quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

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

quote:


Clinton did in fact create a fucking surplus in 'debt owed the public.'

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

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

Because the debt ceiling from 1997 to 2000 was 6 trillion dollars.
During that time, the debt went from 5.4 trillion to 5.7 trillion. No debt ceiling increase needed. Duh.

quote:


Clinton did in fact create a fucking surplus in 'debt owed the public.'

Which is an entirely meaningless term made specifically so lefties can claim clinton created a budget surplus. As I said at the very beginning of this discussion - if I decide to take entitlement spending 'off book' - I too could claim to balance the budget. Money is fungible. Do you understand what that means?

If I owe someone 5 trillion dollars - I could create two accounts "public debt", and "Creative accounting debt". I could borrow one billion from creative accounting, and apply it to public debt. Now I owe 4 billion in "public debt" and one billion in "creative accounting". The amount of money I owe hasn't decreased one iota. Yet I can point to public debt and say .. "See - I lessened the public debt! I created a surplus".

And it is no more true now then when clinton did it. Clinton borrowed from the Social security (and other) trust funds. That is the intragovernmental debt you alluded to in your post. Instead of keeping social security funds in social security trust funds - clinton spent them for general governmental purposes. Had that money been in those trust funds, earning interest (higher than government treasury rates) the social security trust funds would be in better shape.

As for the rest of your drivel - I'll be happy to debate democrat and liberal economics - I share your disdain for a lot of republican bills and spending.
However, until you can get past your partisan bullshit and call a spade a spade - if you cannot look and acknowledge the simple truth that *the debt never decreased* - there is zero chance we can have any constructive debate over actual policy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

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

Because the debt ceiling from 1997 to 2000 was 6 trillion dollars.
During that time, the debt went from 5.4 trillion to 5.7 trillion. No debt ceiling increase needed. Duh.

quote:


Clinton did in fact create a fucking surplus in 'debt owed the public.'

Which is an entirely meaningless term made specifically so lefties can claim clinton created a budget surplus. As I said at the very beginning of this discussion - if I decide to take entitlement spending 'off book' - I too could claim to balance the budget. Money is fungible. Do you understand what that means?

If I owe someone 5 trillion dollars - I could create two accounts "public debt", and "Creative accounting debt". I could borrow one billion from creative accounting, and apply it to public debt. Now I owe 4 billion in "public debt" and one billion in "creative accounting". The amount of money I owe hasn't decreased one iota. Yet I can point to public debt and say .. "See - I lessened the public debt! I created a surplus".

And it is no more true now then when clinton did it. Clinton borrowed from the Social security (and other) trust funds. That is the intragovernmental debt you alluded to in your post. Instead of keeping social security funds in social security trust funds - clinton spent them for general governmental purposes. Had that money been in those trust funds, earning interest (higher than government treasury rates) the social security trust funds would be in better shape.

As for the rest of your drivel - I'll be happy to debate democrat and liberal economics - I share your disdain for a lot of republican bills and spending.
However, until you can get past your partisan bullshit and call a spade a spade - if you cannot look and acknowledge the simple truth that *the debt never decreased* - there is zero chance we can have any constructive debate over actual policy.

Oh I know exactly what you are saying. When the repubs have a deficit, it is X after using/deducting the soc. sec surplus but when by the same accounting measures, used to describe Clinton's surplus, it's oh...but not really given he used the soc. sec. surplus.

As for my partisan bullshit, it is and has been bullshit from the Reagan admin. on until today and for every single admin. since but it is your partisanship that somehow now that accounting terms should be different for Clinton. Every single year since the '83 so-called soc. sec. reform, its surplus has been used, i.e. included and Clinton accounting for a surplus is no exception especially given the FACT that treasuries were actually bought back (first time since 1960) and the debt limit was not raised for either 3 or 4 years. HEREHERE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

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

Because the debt ceiling from 1997 to 2000 was 6 trillion dollars.
During that time, the debt went from 5.4 trillion to 5.7 trillion. No debt ceiling increase needed. Duh.

quote:


Clinton did in fact create a fucking surplus in 'debt owed the public.'

Which is an entirely meaningless term made specifically so lefties can claim clinton created a budget surplus. As I said at the very beginning of this discussion - if I decide to take entitlement spending 'off book' - I too could claim to balance the budget. Money is fungible. Do you understand what that means?

If I owe someone 5 trillion dollars - I could create two accounts "public debt", and "Creative accounting debt". I could borrow one billion from creative accounting, and apply it to public debt. Now I owe 4 billion in "public debt" and one billion in "creative accounting". The amount of money I owe hasn't decreased one iota. Yet I can point to public debt and say .. "See - I lessened the public debt! I created a surplus".

And it is no more true now then when clinton did it. Clinton borrowed from the Social security (and other) trust funds. That is the intragovernmental debt you alluded to in your post. Instead of keeping social security funds in social security trust funds - clinton spent them for general governmental purposes. Had that money been in those trust funds, earning interest (higher than government treasury rates) the social security trust funds would be in better shape.

As for the rest of your drivel - I'll be happy to debate democrat and liberal economics - I share your disdain for a lot of republican bills and spending.
However, until you can get past your partisan bullshit and call a spade a spade - if you cannot look and acknowledge the simple truth that *the debt never decreased* - there is zero chance we can have any constructive debate over actual policy.

Oh I know exactly what you are saying. When the repubs have a deficit, it is X after using/deducting the soc. sec surplus but when by the same accounting measures, used to describe Clinton's surplus, it's oh...but not really given he used the soc. sec. surplus.

As for my partisan bullshit, it is and has been bullshit from the Reagan admin. on until today and for every single admin. since but it is your partisanship that somehow now that accounting terms should be different for Clinton. Every single year since the '83 so-called soc. sec. reform, its surplus has been used, i.e. included and Clinton accounting for a surplus is no exception especially given the FACT that treasuries were actually bought back (first time since 1960) and the debt limit was not raised for either 3 or 4 years. HEREHERE

No Mr.Rodgers - you cannot actually quote me in a single place where I have advocated different accounting rules for democrats and republicans. And you cannot find a single case of me saying republicans were not guilty of creating deficits.

Treasuries are bought back frequently Mr. Rodgers. When the Treasury can sell bonds at lower interest rats (as has been possible for 7-8 years) they will redeem higher rated bonds. This is one of the reasons interest costs have remained somewhat reasonable.

As for clinton.

There is zero question that the Clinton increased the tax on social security benefits from 50% to 85% in the OBRA act of 1993. Thats just established law: https://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths2.html.

What this accomplished: Social Security incoming payments continue to accrue in the Social Security Trust fund. However, future revenues to the government were increased, because the government would recognize some of those payments as tax income.

You may not like that Clinton raised taxes on social security recipients - but that is inarguably what he did.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I go back to my earliest statement: US debt increased every year of Clinton's presidency. There was no surplus.
http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-837799
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/no-bill-clinton-didnt-balance-budget
http://quaap.com/D/clinton-surplus-factcheck