Was there really a surplus? Or were the numbers cooked?
There actually really was a surplus.
The amount of private debt substantially increased while Clinton was President, allowing a surplus. Further, a lot of dollars flowed to the former Soviet-bloc countries, helping a surplus.
I have my own blog at FSK's Guide to Reality. Let me know if you like it.
He raided the SS trust fund
Democracy is nothing more than replacing bullets with ballots
If Pro is the opposite of Con. What is the opposite of Progress?
There was no surplus. The numbers were fudged, because the budget only mentions future liabilities as an addendum to the budget report. Just like today there is an actualy debt of 60+ trillion with all the obligations, likewise the debt during the clinton presidency grew, just rather than current debt, it was future obligations in the form of social security.
Conveniently, these numbers aren't mentioned...
If you try to trick the market, it will get its revenge.
Solreyus
Are you saying that Clinton basically took out bunch of loans or that he took money out of social security?
Mises Community Natural Rights Discussion Group
Not necessarily, I just know that during clinton's rule, budget deficits on future liabilities increased. This doesn't necessarily mean he made new promises on pentions, etc. merely that the previous promises were racking up.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap