On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 15:52:13 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

snip


No, Dave, debt as a percentage of GDP is the only meaningful way to
measure
it.

That's insane. You've either got a surplus, or you don't. Did Clinton
have a surplus in those years? Yes or no question, Ed.

Well, let's simplify this. The answer is, yes, he did.

Then why did the number go up, Ed?

If, in any given month, I spend more than I earn, I have not produced
a financial surplus during that month.

And, as Cato, Treasury, OMB, and every other source that knows what it's
talking about says, there was a financial surplus in those years I listed
above. Current-accounts surplus, and a decline in the national debt. Net,
actual, real-money surplus.

Odd that the treasury says the national debt went up during those years.

Where's the problem? Do you need a further explanation?

I can't see _any_ point, Ed.