May 10, 200618 yr The five trillian was a projected 15 year result. It actually went from 2.7 trillion surplus to 7.5 trillian or so deficit. That makes this counted STUPID. Whoever wrote that is kinda out there... Your numbers are a bit off. First off, another lie was Clinton's proclamation that we had a $70 billion surplus in 1998. It was actually a $113 billion deficit. The last annual surplus we had was in 1960 ($581 million). However, the annual deficit did get down to about $18 billion in fiscal 2000, which was the closest we've come to a surplus since the 1969 $10 billion deficit. As for the national debt, to which your figures more closely match, it was about $4.188 trillion when Clinton came in, and rose about 38% to $5.728 trillion when he left - without ever incurring a surplus. As of yesterday, the debt was $8.364 trillion - a ludicrous increase of about 46% in the 5+ years of the Bush administration. Source: US Treasury you are talking about a couple of different things. what clinton proclamation is, is a surplus in the federal budget, nothing to do with the national debt. "Clinton hails $70 billion federal surplus Saving Social Security is next challenge, he says WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, September 30) -- President Bill Clinton announced Wednesday the federal government will post about a $70 billion budget surplus for the 1998 fiscal year, and called the historic surplus the first of many to come. "We have waited a long time for this," said Clinton. "Tonight at midnight, America puts an end to three decades of deficits and launches an era of balances and surpluses." " http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/199...clinton.budget/ according to the congressional budget office only 2 years since 1962 had years where the federal budget did not end in notable red tape, fy 1999 and fy 2000. when clinton took office the national debt held by the public was $49.4 and when he left it was $33.0 . as of fy 2005 the public now owns $37.4 of the national debt. http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf
May 10, 200618 yr Why don't we do a top 13 Republican lies list? What makes you think Republican politicians are any cleaner persay?
May 10, 200618 yr What makes you think Republican politicians are any cleaner persay? I think that's how he justifies it, more or less.
May 10, 200618 yr Why don't we do a top 13 Republican lies list? What makes you think Republican politicians are any cleaner persay? number 1 "I am not a crook" number 2 " Read my Lips....." number 3 " Mission Accomplished" next few?
May 10, 200618 yr Why don't we do a top 13 Republican lies list? What makes you think Republican politicians are any cleaner persay? number 1 "I am not a crook" number 2 " Read my Lips....." number 3 " Mission Accomplished" next few? Number 4 Tom Delay Number 5 Congress Ethics Comittee...
May 10, 200618 yr Why don't we do a top 13 Republican lies list? What makes you think Republican politicians are any cleaner persay? number 1 "I am not a crook" number 2 " Read my Lips....." number 3 " Mission Accomplished" next few? Number 4 Tom Delay Number 5 Congress Ethics Comittee... Number 6 Anything Joe McCarthy said
May 10, 200618 yr Why don't we do a top 13 Republican lies list? What makes you think Republican politicians are any cleaner persay? number 1 "I am not a crook" number 2 " Read my Lips....." number 3 " Mission Accomplished" next few? Number 4 Tom Delay Number 5 Congress Ethics Comittee... Number 6 Anything Joe McCarthy said I think 50 years is reaching at thin air there....
May 10, 200618 yr Why don't we do a top 13 Republican lies list? What makes you think Republican politicians are any cleaner persay? number 1 "I am not a crook" number 2 " Read my Lips....." number 3 " Mission Accomplished" next few? Number 4 Tom Delay Number 5 Congress Ethics Comittee... Number 6 Anything Joe McCarthy said I think 50 years is reaching at thin air there.... Just trying to help. Number 6 Democrat?s are against getting tough with our enemies Number 7 Democrat?s fear patriotism Number 8 Democrat?s are agnostics I'm sure we could grab a bunch more just from that first post.
May 10, 200618 yr ^_^ )-->QUOTE( ^_^ @ May 10 2006, 4:57 PM) 1142949[/snapback] you are talking about a couple of different things. what clinton proclamation is, is a surplus in the federal budget, nothing to do with the national debt. "Clinton hails $70 billion federal surplus Saving Social Security is next challenge, he says WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, September 30) -- President Bill Clinton announced Wednesday the federal government will post about a $70 billion budget surplus for the 1998 fiscal year, and called the historic surplus the first of many to come. "We have waited a long time for this," said Clinton. "Tonight at midnight, America puts an end to three decades of deficits and launches an era of balances and surpluses." " http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/199...clinton.budget/ according to the congressional budget office only 2 years since 1962 had years where the federal budget did not end in notable red tape, fy 1999 and fy 2000. when clinton took office the national debt held by the public was $49.4 and when he left it was $33.0 . as of fy 2005 the public now owns $37.4 of the national debt. http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf You are correct in that the budget and deficit are different. The 1998 budget was a hoax, the the deficit is reality. While Clinton may have budgeted for a surplus, in reality, the budget was not met and a deficit did indeed occur. As of FY 2005, the actual amount of debt held by the public, as opposed the budgeted amount, was $4.601 trillion of the national debt.
