Ain't it the truth

[brooksjr]

[VERO1]

Sad but true. I'm worried about my future. Extremely worried for my children!

[Guest Muttling]

Yep, and we have every president/ Congress since 1969 to thank for it with one exception.

Bill Clinton was the ONLY pres serious enough about balancing the budget to shut down the Federal government in his refusal to sign a budget that was not balanced.

Everyone else has been a bunch of spending freaks who aren't serious about paygo.

[strickj]

If she payed her taxes on that doll house,then it wouldn't be that high!

[Guest jackdm3]

A surplus was nice.

[USMCJG]

A surplus was nice.

While it's true that Clinton, along with a Republican congress, did reduce the budget deficit during some of his years in office. We never actually had a balanced budget or a budget surplus. The public debt did decrease, but intergovernmental debt(the money the government borrows from itself) increased more than enough to offset the decrease in public debt. And the national debt increased every single year he was in office, the same as it did for every other president since Dwight D. Eisenhower. If we don't find a fiscally responsible president and some fiscally responsible congressmen, then we are doomed. We need some people to make the tough decisions and cut the government fat. ASAP.

[Guest Muttling]

While it's true that Clinton, along with a Republican congress, did reduce the budget deficit during some of his years in office. We never actually had a balanced budget or a budget surplus. The public debt did decrease, but intergovernmental debt(the money the government borrows from itself) increased more than enough to offset the decrease in public debt. And the national debt increased every single year he was in office, the same as it did for every other president since Dwight D. Eisenhower. If we don't find a fiscally responsible president and some fiscally responsible congressmen, then we are doomed. We need some people to make the tough decisions and cut the government fat. ASAP.

That's the most nonsensical statement I've ever heard. We DID have a couple of years of a balanced budget and a surplus.

Unfortunately, a couple of years aren't going to make up for 50 years of stupid spending.

One president won't fix this problem and the voters (yes I mean most of YOU who are reading this and vote) are too short sighted to keep fiscal responsibility at the top of the priority list. Politicians who spend big need to be canned, but we're a country of debtors and a country who believes in debt as a way of life.

It's STUPID.

[USMCJG]

That's the most nonsensical statement I've ever heard. We DID have a couple of years of a balanced budget and a surplus.

No. We DIDN'T. There are two different kinds of debt- public debt, which is government debt that is owned by the public(treasury bills, savings bonds, etc.- often owned by foreign governments)and intergovernmental holdings, which is money that the government borrows from itself(mostly taken from Social Security). The numbers that are shown to "prove" we had a budget surplus are the public debt numbers, but the money taken from SS is not factored in. Social Security is not a tax, it's supposed to be a sort of retirement account, but the government uses it as though it were a tax to make the numbers look better. It's not just Clinton, for years presidents have taken from Social Security to make the budget deficit seem smaller. Do you remember all of the talk in the 1990's about how SS was going bankrupt? Now you know why. It has become an almost standard practice. We did come within about $18 billion dollars of having a balanced budget in 2000, which is actually a pretty significant accomplishment.

You can believe whatever you want, but the numbers don't add up. Between 1993 and 2000 the national debt increased by $1.26 trillion, and it increased by at least $100 billion every year but one(2000).

[Guest Muttling]

No. We DIDN'T. There are two different kinds of debt- public debt, which is government debt that is owned by the public(treasury bills, savings bonds, etc.- often owned by foreign governments)and intergovernmental holdings, which is money that the government borrows from itself(mostly taken from Social Security). The numbers that are shown to "prove" we had a budget surplus are the public debt numbers, but the money taken from SS is not factored in. Social Security is not a tax, it's supposed to be a sort of retirement account, but the government uses it as though it were a tax to make the numbers look better. It's not just Clinton, for years presidents have taken from Social Security to make the budget deficit seem smaller. Do you remember all of the talk in the 1990's about how SS was going bankrupt? Now you know why. It has become an almost standard practice. We did come within about $18 billion dollars of having a balanced budget in 2000, which is actually a pretty significant accomplishment.

You can believe whatever you want, but the numbers don't add up. Between 1993 and 2000 the national debt increased by $1.26 trillion, and it increased by at least $100 billion every year but one(2000).

The GAO does not agree with you. Even when they were answering to the BIGGEST spender in history (G.W. Bush with a Republican Congress).

For some odd reason, I trust them more than a poster on TGO.

[USMCJG]

The GAO does not agree with you. Even when they were answering to the BIGGEST spender in history (G.W. Bush with a Republican Congress).

For some odd reason, I trust them more than a poster on TGO.

My numbers are taken from the US Treasury Dept.. I am not defending Bush. Bush, and Congress, spent WAY too much money. Obama, and Congress, are spending WAY too much money. I'm not taking political sides in this. If believing that Clinton magically balanced the budget and had a surplus, all while increasing the national debt by over $1.26 trillion, gets you to sleep at night. Then more power to you.