@parados,
Quote:The simple fact of the matter is that the US Government had a surplus for 4 years under Clinton. That means they took in more money from all the different sources compared to the money the spent.
One of the issues is that all excess SS money is by law invested in Treasuries. That means that even if the government is running a surplus it still has to take that money and pay interest on it which makes it a debt. Unless the government is paying down it's private debt at a rate to offset the increase in debt from SS invested in Treasuries the debt will go up.
There is existence of "surplus" when something remains above what is used or needed, not when you find other sources to fill up what is needed.
The chart posted before shows that the national debt continued with the same average rate under the Clinton's administration.
For this reason I mentioned my question to the council member (from another message of mine) where the "saved money" he was preaching will go.
In paper you can demonstrate any crap you want to show, but in reality the assumed surplus should have had a great economic impact with the national debt, because using the surplus to be sent to the same hole of spending it somewhere else, then you have not surplus but just changing of the way to over spend the money, that's all.
Using the head of a family (The US) abusing credit cards (politicians selling the country), and finally making good income because the wife became a prostitute (Clinton's era), and instead of paying the debt with that extra income, the head of the house used the money to apply for more credit cards and keep spending in several pair of shoes, diamond rings, posters of Madonna,...
Come on, the chart is not lying, the national debt continued the same trend under Clinton's administration, this is to say, the assumed surplus probably was two bucks or, as usual, disappeared in the hands of politic magicians.
