Are We The New USSR?

ralpheb:

Gosh, I have to connect the dots for you:

U (United) S (States) S (Stolen by) R (Republicans). They are using the Soviet method of governance with Republican-controlled press Pravda like and suppress dissent just like the Soviets did.

Re: Are We The New USSR?


Thank you. It is taken from official figures from the Congressional Budget Office, Table F-1. I'm quite pleased with it. Why you should love it is a puzzlement, since it so clearly documents the ineptitude of Bush and his Republican Congress and Senate.


I have no idea what you can possibly mean by "surplus on the national debt". How can you have a surplus on a debt? What are you talking about?

The debt or surplus per year is exactly what it says-the difference between what you take in and what you spend that year.. For the record, we pay the interest on the national debt every year. But I don't recall anyone actually making payments on the principle of the national debt itself. Al Gore proposed it when he was running, and it sounds like a good idea since that would free up money to pay for government services instead of having to pay interest payments, but that went out the window when Bush & Co with his huge deficits took over the White House.


The deficit is computed yearly. It is not computed month by month. Since Clinton was president 3 weeks into January, I put the red Clinton-Bush divider a little to the left of the 2000 mark. In fact, the figures show a lesser surplus for 2001 than for 2000, so the line connecting the two years has to be seen to be rising. But we don't know that is so for each month, since we don't have a month by month breakdown. We only know that the surplus of 2001 was less than in 200-that's all.

Clinton would have been brilliant even if he only cut the deficit in half. He did so much better than that. The idea of a Bush supporter comparing that Clinton's surplus was "slipping away", when Bush drove the deficit even higher than his father's outrageous levels, (over 400 billion), is beyond belief. It just goes to show how desperate you are to grasp at anything to take away from Clinton's accomplishment.


This graph is from the official figures of the Congressional Budget Office. If you don't like the figures, talk to them.


What do you need explained, exactly? A junior high schooler can read that graph and see what it shows. What needs explaining is how these silly questions of yours in any way detract from the stark reality this graph shows.

If this was your idea of some response to the reality this graph illustrates, you are very wrong. You have made no point at all.

There is one thing I would point out. This graph includes the money collected for Social Security payments. That is the way the figures are most often quoted, so I went along with it.

If the Social Security payments are taken away, Clinton's surplus is not 200+ billion, but 86 billion. However, both Bush 41's and Bush 43's deficits are even worse. Bush 41's deficit goes from 290 billion up to 340 billion, Bush 43's deficit goes from 412 billion up to 567 billion. So nothing is really changed by doing the graph the other way. But I include this for completeness.