How Many Liberal Myths are there?

[8537]

What do you think that Cons have to lie to prove there points?

Apparently, yes. If you claim there was no surplus in 1999 and 2000 you are either lying or unwittingly repeating a lie you were told.

You still dont get the tax base as a % of GDP do you?

I think I have a passing familiarity with the concept. In fact, I even explained why it's relevant - because, quoting myself, "The percent of income paid in taxes is the most comparable measure of the total tax base."

Mr. 8537 I do not repeat anything
Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)
Fiscal
Year Year
Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion
Thats as simple as I can make it for you
Calling a man a liar when all of a sudden this shows up has to hurt
I hope you learn from this

Tax revenue as a part of GDP means nothing when the UE rate is 3% vs 10%
You know that

Let me try this in plain english one more time: Debt held by the public (AKA External debt) declined in 1999 and 2000. Intragovernmental debt- involving unobligated transfers between government departments - increased, but the debt the government owed to others declined.

That's a surplus of the government relative to "not government" or the everything else. It's a surplus.

You posting the combined figures simply demonstrates You're a liar...or demonstrates your ignorance of the topic.

 

[JRK]

Apparently, yes. If you claim there was no surplus in 1999 and 2000 you are either lying or unwittingly repeating a lie you were told.




I think I have a passing familiarity with the concept. In fact, I even explained why it's relevant - because, quoting myself, "The percent of income paid in taxes is the most comparable measure of the total tax base."

Mr. 8537 I do not repeat anything
Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)
Fiscal
Year Year
Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion
Thats as simple as I can make it for you
Calling a man a liar when all of a sudden this shows up has to hurt
I hope you learn from this

Tax revenue as a part of GDP means nothing when the UE rate is 3% vs 10%
You know that

Let me try this in plain english one more time: Debt held by the public (AKA External debt) declined in 1999 and 2000. Intragovernmental debt- involving unobligated transfers between government departments - increased, but the debt the government owed to others declined.

That's a surplus of the government relative to "not government" or the everything else. It's a surplus.

You posting the combined figures simply demonstrates You're a liar...or demonstrates your ignorance of the topic.

You keep calling men a liar you better
Look
We were doing allot better job when Clinton and Bush was president with a GOP congress
Please call me a liar again and supply no documentation to back it up
Your talking, as I stated before, yearly income vs yearly outlays
No on has ever doubted that as we do not doubt in 07 we where within 162 billion with 2 wars on going
the national debt went up allot higher
its a simple fact of life and to deny it only means your harming your self, no-one else

 

[8537]

Mr. 8537 I do not repeat anything
Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)
Fiscal
Year Year
Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion
Thats as simple as I can make it for you
Calling a man a liar when all of a sudden this shows up has to hurt
I hope you learn from this

Tax revenue as a part of GDP means nothing when the UE rate is 3% vs 10%
You know that

Let me try this in plain english one more time: Debt held by the public (AKA External debt) declined in 1999 and 2000. Intragovernmental debt- involving unobligated transfers between government departments - increased, but the debt the government owed to others declined.

That's a surplus of the government relative to "not government" or the everything else. It's a surplus.

You posting the combined figures simply demonstrates You're a liar...or demonstrates your ignorance of the topic.

You keep calling men a liar you better

Oh no - I'm not saying you're definitely a liar. As I've pointed out, you could simply be ignorant of the facts. I'm not sure which it is.

The debt held by the public declined in 1999 and 2000. You keep posting links from a computer programmer and irrelevant material to attempt to claim otherwise. Not sure if you're lying or misinformed.

Your talking, as I stated before, yearly income vs yearly outlays

That's how a surplus or deficit is defined.

And for a guy who was claiming, just a few short days ago, that politicians don't control the economy - you sure are busy trying to claim the politicians control the economy.

 

[JRK]

Let me try this in plain english one more time: Debt held by the public (AKA External debt) declined in 1999 and 2000. Intragovernmental debt- involving unobligated transfers between government departments - increased, but the debt the government owed to others declined.

That's a surplus of the government relative to "not government" or the everything else. It's a surplus.

You posting the combined figures simply demonstrates You're a liar...or demonstrates your ignorance of the topic.

You keep calling men a liar you better

Oh no - I'm not saying you're definitely a liar. As I've pointed out, you could simply be ignorant of the facts. I'm not sure which it is.

