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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (216875)	2/2/2005 12:53:27 PM
From: Alighieri	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572102

It all depends on who's spending that SS surplus. When Clinton was spending it and declaring the federal budget "balanced," I didn't see you outraged at that chicanery. My understanding is that Clinton took a two pronged approach to balancing the budget, and eventually reached the point where a surplus was reached for 2 consecutive years. First, he raised taxes on the wealthiest Americans and second he managed expenses growth tightly. The path from a 290B deficit (when he took over from GHWB) to the 120B surplus he left took 6 years of work. Contrast that to bush's performance and ponder the differences for a moment. Now, you are implying that the balanced budget was "cooked" in some way involving SS surpluses. Explain what you mean, because you've lost me. Al