Regarding the surpluses of the Clinton-era, FactCheck.org says "there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased.
But Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) says "checking Treasury Department figures, it was solid debt all the way through Clinton and Bush. Clinton at the end ran unusually low deficits... but was never in the black".
What the lying Dennis is doing is substituting overall debt figures for budget figures. Dennis is correct that the total national debt continued to increase under Clinton, but that was because of interest payments on the National Debt. For Dennis to give Clinton any credit, the entire national debt (ran up primarily under Reagan) would have to have been erased. Completely ridiculous, of course, which is why Fact Check confirms that President Clinton ran surpluses during the last two years of his presidency.
But, according to Dennis, when I agree with a professional fact checking organization - I'm lying. Even George W. bush recognized the fact that the Clinton surplus was real. Shortly after assuming office the new prez said "we recognize, loud and clear, the surplus is not the government's money. The surplus is the people's money. And we ought to trust them with their own money".
And then bush frittered away the surplus by sending out rebate checks, knowing it would make the people happy and that they would credit bush for the "free money" (money that should have been used to pay down the debt). bush realized the surplus was real, and instead of using it responsibility he used it to purchase political capital.
But, when I brought up what GWb had to say regarding the surplus, Dennis simply ignored me and went back to calling me a liar who was relying on "accounting fraud" to arrive at a surplus.
And, when Dennis' buddy Will pointed out that the national debt went up every year under Clinton, Dennis felt validated and said (about me)...
| Dennis Marks: [He is] the liar with the black crayon who arbitrarily scribbles out parts of the actual historic budget in order to create a fake picture of what happened to try to make Clinton look better. (8/31/2012 AT 7:48am). |
That would make bush a liar with a black crayon as well. Although he only wanted to make himself look better by giving money away. But AGAIN, I was referring the the Clinton BUDGET surplus, not whether or not Clinton wiped out the entire national debt (and therefore no interest payments were necessary).
If fiscal responsibility is to be measured, looking at a president's budget (and not whether or not he did the impossible by completely paying off the national debt ran up mostly by Reagan) is what should be looked at. In this instance Dennis does not want us looking at who is responsible for the debt up to that point in time (Reagan).
When such things are looked at Republicans look bad and Democrats look good, which is why liars like Dennis seek to shift some of the blame from a fiscally irresponsible president (Reagan) to a fiscally responsible president (Clinton)... while ignoring the facts (as determined by a professional fact checking organization). It's transparent and shameful.
Fortunately very few fall for it. Sane people agree Clinton ran a BUDGET surplus, even if he did not pay down the entire national debt which was accumulated by every president that came before him (mainly Reagan). That is why only stupid people (like Dennis) make the argument that there was no surplus.
