Morality Games
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2009
- Messages
- 3,733
- Reaction score
- 1,156
- Location
- Iowa
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Fact check did a pretty good job and was fair. Suggest you read it then verify the rhetoric with bea.gov and the U.S. Treasury Dept. Here is the budget link for 2000. Notice SS included in the revenue section. Back out SS revenue and expense and see what you get.
http://fms.treas.gov/annualreport/annrpt00.pdf
1. It doesn't mean anything unless it apportions the 1.2 trillion to specific expenses.
2. If you are right then FactCheck is either delusional or hyper-partisan. It can't have been both Clinton's tax policies and Republican hammering of those policies which led the the mid-late 90s boom.
Who made you moderator? Learn to do your own research and stop with just rhetoric.
I'm not accepting it is rhetoric until you prove it.
All I have seen from you are wild claims that you have yet to back up. I gave you specific sites, non partisan sites and you offered nothing in return
The shoe is on the other foot. To begin with, I haven't claimed much, and hardly anything revolutionary; every word is consistent with FactCheck.
I speculated the 1.2 trillion might be unpaid interest, at least in part. Since specific expenses are not registering on the annual budgets, and because it is routinely asserted by numerous authories that much of our exisitng debt is accumulated interest (from the Reagan and Bush Senior years; Clinton didn't add enough and George Bush Jr.'s hasn't been around long enough), that seems to be the most plausible explanation; no reason to think interest wasn't growing just because Clinton was president.
In any event, I'm not convinced even if Clinton was responsible for the entire 1.2 trillion that he still wouldn't be fiscally responsible; adjusting for inflation, 1.2 trillion over eight years would have still been tiny in comparison to any other individual president's budgets in the last thirty years.
Last edited: