Quote:
Originally Posted by PBzeer
Rick - Clinton may have made debt payments, but every chart and graph I have looked at shows a steady, rise in actual debt. The only decrease, is debt as a percent of GDP. Still, if you owe, and you have money unspent (as a government entity), shouldn't that money go to debt payment? Or would that be bad business?
|
John,
It appears that Rick, as usual needs to learn how to use his own tools to produce accurate results instead of estimates and exaggeration again:
Government - Debt to the Penny (Daily History Search Application)
On Jan 1 1999 the debt stood at
5,606,630,290,821.39
On Jan 1 2000, despite the surplus of the year before the debt stood at:
5,776,091,314,225.33
The announced surplus was 122 trillion.
The surplus appears to have been spent on 'dry cleaning'
Fiscal year over Calendar year I understand so don't bother.
Then, a little press conference one year later - a year in which the touted surplus was 230 billion :
President Clinton announces another record budget surplus - September 27, 2000
Jan 1 2001, despite his photo op saying the debt had been reduced by 233 billion (see article above) the debt stood at:
5,728,739,508,558.96 -
Only 48 billion less, how is that possible you ask.
a)
Democrat math.
b) fiscal year as opposed to calendar year?
I go with Democrat math.
the deficit was not reduced by 233 billion on any one day during the year, I dumped it into a database and calculated it out (it's what I do for a living).
BTW, Clinton took office with a deficit of 4.1 and left with 5.7 trillion. Too much of course, but not as bad as it could have been.
Nice try, learn your own tool
or show me where I'm wrong.