Re:My guess is that the numbers you found are the "total public debt," which includes the debts owed by one government program to another. I don't understand exactly how that works.
Intra gov lending is still borrowed money that need paid back. It's all smoke and mirrors, robbing Peter to pay Paul. They just take the money from a fund that has a surplus. Now that fund is down that amount and must be paid back.
The bottom line is Clinton spent more money each year than taxes collected. Which results in a deficit. At least without the smoke and mirrors, Clinton had some of the smallest deficits. But that was partially due to a Repub Congress.
Don, good, I was hoping you and I would be able to circle back together on this.
I totally agree that credit for the budget successes of the '90's goes to both parties. A budget's a half President, half Congress kind of a thing. The President gets to propose the initial numbers, but he doesn't get squat that Congress doesn't OK.
If two men who disliked each other as much as Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich were able to set aside their personal feelings long enough to do something right for the country, then maybe there's hope for the next four years, after all. At least, I hope so.
The bottom line is Don you're wrong on this just like everything else. I'm going to try one more time to get this through your pea brain. The surplus was made up of social security and medicare surpluses. This is money that eventually was to go to social security and medicare. Bush took the money and used it for tax cuts. But the surpluses were real because the government took in more than it spent for two years. That is how a surplus is defined even in your universe.
Why does the U.S Treasury show a DEFICIT each year that Clinton was in office???? Are they "pea brains"??? Why isnt there an asterisk next to those "surplus" years?? Because the SURPLUS is a FARCE!!!!!