dispelling_the_surplus_myth dafremen I'd like to preface this blathe by stating that I am not pro-mccain, nor am I pro-obama. They are both more of the same. I've been told that not to vote for one or the other is to "lie down and die." I think that to continue supporting a two-party system with your vote because a third party can't win is copping out on the fight for campaign reform. Anyhow..one of the "points" that people in the pro-Obama camp keep bringing up is that Clinton actually wiped out the national debt, and that when he left office there was actually a surplus. There's no arguing that Bush has increased the debt by leaps and bounds over what any president before him has done, however, to believe that Clinton erased the national debt is patently FALSE. Here are the figures for the 8 years of Clinton's Presidency: National debt: 1993: $4,429,229,286,675.85 1994: $4,723,801,456,779.97 1995: $4,984,800,213,988.31 1996: $5,245,378,048,678.55 1997: $5,432,371,961,282.81 1998: $5,555,731,529,597.33 1999: $5,661,320,445,773.37 2000: $5,676,558,033,203.23 When Clinton left office, we were 5.6+ trillion dollars in debt. There was no surplus. That's a fallacy. In addition, the national debt actually ROSE by 1.2 trillion dollars during Clinton's presidency. Did Clinton do better than most? I'd say he did what he could. But he did NOT erase the national debt and there was NEVER a surplus. Noncompliance is the only vote that counts. If you must vote..vote for real change. Vote outside of the two-party monopoly. 081025 ... source http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np 081025 ... somebody I've never heard anyone - including the Obama camp - claim that Clinton wiped out the national debt. What Clinton did was eliminate the annual budget deficit. When Clinton left office there was an annual budget surplus, and that fact can be verified in any sundry almanac. 081025 ... unhinged yeah, budget surplus and national surplus....not really the same thing. 081025 ... dafremen If you owe money. There is no budget surplus. In fact, if you continue to owe more money each year. You're not really on a budget. Don't get me wrong. I don't think Clinton was such a bad President. He made mistakes just like every human being is bound to. So let's not turn this into a Clinton bashing, Clinton praising project. Whether or not Obama has said this..I have heard MANY people say that we had a surplus. A surplus means "money to spend." If we OWE money that is collecting interest..then we DON'T have money to spend. We have money that is owed, and should be applied to the debts that we have. Telling people that there is a surplus is misleading. It leads them to believe that there is plenty left over. There is nothing left over but debt. And that means being chained to working for nothing until the debt is paid off. Neither of the two candidates currently running for office indicate that they want to get us out of debt. Both Obama and McCain have accepted campaign contributions from the same sources: Goldman Sachs JP Morgan Chase Citigroup Lehman Brothers Morgan Stanley UBS AG These are all banking concerns. If it makes any difference (which it doesn't) these banking corporations donated more to Obama than to McCain. But that's called hedging your bets. They know that both candidates will keep them rolling in dough. A closer examination of campaign contributors reveals just how true this really is. Obama's other contributors were primarily universities and educational institutions. On the outside, it seems to indicate that he is pro-education. But think about how those educations are funded. They are funded with LOANS. Loans make banks money. McCain's other contributors were primarily government sources...particularly the military. You might say...hey...that makes McCain a pro-war, pro-government candidate. And I wouldn't disagree with that. But look more closely and you'll realize that both wars and the governments that wage them are funded with LOANS. And again, loans make bankers money. The reason the two-party system is so heavily entrenched is that BOTH sides are in the business of making bankers more money. For those of you who haven't been paying attention to politics for very long..candidates have been promising change EVERY election cycle since I can remember. I've been paying attention for 8 such election cycles..and I've been around for 10. You won't get change by voting for a Democrat or a Republican...and that's not just propaganda. That's how it is. I'm not in favor of any particular candidate. I think the whole system is a farce and now refuse to support it. That's a personal decision. But if you DO want to be a part of the process, and you DO want change, then you have to make statement. Even a decent percentage would give a multi-party election process a chance. If during each election cycle third party candidates began to get more and more voters, eventually they would either win, or the system would be forced to take notice and allow them into the debates and into the limelight that, unfortunately, is such a deciding factor in who gets elected. 