MrRodgers
Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Fiscal
Year Year
Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion
So which year did the debt go down idiot?
All go with FACTCHECK.com which reads the following:
.....kept on an accrual basis like those of most corporations, rather than the cash basis that the government has always used, final four years of the Clinton administration taken together would have shown a deficit. The principal difference is that under accrual accounting the government would book immediately the costs of promises made to pay future benefits to government workers and Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries.
However, even under accrual accounting, the annual reports showed surpluses of $69.2 billion in fiscal 1998, $76.9 billion in fiscal 1999, and $46 billion for fiscal year 2000. So even if the government had been using that form of accounting the deficit would have been erased for those three years. HERE
Look mate - who are you going to believe - some damn liberal factcheck - or the actual numbers from the US treasury.
This is, quite literally, Goebbels rendition of the big lie. Repeating a big lie, over and over, until it becomes truth.
The US debt increased every year of the clinton's presidency. No number of liberal fact checkers saying it didn't carries an ounce of water.
Check the freaking numbers.
By the way - even in the clinton numbers you present - the proof is there. Add the supposed deficit to the previous debt - you should come up with the new debt. You don't. When 2+2 <> 4, pretty solid evidence something's not right in denmark.
Bloomberg for one: debt limit increases. Why wasn't the debt limity increased for 98-00 ? HERE
Since 1960, to permanently raise, temporarily extend, or revise the definition of the debt limit – 49 times under Republican presidents and 29 times under Democratic presidents.
Wiki, conspicuous by their absence in raising the debt ceiling: August 5, 1997 [+450 Pub.L. 105–33] HERE $5.95 trillion
June 11, 2000 [+450 Pub.L. 107–199] HERE $5.95 trillion
HERE
How is it there is ANY source tha tells us their was a deficit when the debt ceiling was not raised 98-00 ?
Took me 5 minutes to find these, debt limit 1997: $5,950,000,000 HERE
debt limit 2002: From $5,950,000,000 HERE These are otherwise known as public law.
So it's clear that we are talking about accounting of two different debts. And unfortunately for the so-called 'conservatives' who worship Reagan, don't get to have it both ways. The following is the numbers According to your own charts Debt held by the public:
9/30/1997: $3,789,667,546,849.60
9/30/2001: $3,333,039,379,996.92 thus a reduction in 'debt held by the public' of some $456,628,166,852.68
So in fact as was reported, Clinton actually redeemed over $450 billion in treasury's.
Now what happened on the way to your Craig Steiner page ? Well let's take a look. Seems the intergovernmental holdings 'debt' went from $1,623,478,464,547.74 all of the way up to $2,482,943,910,405.32 . Wow, an increase of some $859,465,445,857.58
Now I wonder how that happened ? Who started that snowball down that hill ? Well there was a soc. sec. 'reform' purloined on the people when old Ronnie, tripled the payroll tax in the '83 and then stood by, sanctioned the govt. in effect stealing the resulting over payment and adding special treasuries to the what ? The intergovernmental debt fund. Isn't that precious ? Especially for a small govt. limited govt, fiscal conservative. [sic]
So in fact when the same accounting is used for 8 years of Reagan and 4 years of Bush I and 8 years of Bush II, Clinton did in fact create a fucking surplus in 'debt owed the public.' So when the great repub govt. emancipators and spinmeisters want to deny it...they come up way short as usual.
And in your second link, just how does Mr. Breslow's claim of a so-called Clinton scam differ from what has been proposed by many repubs since ? Just what was any different than the scam that had already perpetrated for the 12 years prior repub admins. with the addition of repub propagandized idea of putting soc. sec. on wall street, oh I am sorry 'privatized ?'
Advocates of these "savings" schemes, including many prominent neo-liberal economists, argue that the flood of public funds into financial markets will lower interest rates, stimulate private-sector investment and set off an endless cycle of robust growth. Sound familiar? It should. This is precisely how Ronald Reagan sold his tax cut in 1982. Reagan though, just cut taxes for the rich. It takes Democratic leadership to actually steal our wages and give them to Wall Street. [sic]
< Message edited by MrRodgers -- 2/14/2016 7:39:23 PM >
_____________________________
You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly but fuck one horse and you will be a horse fucker for all eternity. Catherine the Great
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
J K Galbraith
|
RE: US economy better now than when Obama took office - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread