You have not provided any gov figures to back up your statement that Clinton had a surplus. On the other hand, I have provided actual figures that prove that Clinton NEVER paid down the national debt and that it did in fact go up every year. You talk like that idiot Oblunder and probably really believe your own lies, like him. A budget surplus is not the same as the national debt. Anyone can write a budget that shows a surplus. And Clinton never had a surplus, by the way. There is no proof at the Treasury website. So provide a link other than some article by some tard or go back to your campaigning for your criminal, Chillary.

The annual budget is filled with so much redundancy from its previous year that to claim any cuts is a bold face lie. Spending is one of George W's sins but next to Obama he was a piker.

To spend so much time on Bill Clinton's affect on our deficit or debt is a waste of time because a) it would not have been done but was because of a Republican Congress b) the progressives have shifted so far left now that such a comparison of Clinton's years is a waste of time.

The focus in my humble view should be Trump v Hillary v Democratic v Republican Congress

We continue to grow as a debtor nation thanks to Obama and his gang. We witness in Europe and Latin America where one nation after another has fallen because of their socialist agenda and yet the only economic plan that seems o get any real play is the one that tells people that they are entitled to free stuff. PM Thacher
said it best "socialism is great until you run out of other people's money." Like a majority of voters I do not see either of the party's nominees as the best this nation can offer but by a clear margin Trump stands heads above Hillary especially since he will not be beholding to the globalist that are running this nation and others.
Perhaps with Trump the average guy has a chance to make a decent living and attain some decent savings

Personal Best Regards:

:agree:

They spend more than they take in EVERY year. They robbed the SS "trust fund" until there was nothing left to take. So now they just borrow...OVER $1.5 TRILLION each year. That's $1,500,000,000,000 EVERY year.

No, there was NO yearly surplus. That's the media telling lies again. Turn the TV off, throw away the newspapers, they're all propaganda. We've spent more than we get for MANY years. It keeps adding up.

he National Debt: Voodoo from Wall Street
Oct 24, 2014. What if Reagan and the Bushes had balanced their budgets? How much lower would the debt be now? We’ll get to that shortly, but first, how did we get into this mess? This may just be the weirdest political tale you’ve every heard.

World War II cost a bundle, and the country started out in the Great Depression. It was flat broke. But Uncle Sam was popular and the country patriotic, and people were happy to lend him money. Compared to the size of the economy back then, the debt soon outstripped even today’s debt, and we won the war.

After the war, they started paying off the debt, and the economy (and its GDP) grew. And for 35 years the debt kept getting smaller compared to the GDP. When it was the smallest (as compared to GDP) than it had been in 50 years, Reagan was elected (1980) and vowed to shrink it even more drastically. But he had an odd theory: Cut taxes and the government would collect so much more money that he could spend more and still pay down the debt. Even before he was elected, George H. W. Bush called this “Voodoo economics,” and so it was.

The result, of course, was that the debt stopped decreasing and shot through the roof, as seen in the graph above. By 1987, even Ron Paul (who loved the tax-cut part) blurted out: “How is it that the party of balanced budgets, with control of the White House and Senate, accumulated red ink greater than all previous administrations put together?” And so it had. Starting with a debt of $1 trillion, in eight years Reagan raised it to $2.8 trillion. Even relative to the bigger economy, this was as bad as it had been 28 years earlier. (And no, the House did not do it to him. The budgets Congress passed were almost identical to what he asked for and on average a tiny bit more balanced.)

Why did he do it?
So how the heck did this happen to the guy that rode to office on complaints of an out-of-control debt ..........
[to read the rest follow the link] National Debt Graph by President - zFacts

To see the chart follow this link:
http://zfacts.com/wp-content/uploads...-GDP-graph.png

Try not to get angry.

I don't think they are capable of reading the chart. And since it contradicts their preconceived notions, they'll say the information is a lie.

In Clinton's final full fiscal year -- fiscal year (FY) 2000 -- the federal budget surplus was $230 billion. The public debt decreased by this same amount -- $230 billion.
Some claim there was not a surplus because the gross national debt increased by $18 billion in the same year, FY 2000. How could the gross national debt increase while the public debt decrease? The answer is due to trust fund accounting requirements, as is required by law. Trust funds i.e. Social Security for example (unlike the federal government itself) are allowed accumulate money, for purposes of the trust fund's future anticipated spending needs, and so trust fund accounting requires the trust fund money be segregated. This is unlike most people's personal accounting methods, so can cause confusion in interpreting the numbers. To put it simply, the money on hand increased during Clinton's tenure, but since the government owes the social security fund for future needs, accounting shows a national debt increase (as opposed to the public debt).

When Bush was sworn in on January 20, 2001, the national debt was $5,727,776,738,304.64.

When “W” left office on January 20, 2009, the national debt was $10,626,877,048,913.08.

The growth in the national debt during his eight years in office: $4,899,100,310,608.44.

The average yearly growth in the national debt during Bush’s presidency: $612,387,538,826.05.

During much of Bush’s tenure, he had a Republican majority in both the House and the Senate. He claimed that tax cuts would pay for themselves – they did not. He claimed that tax cuts would result in growth – we experienced the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.

You ignore fact.
Bush had deficits in the billions, versus Obama's trillions. - Fact.
Bush had no unemployment until the last two years of his second term, Democrat controlled congress. - fact.
Bush saw what was happening with Dodd/Frank and asked for an audit of Fanny/Freddy on at least three occasions and Barney refused. The mortgage bubble burst, didn't it? And which party was responsible for Dodd/Frank?

Clinton did not pay down on the national debt or it would reflect a lower number on the Treasury figures above. - fact.

If you wish to listen to left wing pundits telling you lies and refuse to look at facts, then revel in your ignorance.

I gave you a link to TreasuryDirect.gov and you still refuse to believe statistics over liberal pundit articles. Have it your way, but you really shouldn't comment when it just shows how stupid you are for ignoring facts.

Not related to the tax cuts. If you don't know that, then you are on the wrong forum. And did Obama raise the taxes for the lower 47% or even the middle class? If Bushes tax cuts were so bad, then why didn't he? Are you brain dead?

You missed the whole point of my post. Wow, you're dumber than I thought. No wonder you are a Trump supporter.

Says a supporter of a mass murderer. You live in denial.