081026 ... unhinged yeah, eventually being the key word. eventually, after the banks collapse even further and unemployment reaches a historical 20% and farmers go back to destroying food cause hungry people can't pay for it. partisan politics are bullshit, i will agree with that. it's no fucking secret how lobbying works within the federal government. it's no secret that our federal politicians on both sides are selling us down the river to make themselves and their friends more money; concentrating unprecedented wealth in a smaller and smaller number of hands. but no change will come about in your lifetime by voting for a third party candidate. i'm sure mccain is hoping that people like you will vote for a third party candidate. because it's a proven fact that far left liberals are most often the ones that do so. special interests/capitalism are destroying the world. (not really an exaggeration) 081026 ... dafremen I won't be voting for a third party candidate or any candidate. (I might write in "The People." My position is fairly clear. Noncompliance is the only vote that counts. Doing what you believe is right...regardless of the consequences..while disregarding the powers that be which tell you that you can't. Unfortunately, many people feel that this course only disenfranchises my voice. I believe differently. I believe that the State can only stand for so long as people obey it..and allow it to be funded. But mine is what some would call a radical view. And so, for those that really want change but aren't so radical in their beliefs..a third party is the only REAL solution. It doesn't matter if we win or not. Aren't we supposed to act upon the promptings of our conscience? Aren't we supposed to be willing to do what we each feel is right..win or lose? As I've already pointed out..and as you seem to feel as well..there is no difference, Democrat or Republican. So why care who wins or loses among the two? Why play that same tired old game? There's always a "logical reason" to play their game. I'm not playing anymore. What are they going to do? Lock me up? Give me 3 squares a day and some time to write? Is that what I should do? Bow to threats? Vote because of what I'm AFRAID will happen if I don't? Do what I'm told because of what I'm AFRAID will be done to me if I don't? No more fear for me. No more making decisions based on trepidation. I'm going to do what I feel is right. And it doesn't matter what I'm afraid of anymore. The only thing that matters is that I have to live with myself at the end of the day. I can't do that by going along with something I don't believe in anymore. It's treason against my heart and what integrity I like to think I still have. 081026 ... somebody If you want to rant, rant. But Daf, here your whole premise for the rant is faulty. By the end of the Clinton era there was a budget surplus. That is a fact. Government income exceeded government expenditure. The national debt is a completely different set of statistics. Yes, the two are interconnected, but they are not direct correlates. Personally I haven't heard anyone make the claim you claim they claim, and I've talked to a lot of people about this very issue, because it is one of my favorite arguments for Clinton-hating fiscal conservatives who like Bush and his mounting deficits. 081026 ... dafremen Sounds to me like you're defending Clinton when no one is attacking him. All politicians make bankers richer the way the system works. Clinton included. McCain will too. So will Obama. What are you defending? Back to this "surplus" though. How is it that the national debt can go up 1.2 trillion dollars if expenditures are exceeded by income? Isn't the interest on the national debt an expenditure? Are you saying that the national debt isn't the result of government expenditure? Is it just MAD money that we don't have to count as a bill? Or is it more like a credit card where we just budget for and pay the minimum amount so that we can stay in debt forever? Let's get real. I can make a budget for ANY amount and call it a surplus. I can see these spin doctors now: "Gee we estimate that we'll be getting in 3 Trillion dollars this year...so let's set our budget at...um ohh I dunno how about 2.5 Trillion? Then it'll look like a 500 Billion dollar surplus..and whatever we're short...we'll just add to the national debt." You don't sound like you want to come off as being naive. I'm gunna go out on a limb and say that you aren't. I'm gunna guess that you just fell like a sucker in a three-card monte game for that line of shit. But..I digress. 081026 ... somebody Between 1999 and 2000 the national debt increased by 'only' $10 billion. Interest. The reason it only increased by that amount is because the budget was balanced. Rant all you want, your premise remains invalid. 081026 ... dafremen So I took this a bit further. I went and looked at the government's budget all the way back. In particular I thought it would be interesting to see if this so - called surplus (if indeed such a thing ever existed) was as a result of anything that anyone in government had done to reduce spending..ie balancing the budget. I mean, that's sort of the only positive way that you could achieve a surplus, is by reducing government spending. An increase in tax revenues would only indicate a greater burden placed upon the American people. Here are the figures that I found. I started with 1990 so we could see that there was no reduction. This isn't a pro-republican blathe, by the way. It's an "all politicians are screw job liars" sort of blathe. Here are the government expenditures for the years 1990 - 2000: 1990: 1,253,116,000,000 1991: 1,324,310,000,000 1992: 1,381,614,000,000 1993: 1,409,487,000,000 1994: 1,461,855,000,000 1995: 1,515,821,000,000 1996: 1,560,535,000,000 1997: 1,601,227,000,000 1998: 1,652,598,000,000 1999: 1,701,913,000,000 2000: 1,789,067,000,000 As you can see, federal expenditures increased by around 400 Billion during the years 1992 - 2000. What that indicates is that if there WAS a surplus (which again...there wasn't) it could only have come from an increase in tax revenues. What that indicates is that any so-called surplus came from taxing the people more...not from reducing government spending. Now..some might say...well we taxed corporations more. That's not really indicated by the data. Corporate tax rates rose only slightly...and account for only about 10% of government revenues. 