Sqrl said:
The reason I ask is because you say "one yr to blow the surplus". The thing is that every year you can set a new budget and while it's pretty hard to take things off from last year's budget (people get cranky), it is really very easy to add things (this makes congressmen happy). In short, it's really easy to just spend more than you bring in for any given year, which is why saying "one yr to blow the surplus" really makes no sense.
In reality though there never was a Clinton Surplus, in reference to debt or budget. In fact during the three years often cited as the years in which clinton had a budget surplus, usually claimed to be ~$360 billion for FY98-00, the national debt actually increased by ~$280 billion. You can verify this with the treasury department here if you like.
And you'll note clinton's last budget left to Bush had reversed the near budget surplus of FY2000, and instead left it with a deficit of ~$133.3 billion. The difference in reality versus what is reported is due, largely at least, to not reporting intergovernmental holdings which, essentially, is just money the government borrows from social security to make their deficits look smaller than they really are. Basically they don't count money they borrowed from themselves (which in and of itself is an absurd practice, let alone not counting it for whatever reason). |
yes. i new. it's all about being informative. i just didn't like how my coment about large financial was down played as an added punchline to avoid a debate.
i love facts, but when my statements are taken as second note to what was posted then thats when i turn a blind eye to facts and go with what may piss people off.
