democrats left tax rates in a place where they could pay for theirs. The Republicans are responsible for all the debt. If Bush hadn't wrecked the economy just before he left office Obama's rate of spending would have set new lows for the last thirty years....since Reagan screwed things up.
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.
