tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1327826536005692170.post7884767068125758641..comments2023-08-24T07:27:12.657-07:00Comments on Contra O'Reilly: The Clintonian ParadoxWill "take no prisoners" Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02315659209094683602noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1327826536005692170.post-28365053524036890702013-03-25T04:52:05.387-07:002013-03-25T04:52:05.387-07:00Will doesn't make it, Barlowe. However, when I...Will doesn't make it, Barlowe. However, when I look at the Treasury Department figures (<a href="http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/mspd.htm" rel="nofollow">here</a>), I find no surpluses. Just constantly increasing debt due to deficits each year. And in the Clinton years that some claim there was a surplus, all that shows is a lower deficit than usual. But still a deficit.<br /><br />As Clinton increased the debt by $1.6 trillion, it is my opinion that he is grossly irresponsible from a fiscal management point of view.... but definitely less grossly irresponsible than GWB and Obama.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1327826536005692170.post-38951858089262266212013-03-24T09:11:37.690-07:002013-03-24T09:11:37.690-07:00I thought there was a surplus due to the dot-com b...I thought there was a surplus due to the dot-com bubble as well as the Republican Congress putting the breaks on spending. What's with this "no surplus" assertion that Will and dmarks are both making?Barlowe Bayer, A Very Stable Geniushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08834900971863019248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1327826536005692170.post-89194310102648827732013-03-23T12:49:46.126-07:002013-03-23T12:49:46.126-07:00Fair enough and well said.Fair enough and well said.Will "take no prisoners" Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02315659209094683602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1327826536005692170.post-83013093473024274752013-03-23T12:22:22.858-07:002013-03-23T12:22:22.858-07:00I've criticized Gingrich for making a similar ...I've criticized Gingrich for making a similar false boast. Gingrich in fact balanced the budget as much as Gore invented the Internet.<br /><br />False boasts are hardly a Democrats-only phenomenon.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1327826536005692170.post-15363031536666552142013-03-23T11:50:49.045-07:002013-03-23T11:50:49.045-07:00Here's a post that I did several years ago in ...Here's a post that I did several years ago in which I actually buttressed your viewpoint here; i.e., that these federal surpluses came about via the raiding of various trust funds - http://paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com/2011/04/from-us-treasury.htmlWill "take no prisoners" Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02315659209094683602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1327826536005692170.post-79490336027244628972013-03-23T11:45:39.306-07:002013-03-23T11:45:39.306-07:00I don't think that Mitchell was saying that 19...I don't think that Mitchell was saying that 1993-1995 was better than 1995-2001, just that a 3.5 growth in spending per year and an actual reduction in spending as a % of GDP from 21.4% to 20.6% wasn't bad.............And, while I agree with you on the technical definition of what constitutes a surplus, please keep in mind here that Gingrich and co. on the Republican side were also trying to take credit for these nonexistent surpluses.Will "take no prisoners" Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02315659209094683602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1327826536005692170.post-2867279757766958172013-03-23T11:21:44.016-07:002013-03-23T11:21:44.016-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1327826536005692170.post-42197873108947623502013-03-23T11:17:25.829-07:002013-03-23T11:17:25.829-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1327826536005692170.post-5794598082109798932013-03-23T09:58:54.644-07:002013-03-23T09:58:54.644-07:00dmarks, according to findthedata.com, the federal ...dmarks, according to findthedata.com, the federal budget in 1993 (Clinton's first) was 1.41 trillion and spending as a % of GDP was 21.4%. By 1995, those numbers were 1.51 trillion (roughly a 7% increase over 2 years and roughly the same rate of growth as the proposed Ryan budget) and 20.6%. That isn't bad.Will "take no prisoners" Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02315659209094683602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1327826536005692170.post-38245154119738240612013-03-23T08:28:30.797-07:002013-03-23T08:28:30.797-07:00I do find a couple of the points debatable. One of...I do find a couple of the points debatable. One of them highly so.<br /><br />"Rock-solid ability to keep federal spending under control"<br /><br />He ran deficits for each of his 8 years for a total of a $1.6 trillion increase in the national debt. While he is not as bad as those before and after, I'd call this "no ability" rather than "rock solid ability"<br /><br />"Mitchell actually goes as far as to say that Clinton wasn't even a big spender prior to the Republican takeover of the House in 1994"<br /><br />Now, I really wonder where he gets this idea? Checking the <a href="http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/inflation.gif" rel="nofollow">cold hard facts</a>, Clinton was a much bigger spender BEFORE 1994 than he was AFTER. I wonder if he made a typo.dmarkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07269773990064736457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1327826536005692170.post-30946402618437049812013-03-23T03:47:10.031-07:002013-03-23T03:47:10.031-07:00Yep, as I've said often, looking back ole Bubb...Yep, as I've said often, looking back ole Bubba was pretty damn effective. and, well you know the rest of the story.<br /><br />Lets just say there was more to Bill that met the eye.Les Carpenterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01120280762698472496noreply@blogger.com