The debt held by the public declined in 1999 and 2000. You keep posting links from a computer programmer and irrelevant material to attempt to claim otherwise. Not sure if you're lying or misinformed.

Your talking, as I stated before, yearly income vs yearly outlays

That's how a surplus or deficit is defined.

And for a guy who was claiming, just a few short days ago, that politicians don't control the economy - you sure are busy trying to claim the politicians control the economy.

I tell you what
Just go away
calling me a liar has run its course punk
just go away, ignore my threads and the truth

 

[bripat9643]

You can say that again! But, if consolidation of wealth into the hands of the very few is the goal, it's been a resounding success!

That's liberal horseshit - another lie, just like "trickle down."

 

[8537]

You keep calling men a liar you better

Oh no - I'm not saying you're definitely a liar. As I've pointed out, you could simply be ignorant of the facts. I'm not sure which it is.

The debt held by the public declined in 1999 and 2000. You keep posting links from a computer programmer and irrelevant material to attempt to claim otherwise. Not sure if you're lying or misinformed.

Your talking, as I stated before, yearly income vs yearly outlays

That's how a surplus or deficit is defined.

And for a guy who was claiming, just a few short days ago, that politicians don't control the economy - you sure are busy trying to claim the politicians control the economy.

I tell you what
Just go away
calling me a liar has run its course punk
just go away, ignore my threads and the truth

The Truth, JRK, is this:

1. Reagan cut taxes once and raised them on six separate occassions, including the largest tax hike since WW2. The economy grew.

2. Clinton increased the top marginal rate by about 5 points. The economy grew and the period included the creation of 22M jobs.

3. Bush cut taxes twice. GDP growth moderated over the entire period and job growth was first steeply negative and then slow but steady.

4. In the last four years of Clinton budgets, the unified budget was balanced for four straight years. The on-budget figures were balanced for two of those years. During that two year period, the debt held by the public (the only relevant measure of marketable debt) declined.

So instead of facing facts, you tell me to go away and call me a punk. Let's be clear here, JRK: I could care less what you think. I only care that you are spouting incorrect information, making duplicitous claims about the impact of government on the economy and denying facts that challenge your ideological bias.

 

[JRK]

Oh no - I'm not saying you're definitely a liar. As I've pointed out, you could simply be ignorant of the facts. I'm not sure which it is.

The debt held by the public declined in 1999 and 2000. You keep posting links from a computer programmer and irrelevant material to attempt to claim otherwise. Not sure if you're lying or misinformed.



That's how a surplus or deficit is defined.

And for a guy who was claiming, just a few short days ago, that politicians don't control the economy - you sure are busy trying to claim the politicians control the economy.

I tell you what
Just go away
calling me a liar has run its course punk
just go away, ignore my threads and the truth

The Truth, JRK, is this:

1. Reagan cut taxes once and raised them on six separate occassions, including the largest tax hike since WW2. The economy grew.

2. Clinton increased the top marginal rate by about 5 points. The economy grew and the period included the creation of 22M jobs.

3. Bush cut taxes twice. GDP growth moderated over the entire period and job growth was first steeply negative and then slow but steady.

4. In the last four years of Clinton budgets, the unified budget was balanced for four straight years. The on-budget figures were balanced for two of those years. During that two year period, the debt held by the public (the only relevant measure of marketable debt) declined.

So instead of facing facts, you tell me to go away and call me a punk. Let's be clear here, JRK: I could care less what you think. I only care that you are spouting incorrect information, making duplicitous claims about the impact of government on the economy and denying facts that challenge your ideological bias.