May 10, 200618 yr You are correct in that the budget and deficit are different. The 1998 budget was a hoax, the the deficit is reality. While Clinton may have budgeted for a surplus, in reality, the budget was not met and a deficit did indeed occur. As of FY 2005, the actual amount of debt held by the public, as opposed the budgeted amount, was $4.601 trillion of the national debt. i am not sure what you are looking at for the fy 1998 info. according to the congressional budget office's historical report: http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf there was a budget surplus of $1.9 billion in fy 1999 and $86.4 billion in fy 2000. and then there were overall surplusses of $69.3, $125.6, $236.2, $128.2 (in billions) fy 1998- fy 2001. the congressional revenues were that much greater than their outlays those years, thus those were surplusses. I am not sure why the cbo would either lie or not correct their info. and yes you are right I was reading it wrong before the current public debt is $4.59 trillion. (fy 2005 report). it has only gone up, it is the percentage of the debt the public owns that went down under clinton and rose again under bush. but the actual $ amount went up under both.
May 10, 200618 yr ^_^ )-->QUOTE( ^_^ @ May 10 2006, 5:58 PM) 1143012[/snapback] You are correct in that the budget and deficit are different. The 1998 budget was a hoax, the the deficit is reality. While Clinton may have budgeted for a surplus, in reality, the budget was not met and a deficit did indeed occur. As of FY 2005, the actual amount of debt held by the public, as opposed the budgeted amount, was $4.601 trillion of the national debt. i am not sure what you are looking at for the fy 1998 info. according to the congressional budget office's historical report: http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf there was a budget surplus of $1.9 billion in fy 1999 and $86.4 billion in fy 2000. and then there were overall surplusses of $69.3, $125.6, $236.2, $128.2 (in billions) fy 1998- fy 2001. the congressional revenues were that much greater than their outlays those years, thus those were surplusses. I am not sure why the cbo would either lie or not correct their info. and yes you are right I was reading it wrong before the current public debt is $4.59 trillion. (fy 2005 report). it has only gone up, it is the percentage of the debt the public owns that went down under clinton and rose again under bush. but the actual $ amount went up under both. 1998 is the first year that Clinton proclaimed a budget surplus. All the surpluses you mentioned were budget surpluses, not what really did happen. The actual deficits for FY 1998 - FY 2001 were (in billions) $113, $130, $18, and $133. During that time, while the budget was for a combined $559 billion surplus, the reality was a $394 deficit (or, about 10 months worth of last year's deficit). In total, the budget for those four years was off by $953 billion. The CBO is just that. However, they do not receive any revenues or make any expenditures, just budgets and use historical budgeted figures. The US Treasury is the reality. The receive the revenues and make the expenditures. In short, the US Treasury has the historical real figures, whereas the CBO has the planned amounts. Just as I can budget my household, and show a surplus, my wife can, in reality, turn that into a deficit.
May 10, 200618 yr 1998 is the first year that Clinton proclaimed a budget surplus. All the surpluses you mentioned were budget surpluses, not what really did happen. The actual deficits for FY 1998 - FY 2001 were (in billions) $113, $130, $18, and $133. During that time, while the budget was for a combined $559 billion surplus, the reality was a $394 deficit (or, about 10 months worth of last year's deficit). In total, the budget for those four years was off by $953 billion. The CBO is just that. However, they do not receive any revenues or make any expenditures, just budgets and use historical budgeted figures. The US Treasury is the reality. The receive the revenues and make the expenditures. In short, the US Treasury has the historical real figures, whereas the CBO has the planned amounts. Just as I can budget my household, and show a surplus, my wife can, in reality, turn that into a deficit. gotcha :thumbup
May 10, 200618 yr Number 6 Democrat?s are against getting tough with our enemies That's not a lie and history supports this assessment.
May 10, 200618 yr Number 6 Democrat's are against getting tough with our enemies That's not a lie and history supports this assessment. :lol So Truman wasn't tough with our enemies nor Kennedy? And Nixon was real tough against our enemies considering he spied on his own political enemies. I am only using the past 50 years because thats really all you can consider with the state of the modern parties. Anything beyond is really reaching for current day party philosophy.
May 10, 200618 yr Number 6 Democrat's are against getting tough with our enemies That's not a lie and history supports this assessment. :lol So Truman wasn't tough with our enemies nor Kennedy? And Nixon was real tough against our enemies considering he spied on his own political enemies. I am only using the past 50 years because thats really all you can consider with the state of the modern parties. Anything beyond is really reaching for current day party philosophy. Hey, Ronald Reagan singlehandedly defeated the communists. Ooh, yeah, that's a good republican lie too!