47% of government revenues come from taxes imposed on the people. Another 37% of those revenues came from Social Security withholding. So about 84% of taxes come from people's paychecks. So what I see in this "surplus" hype is that people are forced to tighten their belts while government goes on spending as usual. So far, this mythical GREAT achievement that some folks want to call a surplus...doesn't seem to be panning out as much more than a spin job that makes collecting more taxes from the people seem like a good thing. 081026 ... source www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/pdf/hist.pdf 081026 ... somebody Look, I appreciate what you are trying to get at... but there still was a surplus. During the late 90s government income exceeded government expenditure. That is a surplus. Perhaps there are caveats to be had, perhaps there are not. Either way, a surplus is a surplus. There was nothing mythical about it, so there is no myth to dispel. The other points you are trying to make would carry more weight if you would simply adopt a premise that isn't faulty. Since some of them are good points, I hope you will do so. 081026 ... tourist Well... The fact that Government Expenditures Remained Relativly Stable during the afformentioned Regime is quite a feat in itself. Considering the actual Value of the Currency tends to Devalue like an Automobile after you drive Her Off The Lot. The increase in Tax Derived Income May Reflect the Rise in Population over the Time Span we are looking at rather than an Actual Increase in the Individual tax Burden. But I Ain't No Economist and these are just Idle Speculations. 081027 ... dafremen Why would anyone mention a surplus, though? Why is it constantly coming up in political debates? I mean it's always spoken about as though it were some wonderful thing that someone had accomplished in Washington. The source mentioned above divides the expenditures by agency. In almost EVERY case..agency expenditures went up. And it wasn't just during the Clinton years. It's been going on practically forever. Nobody accomplished anything but to tax the shit out of the people some more. Surplus? I'm sorry...how does more money in their hands...less money in OUR hands equal a surplus? You mean a surplus if you're a politician..is that what we're talking about here? The whole idea that someone would believe that our country EVER had a surplus of anything besides debt...is abominable..misleading..(politically cunning) and all around a fat wheelbarrow load of horse manure. I don't have a source to quote on that one. 081027 ... unhinged i don't think taxes are bad. but i do think, that if you make hundreds of thousands of dollars you should shoulder more of the tax burden. everyone expects the government to provide services for them but no one wants to pay for them. people complain about potholes, bad schools, untimely garbage collection, lack of funds for mass transit, minority groups, subsistence programs, but everyone also bitches about paying taxes. as you destroy the middle class, the poverty line rises, you damn well better fork over some dough so the rest of us don't starve. people used to get their heads cut off for frivolous and blatant displays of their wealth (i.e. the aig board members who spent almost a half mil on spa vacations right after the bailout) in the face of the poor and starving. not a single human being on this planet deserves to be hungry or cold. it is NOT a matter of work. because as we are all noticing, our country is shedding jobs at a record rate and unemployment is almost as high. people can't work if their aren't jobs for them. maybe they should put our tax dollars into helping 'real' americans and prosecuting all the ceos that affected this huge collapse. but doing what's right in the face of money hardly if ever happens. greed: the greatest human motivator. do you really think that if the exact conditions of the great depression of the 30s came back to us, most of us would help our neighbors? 081027 ... unhinged (i know, not really in line with the current debate. more of an abstract_association if you will) taxes, the legal way to get people to dispense with their hoard so that wealth can, at least a little, be fairly redistributed. (and by the way, i think i paid an absurd amount of taxes last year, but i know it helped the people across the river from where i live eat so...) 081027 ... Riling Realities Since 99.99% of those 1990's tax payers still lived better still lived better than anyone else in the world, I suppose one could argue that they had a surplus of income. Frankly it's hard to feel bad for them. 081027 ... Riling Realities I mean really, of all the grievances in the world, I have about zero sympathy for the tax burdens of the wealthy. 081027 ... dafremen My tax burden during those years was 39% of my pay. I drove a 1987 Caprice Classic and raised 4 kids. The "taxing of the wealthy" is horribly misrepresented. That's what offshore banking and tax shelters are for. Course I wouldn't know anything about that..I'm just your average Joe who was getting screwed to the tune of practically 40%. Thanks for asking me to go with less while you spent more Uncle Sam. Nothing's changed except that they're spending more. Get rid of the debt and you have a surplus. 081027 ... dafremen (is running out of plausible bumps for this blathe..) : ) 081027 ... dafremen =) Ready for Round 2? 120401 what's it to you? who go blather from