...Treasure of US figures.
You are obviously not a CPA or a CFA. You just parrot and parrot and parrot and ignore the reality of the opening post.
You imbecile: I provide the Treasury figures!!!
These:
These are the actual national debt figures:
1993 4,351,044
1994 4,643,307
1995 4,920,586
1996 5,181,465
1997 5,369,206
1998 5,478,189
1999 5,605,523
2000 5,628,700
end of FY 2001, which was President Clinton's last budget.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/ (table 7.1)
The table 7.1 will also show that he inherited a $4 trillion debt.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
That means
the debt increased 41% under Clinton.
And no wars or military build up to blame it on!
Go get a magnifying glass and a calculator and see if any year showed a decrease.
Admit it: there was never...
.NEVER....any such Clinton surplus as you stated.
And 190% under Raygun, and doubled under W. The schmucks that gave us this pander to the rich mess...
You're really a slow learner....or, a non-learner.
1. Under Reagan, the debt went up $1.7 trillion, from $900 billion to $2.6 trillion.
2. But….the national wealth went up $ 17 trillion
3. Reagan's near-trillion-dollar bulge in defense spending transformed the global balance of power in favor of capitalism. Spurring a stock-market, energy, venture-capital, real-estate and employment boom, the Reagan tax-rate cuts and other pro-enterprise policies added some $17 trillion to America's private-sector assets, dwarfing the trillion-dollar rise in public-sector deficits and creating 45 million net new jobs at rising wages and salaries.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444914904577621083163383966.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics#Fiscal_consequences
Pop quiz:
Which is greater, $1.7 or $17
C'mon.....you can do it!
Don't you wish Obama had Reagan's success?
Obama sure does.