May 10, 200618 yr Number 6 Democrat's are against getting tough with our enemies That's not a lie and history supports this assessment. :lol So Truman wasn't tough with our enemies nor Kennedy? And Nixon was real tough against our enemies considering he spied on his own political enemies. I am only using the past 50 years because thats really all you can consider with the state of the modern parties. Anything beyond is really reaching for current day party philosophy. Hey, Ronald Reagan singlehandedly defeated the communists. Ooh, yeah, that's a good republican lie too! I didn't want to open that can of worms but here's my two cents on that issue... The Soviet Union began to fall apart full blast during Carter's administration. The folly of Breshnev to invade Afghanistan was the final blow. Gorbachev saw this and proceeded to pursue economic reforms in an attempt to save the Big Red Giant. The Berlin Wall fell because of the people in Germany, Reagan had absolutely nothing to do with it. His face value policy of Star Wars was nothing more than a ploy for the administration to spend more money on defense. Meanwhile, they were turning a blind eye to the coming epidemic of AIDS. Reagan didn't even begin talking about AIDS until the middle of his second term; a full 6 years or so after the first signs of the disease were reported in the United States gay communities.
May 10, 200618 yr I should go find Top 13 Republican Lies. What, you think it's only a one-way deal??
May 10, 200618 yr Number 6 Democrat's are against getting tough with our enemies That's not a lie and history supports this assessment. :lol So Truman wasn't tough with our enemies nor Kennedy? And Nixon was real tough against our enemies considering he spied on his own political enemies. I am only using the past 50 years because thats really all you can consider with the state of the modern parties. Anything beyond is really reaching for current day party philosophy. Hey, Ronald Reagan singlehandedly defeated the communists. Ooh, yeah, that's a good republican lie too! the communists really defeated themselves although reagan did a good job, i would think Nixon would be more important to the soviet fall between the two of them. democrats were and i think still for hunting down UBL you know the guy responsible for 9/11 he is an enemy. democrats were also against rewarding countries like saudi arabia with port deal on our soil. FDR pushed along the manhattan project.
May 10, 200618 yr ^_^ )-->QUOTE( ^_^ @ May 10 2006, 6:47 PM) 1143077[/snapback] Number 6 Democrat's are against getting tough with our enemies That's not a lie and history supports this assessment. :lol So Truman wasn't tough with our enemies nor Kennedy? And Nixon was real tough against our enemies considering he spied on his own political enemies. I am only using the past 50 years because thats really all you can consider with the state of the modern parties. Anything beyond is really reaching for current day party philosophy. Hey, Ronald Reagan singlehandedly defeated the communists. Ooh, yeah, that's a good republican lie too! the communists really defeated themselves although reagan did a good job of diplomacy and really put the choke hold on them. democrats were and i think still against hunting down UBL you know the guy responsible for 9/11 he is an enemy. democrats were also against rewarding countries like saudi arabia with port deal on our soil. FDR pushed along the manhattan project. Reagan had nothing to do with the fall of soviet union. That's why I said it was a good lie. I don't see how being against the war in Iraq is against hunting down osama, honestly. Most democrats still support the war in Afghanistan, you know, where the guy responsible for 9/11 was last reported to be. How is being against letting the Saudi's have port's in the US make them soft on defense? That's stupid. FDR started the Manhattan project. What does this have to do with anything?
May 10, 200618 yr Reagan had nothing to do with the fall of soviet union. That's why I said it was a good lie. I don't see how being against the war in Iraq is against hunting down osama, honestly. Most democrats still support the war in Afghanistan, you know, where the guy responsible for 9/11 was last reported to be. How is being against letting the Saudi's have port's in the US make them soft on defense? That's stupid. FDR started the Manhattan project. What does this have to do with anything? i am saying those things to show democrats aren't weak against the enemies. :shifty
May 10, 200618 yr ^_^ )-->QUOTE( ^_^ @ May 10 2006, 6:54 PM) 1143090[/snapback] i am saying those things to show democrats aren't weak against the enemies. :shifty I see that now. My mistake. I misunderstood the part about UBL. I thought you said they were against hunting him down.
May 10, 200618 yr ^_^ )-->QUOTE( ^_^ @ May 10 2006, 6:54 PM) 1143090[/snapback] Reagan had nothing to do with the fall of soviet union. That's why I said it was a good lie. I don't see how being against the war in Iraq is against hunting down osama, honestly. Most democrats still support the war in Afghanistan, you know, where the guy responsible for 9/11 was last reported to be. How is being against letting the Saudi's have port's in the US make them soft on defense? That's stupid. FDR started the Manhattan project. What does this have to do with anything? i am saying those things to show democrats aren't weak against the enemies. :shifty To be fair, the only reason FDR started the Manhatten Project really was the fact the Germans were close to a nuke even before the war. They would have likely been the first, but their policies drove all of the top scientists out of Germany.
May 10, 200618 yr To be fair, the only reason FDR started the Manhatten Project really was the fact the Germans were close to a nuke even before the war. They would have likely been the first, but their policies drove all of the top scientists out of Germany. yeah the history channel ran a thing like a month ago about einstien coming over to meet with fdr to try and convince him to start a program and let him know what the germans were up to. it was part of that 10 days that unexpectedly change america series. the germans problem was they went about the hard way to make a bomb they went for a fission bomb versus a fusion bomb, maybe it is reversed, whichever one is harder to make the germans went that way.
May 10, 200618 yr Debating politics goes no where, no ones just going to change their mind, ight as well debate religion while your at it..
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.