Jobs just showed up huh?
Raise the basis points and in 1 year jobs just showed up?
I mean Clinton has a tax hike in and the 15 million that was created under Regan had nothing to do with those jobs?
where do you get this information? (the jobs, see below)
According to congress your information is in correct
the job growth stopped in 2000 and we last 2 million jobs until GWB cuts took place in 2004, thats 20 million in 11 years
Not bad, but that is when his tax policy expired

And you keep talking about tax hikes
You know a tax hike would be large after the tax cuts Reagan, I do not have time nor do I care to research this
Heritage did it for me
Now you might not like it, but the information has a source
Now it would do you good to stop spewing and provide a link that confirms your claims

The Real Reagan Economic Record: Responsible and Successful Fiscal Policy | The Heritage Foundation

In 1981, newly elected President Ronald Reagan refocused fiscal policy on the long run. He proposed, and Congress passed, sharp cuts in marginal tax rates. The cuts increased incentives to work and stimulated growth. These were funda-mental policy changes that provided the foundation for the Great Expansion that began in December 1982.
As Exhibit 1 shows, the economic record of the last 17 years is remarkable, particularly when viewed against the backdrop of the 1970s. The United States has experienced two of the longest and strongest expansions in our history back to back. They have been interrupted only by a shallow eight-month downturn in 1990-91.

 

[JRK]

You know 8357 I have been working and it dawned on me the thread is about Liberal Myths

The Myth is Clinton Left Bush with a surplus

Thats not even close to the truth.
Clinton left Bush a what was called a recession and as I stated earlier a job challenge

The unemployment rate bottomed at 3.8 percent in April 2000, and started deteriorating steadily from there (during the Clinton administration).
The fed funds rate -- the overnight interest rate administered by Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve -- peaked at 6.5 percent in 2000, and had to be lowered in an emergency move on January 3, 2001, "in light of further weakening of sales and production" (during the Clinton administration).
As the chart below shows, GDP growth fell off a cliff in the third quarter of 2000 (during the Clinton administration). Despite the shock of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, growth started to revive in the fourth quarter of 2001 (during the Bush administration).

The one and only piece of evidence offered by Media Matters that's to the contrary is that fact that the National Bureau of Economic Research set the beginning of the last recession at March 2001 -- two months into the Bush administration. Check that date on the chart above: This well-respected economic research group set the beginning of the recession after GDP growth had already crashed from almost 5 percent to near zero. But according to Media Matters, this single authority determines truth, and everyone else is a liar. The article declares that "if NBER says the recession began in March 2001, the recession began in March 2001."

sounds like you
I mean to the letter
Capitalism Magazine - Last Economic Recession Began Under Clinton, Despite Rewrites By The Left

 

[JRK]

Oh no - I'm not saying you're definitely a liar. As I've pointed out, you could simply be ignorant of the facts. I'm not sure which it is.

The debt held by the public declined in 1999 and 2000. You keep posting links from a computer programmer and irrelevant material to attempt to claim otherwise. Not sure if you're lying or misinformed.



That's how a surplus or deficit is defined.

And for a guy who was claiming, just a few short days ago, that politicians don't control the economy - you sure are busy trying to claim the politicians control the economy.

I tell you what
Just go away
calling me a liar has run its course punk
just go away, ignore my threads and the truth

The Truth, JRK, is this:

1. Reagan cut taxes once and raised them on six separate occassions, including the largest tax hike since WW2. The economy grew.

2. Clinton increased the top marginal rate by about 5 points. The economy grew and the period included the creation of 22M jobs.

3. Bush cut taxes twice. GDP growth moderated over the entire period and job growth was first steeply negative and then slow but steady.

4. In the last four years of Clinton budgets, the unified budget was balanced for four straight years. The on-budget figures were balanced for two of those years. During that two year period, the debt held by the public (the only relevant measure of marketable debt) declined.

So instead of facing facts, you tell me to go away and call me a punk. Let's be clear here, JRK: I could care less what you think. I only care that you are spouting incorrect information, making duplicitous claims about the impact of government on the economy and denying facts that challenge your ideological bias.

Well I did not see the what else can I get
To start with I could care less about his birth certificate
but sense you brought it up, yes, an explanation why he brings it out now and not 3 years ago
School records? they next?
how about whom paid for his college education while your at it
And OBL?
here mother fucker
CIA Director Leon Panetta confirms that waterboarding led to Osama Bin Laden « Wintery Knight
One more thing mother fucker
never mind, I have more class than that
Thank a navy seal the next time you want to get something for someone

 

[8537]

I tell you what
Just go away
calling me a liar has run its course punk
just go away, ignore my threads and the truth

The Truth, JRK, is this:

1. Reagan cut taxes once and raised them on six separate occassions, including the largest tax hike since WW2. The economy grew.

2. Clinton increased the top marginal rate by about 5 points. The economy grew and the period included the creation of 22M jobs.

