However, I find that you still have not read the entire post.

I mention NOTHING of Obama. I also do not blame anything on Clinton. I do however mention that Bush went on a spending spree.

This post was not intended to cast blame for anything. It was simply to dispute the myth that Clinton had a surplus.

If you read the post it was in response to Pelosi saying this lie again.

It also casts no correlation to our current situation since it was written 3 years ago.

Anytime you find stats or anyone showing that Clinton had a surplus, read it very carefully. It will always say the PUBLIC DEBT. Not the NATIONAL DEBT. Why? Because it would be the same as me saying I paid down my Visa debt and then letting others and the media lie and say I paid down my entire debt. Ignoring that my Master Card debt went through the roof.

Here is a link showing the debt rising every single year Clinton was in office.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt.htm

Check the first 2 links there for his full 8 years.

This does not mean it was his fault that there was a deficit each year. There has been a deficit every year for a loooooong time. The post is only to dispel this myth of a surplus which is nothing more than playing games with the numbers.

If you had actually read the post objectively you would have come to that understanding.

But you are going out of your way to try and say I am wrong and it is all conservatives faults. That is again an incorrect lie. Both parties have increased the debt every year.

I never blamed the debt on one party, you did. Please, for your own good, READ THE POST.

Your statement that Clinton”ca­me pretty close but never ran an actual surplus” matter’s why?

Why is it even an issue? Why does that 17Billion dollar differenti­al so important to you?

Do you think that Bush did better than Clinton? Or Reagan? Or Bush jr? There is clearly no comparison in terms of debt and deficit between your three conservati­ve presidents who ran up the largest deficits and debts the world has ever known and Clinton who ran a surplus (or came really pretty close to it as you believe).

The argument is useless and foolish because all you are trying to do is discredit a democratic president who did run a balanced (or virtually balanced budget as you believe) in order to mask the fact that your conservati­ve presidents have been abject failures at preserving our nations financial security..­.fun fact for you…thre­e largest increases to the debt by percentage by president.­..#1 Reagan, #2 GWB #3 GB1. This argument is silly because it has no endgame. You are incorrect in your assertion and I know that you will never be able to provide a link to Treasury stating that Clinton did not run a surplus. I know that.

I also know that your argument is a mere distractio­n from the fact that this problem with debt and deficits was created and is continued by conservati­ves.

I would encourage you to read it again carefully. Based on your response I can see that you only skim read it and then commented.

You are falling for the game of only talking about the “public debt” not the entire debt.

If you pay off your Visa card by borrowing from your Master Card you did not get out of debt!

“”The surp1uses. in fiscal years 1998 and 1999,
allowed Treasury to reduce the number of offerings
for marketable debt, and in effect, reduced total debt
owed to the public including interest, from $3.740
t i l l ion in FY 1998 to $3.648 trillion in FY 1999. ”

http://www­.treasury.­gov/about/­organizati­onal-struc­ture/ig/Do­cuments/oi­g00056.pdf

and a link.

Now I am curious did you get the graphs from the Treasury departments website…do you have specific documents that you can point us to on the website which prove your claim that Clinton did not run a surplus?

“Fiscal year 1999 is the second year in a row in which we have been able to
pay down some of the outstandin­g debt”

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jan/15/david-axelrod/axelrod-claims-bush-saddled-obama-big-deficit/

How is it that the NYTimes, The Economist, Politfact, Factcheck, The Congressional Budget Office and the information that I could find in the Treasury website all state that Clinton ran a surplus…but you…citing one of the sources I researched claim that he did not.

Furthermore, and to the point…what is your point? Are you trying to prove that Clinton did not run a balanced budget? Neither did Reagan or Bush1 or Bush 2? In fact the three largest increases to the deficit (which is different from the debt if you remember) were under these three presidents. Is your assertion that it is Clinton’s fault that we are in the mess we’re in? Not Bush or Obama? Why this argument? It seems like a strange point to be trying to muddle right now. That’s all.

First, intergovernmental holdings is mainly social security not ALL.

Second, it is a debt. Social Security is not a bank account filled with money that we borrow from. It is a debt that the government owes mostly to China. Look at the chart. We are not talking about taking money out of a fund.

Intergovernmental holdings is in debt, there is no money there. To take money from it is to borrow more money and go further into debt.

It’s like if I have a line of credit for $50k to build an addition on to my house. I do not have $50k, I have the ability to borrow $50k that would still need to be paid back to someone if I chose to use the line of credit.

Now imagine I take that line of credit and pay off $40k in credit card debt. Then I say that I have a $10k surplus. That would be a lie! I borrowed money from a debt to pay a debt. I am still $40k in debt.

If the intergovernmental holdings simply reduced its funds, you may have a point. But that is not the case, it was in debt and went further in debt under Clinton.

The bottom line is that the national debt increased every year under Clinton. There was no surplus.

How can you count as indebtedness something which one part of an entity owes to another one of its parts. The don’t have to pay it back. In fact, Social Security was, is, and is likely ever to be funded by current revenues, not by a phony account. When we get to the point that it sends out more than it takes in, will Congress shut down spending elsewhere to pay back these IOU’s?

And did you actually read the post and look at the chart. How can you say “The fact remains that the Federal Government took in more than it sent out those years.”?

You are aware that when you go further into debt it means that you spent more than you took in right?

It’s OK to not understand these basic financial topics, just stay away from the polls.

It is like having 2 credit cards, one from Visa and one from Master Card. Then you start paying more money on the Visa one year by borrowing more money on the Master Card. It is still a DEFICIT.

Clinton knew that with the help of the media and the lack of education in this country that he could claim a surplus.

It’s like showing the Visa bill and how much you paid off but ignoring the Master Card bill. It doesn’t work. WE THE PEOPLE still owe that money. ALL of the governments money is YOUR money!