tax cuts for wealthy dont stimulate the economy:study

fuck off you lying sack of shit.

there was a budget surplus and that is fact


Yes there was a budget surplus but Clinton borrowed in order to get it.
It did not pay down the National Debt.

Clinton ran deficits throughout all 8 years of his term, and one can go to the US Treasury Department and looking through the history of the total outstanding debt through Clinton's term.

Every year Clinton was in office, the total national debt continued to climb.

How Clinton managed to claim a surplus was that while the general operating budgets ran deficits but Clinton borrowed from numerous off budget funds to make the on budget fund a surplus.

For example, in 2000, Clinton claimed a $230B surplus, but Clinton borrowed
$152.3B from Social Security
$30.9B from Civil Service Retirement Fund
$18.5B from Federal Supplementary Medical insurance Trust Fund
$15.0B from Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund
$9.0B from the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund
$8.2B from Military Retirement Fund
$3.8B from Transportation Trust Funds
$1.8B from Employee Life Insurance & Retirement fund
$7.0B from others

Total borrowed from off budget funds $246.5B, meaning that his $230B surplus is actually a $16.5B deficit.
($246.5B borrowed - $230B claimed surplus = $16.5B actual deficit).

If there is ever a true surplus, then the national debt will go down.


the national debt did not go down one year during the Clinton administration.


The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

About Me & This Website


a biased site you idiot

Prove his numbers are wrong.
 
budget surplus you fucking idiot.


this is why your party is losing
 

Yes, we know you are an idiot. What is the opposite of a budget surplus? Could it be a budget deficit?
And if so, what becomes of the amount in red on the budget deficit?
Does it turn into debt through borrowing? or perhaps maybe even a default?

You can't borrow into a surplus, genius. It's about the most ridiculous financial assertionn of all time. Well, maybe right behind everything that ever came out of Keynes "brain".
 
Yes there was a budget surplus but Clinton borrowed in order to get it.
It did not pay down the National Debt.

Clinton ran deficits throughout all 8 years of his term, and one can go to the US Treasury Department and looking through the history of the total outstanding debt through Clinton's term.

Every year Clinton was in office, the total national debt continued to climb.

How Clinton managed to claim a surplus was that while the general operating budgets ran deficits but Clinton borrowed from numerous off budget funds to make the on budget fund a surplus.

For example, in 2000, Clinton claimed a $230B surplus, but Clinton borrowed
$152.3B from Social Security
$30.9B from Civil Service Retirement Fund
$18.5B from Federal Supplementary Medical insurance Trust Fund
$15.0B from Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund
$9.0B from the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund
$8.2B from Military Retirement Fund
$3.8B from Transportation Trust Funds
$1.8B from Employee Life Insurance & Retirement fund
$7.0B from others

Total borrowed from off budget funds $246.5B, meaning that his $230B surplus is actually a $16.5B deficit.
($246.5B borrowed - $230B claimed surplus = $16.5B actual deficit).

If there is ever a true surplus, then the national debt will go down.


the national debt did not go down one year during the Clinton administration.


The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

About Me & This Website


a biased site you idiot

Prove his numbers are wrong.

Politics

"I'm a registered Republican. I grew up sympathizing with Republican ideals because they just made sense to me"


you guy who admitts hes not an economist.

I gave you a study from a person who has an education.

You dismissed it off hand.
 
and a study means nothing to them if it doesnt give their preconcieved notions believabilty
 
you do not accept facts.

fuck you Dave you are a joke on this site
 
fuck off you lying sack of shit.

there was a budget surplus and that is fact


Yes there was a budget surplus but Clinton borrowed in order to get it.
It did not pay down the National Debt.

Clinton ran deficits throughout all 8 years of his term, and one can go to the US Treasury Department and looking through the history of the total outstanding debt through Clinton's term.

Every year Clinton was in office, the total national debt continued to climb.

How Clinton managed to claim a surplus was that while the general operating budgets ran deficits but Clinton borrowed from numerous off budget funds to make the on budget fund a surplus.

For example, in 2000, Clinton claimed a $230B surplus, but Clinton borrowed
$152.3B from Social Security
$30.9B from Civil Service Retirement Fund
$18.5B from Federal Supplementary Medical insurance Trust Fund
$15.0B from Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund
$9.0B from the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund
$8.2B from Military Retirement Fund
$3.8B from Transportation Trust Funds
$1.8B from Employee Life Insurance & Retirement fund
$7.0B from others

Total borrowed from off budget funds $246.5B, meaning that his $230B surplus is actually a $16.5B deficit.
($246.5B borrowed - $230B claimed surplus = $16.5B actual deficit).

If there is ever a true surplus, then the national debt will go down.


the national debt did not go down one year during the Clinton administration.


The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

About Me & This Website


a biased site you idiot


When his site says for you to check on his facts, that is not biased.
The numbers do not lie TM.

Why Should You Trust Me?

I encourage you not to trust me. The vast majority of my articles are heavily documented with embedded links and references. Check my links. Check my references. That's what they're there for. If you find an error, let me know so I can correct it.
 

Prove his numbers are wrong.

Politics

"I'm a registered Republican. I grew up sympathizing with Republican ideals because they just made sense to me"


you guy who admitts hes not an economist.

I gave you a study from a person who has an education.

You dismissed it off hand.

Let me get this straight. You cite an article by an Obama supporter and present it as fact. But you dismiss an article on the grounds the man is a Republican.

And no I didn't dismiss his article. Fact is he said a 1 percent tax cut for the bottom 90 percent would present a GDP increase of 2.7 percent. That's not bad. Now my numbers could be a little off because I didn't commit his opinion to memory but I'm certain I'm pretty damn close.
 

Forum List

Back
Top