The Observation Deck

Stephen Eisel wrote:

But the facts are, Bush inherited a surplus

BS.. Try thinking for yourself once in a while..

Fiscal
Year Year
Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion

You do understand the difference between having a plan, and simply stating before being elected that you want to attack Iraq?

Bret Callentine wrote:

You do understand the difference between having a plan, and simply stating before being elected that you want to attack Iraq?

I certainly understand the difference between having a plan and just stating before being elected that you want "change".

Look at your numbers, deficit down by $260+ trillion. Bush was handed a surplus which he began to squander immediately. Go back and look at everything that was gutted and perverted in the build up to war.

I am thinking, and reading, and doing the math.

Time and time again, anyone reading the mainstream news or reading articles on the Internet will read the claim that President Clinton not only balanced the budget, but had a surplus. This is then used as an argument to further highlight the fiscal irresponsibility of the federal government under the Bush administration.

The claim is generally made that Clinton had a surplus of $69 billion in FY1998, $123 billion in FY1999 and $230 billion in FY2000 . In that same link, Clinton claimed that the national debt had been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years, presumably FY1998, FY1999, and FY2000--though, interestingly, $360 billion is not the sum of the alleged surpluses of the three years in question ($69B + $123B + $230B = $422B, not $360B).

While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it is aggravating seeing Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the cold hard facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.

Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets

As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a budget surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the budget was almost balanced in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.

Keep in mind that President Bush took office in January 2001 and his first budget took effect October 1, 2001 for the year ending September 30, 2002 (FY2002). So the $133.29 billion deficit in the year ending September 2001 was Clinton's. Granted, Bush supported a tax refund where taxpayers received checks in 2001. However, the total amount refunded to taxpayers was $38 billion . So even if we assume that $38 billion of the FY2001 deficit was due to Bush's tax refunds which were not part of Clinton's last budget, that still means that Clinton's last budget produced a deficit of 133.29 - 38 = $95.29 billion.

Clinton clearly did not achieve a surplus and he didn't leave President Bush with a surplus.

So why do they said he had a surplus?

Bret Callentine wrote:...I think Bush has been forced to make the best dinner he could, given he wasn't able to shop for the groceries.

Stephen Eisel wrote:

Then we declare war on Iraq, a country that had never harmed us

Here is repost from another thread... Jim, did you know that Clinton spent time on developing an Iraq invasion plan???


The House/ Senate Intelligence Committees also agreed that Iraq was a secuity threat to the world and The US.

http://intelligence.senate.gov/members1 ... gress.html


I know that you hate old people but please listen to the words of your Democratic elders..

ryan costa wrote:There are innumerable plans to invade or react to hypothetical situations with military force. some are in greater stages of development than others.

The first gulf war settled everything Saddam Hussein/Iraq was guilty of before the first gulf war. There are no do overs.

Invading Iraq was about as necessary as invading Saudi Arabia, Belarus, China, Dubai, Nigeria, Apartheid South Africa, or these places gangsta rappers write about.

Upon committing to invading Iraq, the Bush Administration proceeded with overly optimist expectations. I don't know what fueled these overly optimistic expectations. The First Bush President didn't have these overly optimistic expectations.

What could America have done differently upon displacing the Saddam Hussein regime? Keeping the majority of Iraq's government in place would be a good start. Keeping most of the existing military and police, and their officers, and other bureaucracies in place might have helped. the iraqi government had been pretty secular and included both sunnis and shia muslims for years. in a power vacuum severe as that inflicted by the United States the same thing happened as when power vacuums arose in yugoslavia, post-monarchy France, and numerous former colonies in Africa and Asia. people are either scrambling for power or in fear of others scrambling for power.