Tuesday, April 19, 2011
From the U.S. Treasury
Here are the numbers, folks. Interpret them however you wish. But, yes/rest assured, these in fact ARE the numbers. a) In 1998, the public debt went down 55.8 billion. b) In 1999, it went down 97.8 billion. c) In 2000, it went down 230.8 billion. d) And in 2001, it went down 66.0 billion.............e) In 1998, intergovernmental holdings went up 168.9 billion. f) In 1999, they went up 227.8 billion. g) In 2000, they went up 248.7 billion. h) And in 2001, they went up 199.3 billion.............i) In 1998, the TOTAL national debt went up 113.0 billion. j) In 1999, it went up 130.1 billion. k) In 2000, it went up 17.9 billion. l) And in 2001, it went up 133.3 billion...............................................................................................There....So, did we (i.e., Clinton and the Republican Congress) run a surplus for those four straight years? Or was it a deficit? I don't know. I guess, folks, that it all depends on what your definition of surplus/is is..................................................................................................P.S. As far as that Politifact article which seems to support the belief that Clinton in fact did run surpluses, it was incomplete. Yes, it acknowledges the fact that some of the surplus came from Social Security borrowing. BUT, it also fails to note that there were many OTHER trust funds that government raided during those years; the Unemployment Trust, the Civil Service Retirement Trust, various transportation trusts, etc.. Those also contributed to the TOTAL national debt....Just for clarification, folks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
I still paid my taxes...
Granted, without double checking the numbers, I suspect that the intergovernmental holdings went up because that is where the Social Security surplus shows up. In other words, part of the intergovernmental holding is the Social Security surplus. That is why when Social Security starts drawing on those fund, it will not increase the Federal debt. It is already accounted for in the debt.
Tee! How you doin'? Yeah, I did mine, too - right under the wire. Should have done them earlier, though. This, in that I'm actually getting money back this year.......Exactly, Jerry. It's just too bad that the government pissed that surplus away on occupations, missile attacks, etc..
I thought you were a fan of Clinton. Actually, I thought you were more of a fan than I am. Yet I'm defending his record and you're distorting it...
BTW the Republican Congress deserves no share of the kudos for Clinton's success. They predicted dire consequences when Clinton's tax increases went through.
This is not a slam on Clinton at all. He deserves a lot of credit for getting our house/economy back in order. I was just following a lead that dmarks gave me and this is where it lead.
Not a big fan of Bubba. But I guess it shows you what is possible with a centrist democrat in the White House and a republican congress.
Lead well followed Will.
WD,in your humble opinion....are there any good conservatives? Living or dead.
Socialism only works 'til you run out of other peoples money.
Hate to pop your bubble Russ, but feral, unregulated capitalism is a failure too. The current paradigm which we know as western capitalism is unsustainable: With Globalization, China, India and others are trying to live like us. There isn't enough raw materials, energy, food etc to keep up...resources aren't being allocated efficently or fairly.
Marcus just did a very good Chicken Little imitation to alert us that the sky is falling....mind you it has'nt quite fallen yet but ir surely will.
Not being able to point to one example of Socialism actually working its a pretty typical response to throw a stone at a success.
Russ seems to do an excellent ostrich, prefering to stick his head in idealogical sand rather than face facts...The US represents less than 10% of the global population and yet we consume more than any nation on earth. Food prduction is down. Food crops are being diverted to energy production. One consequence is Ecosystems are being destroyed worldwide. If we continue to consume oil at the present rate, it will be gone in 100 years. Russ, I honestly don't know if Socialism works...I not the one beating my chest saying my world view is perfect...I know it isn't...can you say the same??
Marcus, Rusty, RN, I still kind of like my suggestion from a couple of posts ago - a regulation czar. I mean, there has to be a way in which we can ferret out the good regulations which prevent excesses/mayhem from the far more idiotic regulations which do nothing but stifle growth....There has to be!!
As for any potential doomsday scenarios, those, unfortunately, are entirely possible. Me, though, I'm a lot more afraid of a loose nuke than I am of any sort of potential food shortage, etc.. Just as it was 200 years ago when Thomas Malthus said that, "The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man", I feel (perhaps naively) that the technological advancements will probably again buoy us.......And aren't we the Saudi Arabia of natural gas? Hopefully, folks, we can start to access that and do so safely.
Will, your heart (pardon the pun) is in the right place when you suggest a regulation czar...but think about it...the position would become another political drama, just like Supreme Court nominations. Moreover Conservatives and their TeaParty brethren find regulation repugnant, especially in the business world. I don't think your well intentioned idea would fly with everyone.
I suspect that you're right. Hannity, for instance, would absolutely crucify me.
For christ sake Will,there's about two or three hundred of these "czars" floating around now.Does anyone know exactly what the hell they do? Can anyone point to anything positive one of them have done?
I suggest any czar appointed from now on must be named Romanov.
I'd be willing to get rid of 'em all, Russ, and just have a regulation czar and a infrastructure czar. Those 2 constructs I can actually conceive of.
Post a Comment