lied and the dumbest 35% of the population ate it up ( you know who you are)
liberals drink the kool aid and actually beleive some of the lies they spew. oh and i used 93 to 2001 because the president sets the budget for the following year( dont want to confuse the sixth grade educated liberals out there) but if u want 1992 it increased over the year before, as the debt did EVERY YEAR clinton sat in office and molested women and ignored terrorists and held fake "peace agreements" with isreal and palestine.
09/28/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
2006-12-28 13:10:10 · 13 answers · asked by my name is call me ishmael 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
NO SURPLUS--LIE LIE LIE
2006-12-28 13:10:41 · update #1
JUST DEBT DEBT DEBT, WHILE DEFUNDING THE MILITARY AND USING THAT MONEY TOO--GREAT JOB BILL! HILLARY SHOULD GET CREDIT TOO!
2006-12-28 13:11:26 · update #2
lol phil c says the numbers say he paid off 1.4 trillion? i think u are looking at them upside down my friend, lol . oh my goodness, liberals!!!!
2006-12-28 13:19:05 · update #3
Lets not forget, the stock market just yesterday hit over 12,500 for the FIRST time in history. God this economy sucks? Oh wait, no I guess it doesnt.
Oh I guess doing well for myself makes me awful. And apparently living off my fathers dime. Lets see, auto mechaninc, pizza delivery guy, police officer, and now I opened my own pizza place. Its not the greatest, but it keeps me ok and my employees dont seem to mind the paychecks at the end of the week. Damn, how evil is that?
2006-12-28 13:14:25 · answer #1 · answered by zebj25 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I thought the deficit actually was cut so there was a surplus... but the overall debt increased due to interest
so... he didn't add on to the debt for a few years there... the numbers you show, illustrate the interest amount adding up... in 98, 99... since they didn't make enough surplus to pay the interest...
have you seen what Bush is doing to both the deficit and the debt?
post the deficit numbers, just the deficit... see what they say...
1998 +69,270
1999 +125,610
2000 +236,241
he was negative before that...
and a great deal was done by the Republican congress to make the numbers happen... you're REALLY belittling their efforts...
2006-12-28 13:26:38 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Clinton raised the debt about $1.4 trillion in 8 years. 3 weeks ago the debt was $8,644,121,120,053, so Bush has raised it $2.8 trillion in 6 years.
I was impressed that Clinton got the deficit down to just $18 billion for 2000. You'll also notice that the deficit went down each year.
I'm not a Clinton fan (didn't vote for him, don't care for his character), but on the debt, he did far better than the Republicans have.
For all the Republican banter, they have done nothing on the debt except raise it with Reagan, Bush, and Bush. And faster than the Democrats.
2006-12-28 13:37:06 · answer #3 · answered by ? 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
the surplus in question replaced right into a projected surplus. It signifies that in accordance to assumed destiny circumstances, we may be anticipated to spend a particular quantity of money that would nicely be extra or decrease than on assumed destiny spending. in short, the surplus under no circumstances existed because destiny grew to change into out diverse than anticipated (the telecom bubble popped in late ninety's, attack on 9/11, and so on.). So it relies upon on the range of record that's produced that the politicians use to make themselves seem good or others seem undesirable. in many circumstances the media repeats a number of those assumed numbers as truth.
2016-12-01 06:58:29 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Congratualtions, you just exposed the president. Oh wait! No you didn't, you exposed a former president who was already impeached. btw, when Clinton came into office, the US was in a recession, and if you look at your figures, he didn't get us out of debt, but he did get 1.4 trillion dollars paid off.
2006-12-28 13:14:53 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Heh, that was 6 years and more ago. When will you vengeful contards give up??? Stop trying to muddy the water of a past you can't change and start focusing on your "golden boy", Dubya??? PS: Contards got their azzes whipped in '06, and it's gonna happen again in '08 unless y'all wake up and realize YOU'RE WRONG!!!
2006-12-28 13:23:33 · answer #6 · answered by Sean T 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I have no idea where you got those figures....THE BUDGET WAS BALANCED.. and created a surplus that Bush..destroyed with an unnecessary war! Newt Gingrich, insisted on a balanced budget amendment!!!! and he got one..with welfare reform, and no health care package and no increase in the minimum wage, and if you think this economy is good...then you are living off your fathers money..and not working for a dime!
2006-12-28 13:24:06 · answer #7 · answered by facefind 2 · 3⤊ 4⤋
the debt number increased because of interest on the debt, genius, the debt belongs to reagan who spent billions of dollars on missiles that we later spent billions of dollars to dismantle
2006-12-28 13:46:03 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
It doesn't matter they will never believe you. Bill said it was so, so it was so! Never mind looking up actual numbers, Bill said we had a surplus. What you need to show them is the IOU's to Social security in those years!
2006-12-28 13:16:44 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 5⤋
He was a great president,,,I thought he balanced the budget,
2006-12-28 13:13:38 · answer #10 · answered by Gypsy Gal 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