Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Suma who wrote (19373)	10/25/2004 9:02:07 AM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

"I will get back to you on this one. Clinton did in fact balance the budget." Suma, he was clearly talking about the debt, which DID rise every year under Clinton, not the "official" fiscal budget. That said, the federal budget was never really in surplus either. It is reported as a surplus only because net inflows to social security are counted as revenues to the government, reducing the reported deficit. It's akin to a private sector employer counting it's 401k or pension contributions as revenue - a practice that would surely land the CEO in jail and cause Kerristas to wail "Bushie corporate corruption." ;-)

To: Suma who wrote (19373)	10/26/2004 3:39:31 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

I see that R. D. Buschman gave you a decent explanation. Had you bothered to read the articles I linked, you would have never said, "Clinton did in fact balance the budget". And yes, if a corporate CEO did what Clinton did, he would land in jail. Let's say you were earning $100k a year, but all told, your expenses were $105K. If you removed all of your living expenses from your budget, then claimed that you were earning more than you were spending, you too would have a Clinton "surplus". It never existed in reality. You would simply be redefining the real meaning of the word. Clinton revised the meaning of "surplus", but never told anyone that significant point. It's not much different than when you claim "What I present are the FACTS." Clinton's "surplus" & your "facts" aren't reality based, but they are treated as though they are the real McCoy. No wonder so many folks are confused.