SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Steve Lokness who wrote (94304)2/16/2009 5:15:52 PM
From: koan  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 116555
 
>>That's just not true. Clinton barely squeeked out a surplus just one year before he left office. He ran surpluses if you don't count interest on the debt, but how silly is that? Clinton did that by cutting the military and reducing the size of government - both things I applaud - but you sure don't see any reduction in the size of government in Obama's plan. And yes, Bush spent like a crazy drunken soldier, but democrats are certainly not guiltless as you imply. Throw in the projected deficits for unfunded social programs and you have a mess every bit as bad as Bush.<<

So who did a better job with the economy Clinton or Bush?



To: Steve Lokness who wrote (94304)2/16/2009 7:34:50 PM
From: ajtj991 Recommendation  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 116555
 
There was no surplus in the Clinton administration. There hasn't been one since the 60's if at all.

The "surplus" in the Clinton administration was created by an accounting scheme that adds the Social Security Trust Fund surplus into the general budget. I believe the deficit that year we had the $186-Billion or so "surplus" was really something like $200-Billion, but I'm going by memory here.