wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 12:50:00 -0700, "PrecisionmachinisT"
wrote:


"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
news:xqudnQvVrPHqbT_TnZ2dnUVZ_qydnZ2d@earthlink. com...

There was NO surplus under Clinton.

Sadly true.
There was, but it was largely accounting. The extra money brought in by
the Social Security "Surplus" was counted as revenue. This was despite
the fact that the only place, by law, it could go was into Treasury
Securities. So, the current accounts surplus was largely related to
taking a long-term liability (those SS-surplus Treasuries) and counting
it as a short-term asset. When you back those out, you are again in
deficit.

Since the same accounting practices are still in place today, technically
there was indeed a surplus at that time.

No there wasn't. Only a leftist moron could say there was a "surplus"
when
the national debt *increased*.

It was called a "surplus" because during that time, more money was being
taken in than was being spent--a trajectory which would have eventually
eliminated the national debt altogether had the ****ing rightards not
started two god damned wars while at the same time dishing out tax breaks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Debt_Trend.svg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USDebt.png

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...ebt_chart.html


It's just that the issue has been turned into a matter of semantics by the
right wing in attempt to deflect the fact that Government debt was indeed
at
a historical low point when Bush took over.

Have you *ever* looked in a mirror? No, I suppose there is no reflection.


Yeah whatever...