3. Bush cut taxes twice. GDP growth moderated over the entire period and job growth was first steeply negative and then slow but steady.

4. In the last four years of Clinton budgets, the unified budget was balanced for four straight years. The on-budget figures were balanced for two of those years. During that two year period, the debt held by the public (the only relevant measure of marketable debt) declined.

So instead of facing facts, you tell me to go away and call me a punk. Let's be clear here, JRK: I could care less what you think. I only care that you are spouting incorrect information, making duplicitous claims about the impact of government on the economy and denying facts that challenge your ideological bias.

Jobs just showed up huh?
Raise the basis points and in 1 year jobs just showed up?

Why yes, indeed.

I mean Clinton has a tax hike in and the 15 million that was created under Regan had nothing to do with those jobs?

How could jobs created during the Reagan administration be responsible for jobs created during the Clinton administration?

where do you get this information?

From the CBO and the BLS. Of course, you earlier claimed you didn't believe the CBO and the BLS.

According to congress your information is in correct
the job growth stopped in 2000

Who claimed otherwise? Not me, certainly.

and we last 2 million jobs until GWB cuts took place in 2004, thats 20 million in 11 years
Not bad, but that is when his tax policy expired

Bush cut taxes in 2001 and 2003.

And you keep talking about tax hikes
You know a tax hike would be large after the tax cuts Reagan, I do not have time nor do I care to research this
Heritage did it for me

LOL! Of COURSE Heritage did it for you. A Rightwing hack outfit provided rightwing hack information that gives you some perfectly good confirmation bias, so you accept it over the BLS and the CBO. I'd expect no better.

 

[8537]

here mother fucker
CIA Director Leon Panetta confirms that waterboarding led to Osama Bin Laden « Wintery Knight
One more thing mother fucker
never mind, I have more class than that
Thank a navy seal the next time you want to get something for someone

Motherfucker? Punk?

You're losing it, JRK. Leave your mom's basement and take a break from the interwebs.

 

[Toro]

Debt held by the public went down in 1999 and 2000. That was because the unified US budget was in surplus.

No it wasn't. The deficit in 1999 & 2000 respectively was $131B & 18B and the debt was $5.6T at the end of FY 1999. Just because Clinton borrowed from Government funds more than he did from the public doesn't mean squat; he still spent more than he took in.

This is false. An increase in the gross debt, which is what you are looking at, does not imply deficits. This calculation does not net out the increases in assets in the government trusts funds.

The US government ran surpluses in 1999 and 2000.

 

[Toro]

No it wasn't. The deficit in 1999 & 2000 respectively was $131B & 18B and the debt was $5.6T at the end of FY 1999. Just because Clinton borrowed from Government funds more than he did from the public doesn't mean squat; he still spent more than he took in.

another liberal myth

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

Lol, yes - a computer programmer from Denver is a great source!

Let's try this again: The debt held by the public declined in 1999 and 2000. That's because more money entered government coffers from outside government than exited government coffers to the outside.

By any reasonable definition, that's a surplus. I don't care what a computer programmer from Denver has to say.

I've seen conservatives reference this site before. The software programmer clearly does not understand how government accounting works.

There is a reason why conservative economists don't make this argument.

 

[JRK]

another liberal myth

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

Lol, yes - a computer programmer from Denver is a great source!

Let's try this again: The debt held by the public declined in 1999 and 2000. That's because more money entered government coffers from outside government than exited government coffers to the outside.

By any reasonable definition, that's a surplus. I don't care what a computer programmer from Denver has to say.

I've seen conservatives reference this site before. The software programmer clearly does not understand how government accounting works.

There is a reason why conservative economists don't make this argument.

