More nonsense from you guys. I know that argument well, and I have no desire to get into the weeds with you over it. But I'll give you that for the sake of this argument.
So you explain to me then, why George W. Bush said that the government shouldn't have too much money and used that as an excuse for the massive tax cuts he gave to the rich?
Wouldn't you think that if we owed so much money, that the massive tax cuts to the rich, and he said he was giving them to the rich, was irresponsible?
<<
>> When Bush took over, the government was running huge surpluses
Too bad liberals like you do not believe in or understand basic math. If you did, you would understand the US Federal Government did not have a net surplus during any of the Clinton Budget years.
The net debt did increase less during the late 90s; in part because of the .Net Bubble, excess Fed stimulus by Greenspan because of Y2K fears, and Republican control of the House.
Historical Debt Outstanding
09/30/2002
| 6,228,235,965,597.16 | | 09/30/2001 | 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 |
treasurydirect.gov
Koan, please back up your claim that the Federal Government was running a real surplus when Bush took over. Show us your data! |
