Reply With Quote
Do the Democrats have a debt clock at their convention?
Do the Democrats have a debt clock at their convention?
First order of business should be to cut taxes by an additional 20%. That should do the trick!
Damn.
It's say "that's a lot of trees" if money wasn't made of cotton.
Are we bringing the plantations back?
Some can only hope . . . .
Not enough water, been wasted by UCA in fracking, nuking, mining.
It's truly mindboggling to think that our national debt was under $6 trillion on January 1, 2002.
get back to us when the US's ability to sell bonds a hyper-low rates begins to founder.
jobs, homes, consumerism are the priorities, not the (Dem) deficit, which is nothing byt a smokescreen to increase austerity and weaken, enslave, and the 99%.
the problem is conservative/Repug policies that caused the REVENUE disaster.
Yes.
Too bad that government expanded so much in the Clinton years to where the economy is unsustainable after the Y2K bubble popped.
the ECONOMY and LABOR forced expanded in the Clintion years.
the inherent instability of the unregulated capitalism caused the Internet bubble and its bursting, not the govt.
How much do you claim the govt expanded under Clinton? Under dubya/ head?
Government Receipts & Expenditures by Year
Year 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
Total receipts 1,159.3 1,237.0 1,337.2 1,422.8 1,543.9
Total expenditures 1,487.5 1,534.8 1,566.5 1,631.4 1,697.8
Net lending or net borrowing (-) -328.2 -297.8 -229.3 -208.7 -153.9
Year 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Total receipts 1,676.7 1,803.0 1,923.7 2,085.2 2,048.2
Total expenditures 1,728.8 1,761.0 1,828.7 1,900.6 2,014.1
Net lending or net borrowing (-) -52.1 42.0 95.0 184.7 34.2
Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Total receipts 1,884.6 1,907.1 2,038.5 2,315.1 2,552.4
Total expenditures 2,162.6 2,329.3 2,465.4 2,667.4 2,799.6
Net lending or net borrowing (-) -278.0 -422.2 -426.8 -352.4 -247.2
Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Total receipts 2,681.2 2,530.5 2,247.1 2,410.5 2,529.2
Total expenditures 2,996.2 3,286.7 3,704.5 3,901.0 3,923.2
Net lending or net borrowing (-) -315.0 -756.2 -1,457.4 -1,490.5 -1,394.1
Source: US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis http://www.bea.gov/
In other words, Clinton's "expanded government" would have been small enough for budget surpluses in every year from 2001-11 with the exception of '02 or '03.
Did the repugs in 2008?
Oh cool, another thread where Republicans pretend they've ALWAYS cared about the national deficit
you know why invading countries used to be profitable. Cause when you won you took all the other country's good to pay for it.Oh cool, another thread where Republicans pretend they've ALWAYS cared about the national deficit
part of that was the govt looting social security though, there were never really true surpluses.
truth bomb
The next time we decide to go nation building in an oil-rich middle eastern country, all I ask the corrupt politicians who do it for some special interest reason is that you actually take the oil in the country so we gain from the war. I don't care about all the worthless marines dying if we can turn the war for a profit
cheney wasn't concerned about deficits
republicans wanted to borrow money to finance THEIR OWN bs..but now that we've reached our credit limit they don't think anyone else should borrow for their little pet projects.
well i'm here to say left or right, it doesn't really ing matter who does it, we'd better stop spending or we're all going down. It doesn't matter which party you support..you will CRASH AND ING BURN. wake UP.
It's still very profitable. Those at the top have just figured out a way to make sure that it's only profitable for them though and not the rest of the country.
figured out a way? it's not that hard.
they get me and you to front them 5 trillion to start a war that will net them 1 or 2 trillion in plundered loot. you might say well thats a poor investment but guess what..the 5 million lost wasn't even theirs to begin with. they're 2 trillion richer...ha ha jokes on you.
The surpluses were only on paper. We haven't paid down the debt since 1969. With such a wonderful economy every liberal and/or democrat like to credit Clinton for, why didn't the debt decrease?
Oh cool, another thread where Republicans pretend they've ALWAYS cared about the national deficit
Thanks, W.
Calendar fail. 2002 is LONG after Clinton left office.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