The information he uses has nothing to do with his opinion

Here is how far this man goes to show the liberal how wrong he is. Be fore I go any further

No one is debating this was the path we needed to be on. The liberal misses the point as usual
The Myth is that Clinton left GWB a surplus when in fact he left him a recession, Dot Com bubble, De regulation that in part (the greed) Enron along with 9-11 (Clinton had nothing to do with 9-11)

Now as far as this guy being a liar

The Link Provided Above is Allegedly False

Some people have claimed that the link I provided (Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)) is an illegitimate or fraudulent site that provides false numbers. I don't know where that accusation comes from or why people think that, but I've seen at least some comments that criticize the link because it doesn't point to U.S. Department of the Treasury. To verify that my link is to a valid government information source, please follow these steps:

Go to the U.S. Treasury website: U.S. Department of the Treasury
Click on "Bureaus": Takes you to Bureaus
Click on "Bureau of the Public Debt": Takes you to Bureau of the Public Debt: Homepage
Scroll down to the section "The U.S. Public Debt" and click on "See the U.S. Public Debt to the Penny."
This takes you to the link I originally provided: Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

The assertion that my article points people to a fraudulent website is incorrect. I am providing a direct link to the U.S. Treasury, Bureau of the Public Debt, National Debt to the Penny website. This is the official website that the U.S. government provides which allows the public to track the debt.

 

[8537]

And JRK, you're STILL not understanding the distinction between

(A) Debt held by the public (Held in marketable bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the US government)

(B) intragovernmental debt (Held iin nonmarketable special treasuries that can be canceled or revoked at any time with a simple act of Congress - indeed, just about every Republican plan to reform SS involves some form of revoking on these.)

And because you and some random software geek in Denver refuse to understand that distinction, you are also incapable of understanding the figures you, yourself provide.

 

[JRK]

And JRK, you're STILL not understanding the distinction between

(A) Debt held by the public (Held in marketable bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the US government)

(B) intragovernmental debt (Held iin nonmarketable special treasuries that can be canceled or revoked at any time with a simple act of Congress - indeed, just about every Republican plan to reform SS involves some form of revoking on these.)

And because you and some random software geek in Denver refuse to understand that distinction, you are also incapable of understanding the figures you, yourself provide.

You know one thing I am capable of?
Knowing the difference between responding to being called a mother fucker and starting it
Like I said
I got more class than that
And would have more class than using a picture of our president that way

And as far as your deficit surplus debate
I see no response to the recession, Dot Com bubble bursting, Enron, Job loss information
Your splitting hairs
Your comparing a GOP led congress with a 3.8% UE re recession, pre 6% UE, Pre Enron, Pre 9-11 to
Clinton left those items to GWB
Which we came out of and created 7 million jobs

 

[8537]

And JRK, you're STILL not understanding the distinction between

(A) Debt held by the public (Held in marketable bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the US government)

(B) intragovernmental debt (Held iin nonmarketable special treasuries that can be canceled or revoked at any time with a simple act of Congress - indeed, just about every Republican plan to reform SS involves some form of revoking on these.)

And because you and some random software geek in Denver refuse to understand that distinction, you are also incapable of understanding the figures you, yourself provide.

You know one thing I am capable of?
Knowing the difference between responding to being called a mother fucker and starting it
Like I said
I got more class than that
And would have more class than using a picture of our president that way

Well, let's see: you called me a motherfucker and a punk. You're apparently not as classy as you'd like to think. Nor are you as smart.

And as far as your deficit surplus debate
I see no response to the recession, Dot Com bubble bursting, Enron, Job loss information
Your splitting hairs

No. I'm correcting your lies. The government ran a surplus. You deny that. You're wrong. You'll never admit it because your wed to your lie.

 

[JRK]

And JRK, you're STILL not understanding the distinction between

(A) Debt held by the public (Held in marketable bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the US government)

(B) intragovernmental debt (Held iin nonmarketable special treasuries that can be canceled or revoked at any time with a simple act of Congress - indeed, just about every Republican plan to reform SS involves some form of revoking on these.)

And because you and some random software geek in Denver refuse to understand that distinction, you are also incapable of understanding the figures you, yourself provide.

You know one thing I am capable of?
Knowing the difference between responding to being called a mother fucker and starting it
Like I said
I got more class than that
And would have more class than using a picture of our president that way

Well, let's see: you called me a motherfucker and a punk. You're apparently not as classy as you'd like to think. Nor are you as smart.

And as far as your deficit surplus debate
I see no response to the recession, Dot Com bubble bursting, Enron, Job loss information
Your splitting hairs

No. I'm correcting your lies. The government ran a surplus. You deny that. You're wrong. You'll never admit it because your wed to your lie.

What lies?
and I never called you anything to you posted our president calling all of us MFs
You talk about class, what do expect?

