We obviously did.See for yourself-http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdhisto4.htm
2006-12-22 22:57:37 · 10 answers · asked by Tommy G. 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
We had less moneys spent because Slick Willie gutted the military and intelligence communities, closing bases around the country, right when we needed them to be strong. He ignored the Islamic Fascist threat, USS Cole, African embassies, World Trade Center attack of 1993, to build an undeserved legacy as being fiscally responsible. The man was a disaster that we will be paying for years to come. I doubt that his wife of convenience would be any better if elected in 2008.
Great link! Shows the debt was $257,357,352,351.04 as of 06/30/1950! That's over 56 years ago!
2006-12-22 23:50:39 · answer #1 · answered by Bawney 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
I dont think Democrats said we had no national debt. We had budget surpluses that lowered the debt during the Clinton years. So much so that the Treasury stopped issuing 30yr bonds.
What the Democrats def didnt have is the $350B bill for Iraq and Afghanistan alone.
2006-12-23 07:01:27 · answer #2 · answered by sothere! 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Clinton inherited the Reagan/Bush debt and recession, by the end of his first 4 years had turned the economy around, and was able to balance the budget by the end of his second. Through a series of moves, he cut the size of government, more people were working paying more taxes. I am not sure but if we had kept his policy of taxing the very rich more, and reinvesting in infrastructure. He put more cops on the street, crime fell. There were many positives that Clinton did, but the best thing that he did was get some economic advisers that knew what the heck they were doing.
2006-12-23 07:20:05 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
No - we able to balance the budget during the Clinton years - I have never heard a Democrat say we had no nation debt under Clinton. You must live near some stupid Democrats - because that's just not true - the Republican made sure that we always will (just kidding on that)!!!!
Good Luck!!!
2006-12-23 07:05:22 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
I don't think I've met anyone - Dem or Rep - who thinks we had no debt under Clinton.
What they say (or mean to say) is that we had no DEFICIT under Clinton. In other words, the national DEBT was paid down under Clinton. That's the impressive fact they are trying to point out.
2006-12-23 07:02:17 · answer #5 · answered by dm_dragons 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
~Because Clinton DECREASED the deficit more than anyone. I've NEVER heard a Democrat say "NO" National Debt.
Now, tell me how much has Bush INCREASED the National Debt? ~
2006-12-23 07:02:49 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes, but compared to teh Bush administration , that debt was nothing back then.
You obviouslydon't know how to compare the less of two evils.
The countrie's finances was something the Clinton administration did right!
2006-12-23 07:03:09 · answer #7 · answered by Rachel 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
They claim that he balaced the budget but that was voodoo economics. His governmnt didn't spend what Congress allocated for rge military ( which helped put us in the mess we're in today ) and he raped the Social Security Trust Fund, which means that SS is going to run out of money before you retire.
2006-12-23 07:35:58 · answer #8 · answered by ? 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
we don't, Clinton had a balanced budget his plan was to start paying down the debt
2006-12-23 09:14:56 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You need to stop watching Fox News and or listening to Rush Limbaugh, What they say that the Democrats think is just hyperbole that is meant to misinform people like you.
2006-12-23 07:26:12 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