The Link Provided Above is Allegedly False
from the author you keep calling a liar and me, but offer no proof such as this

Some people have claimed that the link I provided (Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)) is an illegitimate or fraudulent site that provides false numbers. I don't know where that accusation comes from or why people think that, but I've seen at least some comments that criticize the link because it doesn't point to U.S. Department of the Treasury. To verify that my link is to a valid government information source, please follow these steps:

Go to the U.S. Treasury website: U.S. Department of the Treasury
Click on "Bureaus": Takes you to Bureaus
Click on "Bureau of the Public Debt": Takes you to Bureau of the Public Debt: Homepage
Scroll down to the section "The U.S. Public Debt" and click on "See the U.S. Public Debt to the Penny."
This takes you to the link I originally provided: Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

The assertion that my article points people to a fraudulent website is incorrect. I am providing a direct link to the U.S. Treasury, Bureau of the Public Debt, National Debt to the Penny website. This is the official website that the U.S. government provides which allows the public to track the debt.

 

[8537]

You know one thing I am capable of?
Knowing the difference between responding to being called a mother fucker and starting it
Like I said
I got more class than that
And would have more class than using a picture of our president that way

Well, let's see: you called me a motherfucker and a punk. You're apparently not as classy as you'd like to think. Nor are you as smart.

And as far as your deficit surplus debate
I see no response to the recession, Dot Com bubble bursting, Enron, Job loss information
Your splitting hairs

No. I'm correcting your lies. The government ran a surplus. You deny that. You're wrong. You'll never admit it because your wed to your lie.

What lies?
and I never called you anything to you posted our president calling all of us MFs
You talk about class, what do expect?

1) you called me a punk long before that.
2) I'm sorry you take my sigpic personally. Trust me, I don't. Responding to a general "you motherfuckers" in a sig pic that you apparently take personally by calling a specific individual a motherfucker is laughably low class. I expect no better.

The Link Provided Above is Allegedly False
from the author you keep calling a liar and me, but offer no proof such as this

The data in the link is accurate. We've been through this already.

The interpretation of that data is wrong, as I've explained on numerous occasions. Debt held by the public and total public debt are not the same thing - and debt held by the public (which is the marketable debt) declined in 1999 and 2000 - and that occurred because the government ran a surplus.

 

[Toro]

Lol, yes - a computer programmer from Denver is a great source!

Let's try this again: The debt held by the public declined in 1999 and 2000. That's because more money entered government coffers from outside government than exited government coffers to the outside.

By any reasonable definition, that's a surplus. I don't care what a computer programmer from Denver has to say.

I've seen conservatives reference this site before. The software programmer clearly does not understand how government accounting works.

There is a reason why conservative economists don't make this argument.

The information he uses has nothing to do with his opinion

Here is how far this man goes to show the liberal how wrong he is. Be fore I go any further

No one is debating this was the path we needed to be on. The liberal misses the point as usual
The Myth is that Clinton left GWB a surplus when in fact he left him a recession, Dot Com bubble, De regulation that in part (the greed) Enron along with 9-11 (Clinton had nothing to do with 9-11)

Now as far as this guy being a liar

The Link Provided Above is Allegedly False

Some people have claimed that the link I provided (Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)) is an illegitimate or fraudulent site that provides false numbers. I don't know where that accusation comes from or why people think that, but I've seen at least some comments that criticize the link because it doesn't point to U.S. Department of the Treasury. To verify that my link is to a valid government information source, please follow these steps:

Go to the U.S. Treasury website: U.S. Department of the Treasury
Click on "Bureaus": Takes you to Bureaus
Click on "Bureau of the Public Debt": Takes you to Bureau of the Public Debt: Homepage
Scroll down to the section "The U.S. Public Debt" and click on "See the U.S. Public Debt to the Penny."
This takes you to the link I originally provided: Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)

The assertion that my article points people to a fraudulent website is incorrect. I am providing a direct link to the U.S. Treasury, Bureau of the Public Debt, National Debt to the Penny website. This is the official website that the U.S. government provides which allows the public to track the debt.

First of all, I didn't call the software engineer a liar. He is misinformed, as you are. Neither he nor you understand how government accounting works. Continuously referencing and misinterpreting government data does not change this fact. Changes in gross debt does not equate to changes in the fiscal balance. Full stop. End of story. This is not debatable.