Well, they're wrong. Clinton *never* showed a surplus -- the debt increased every year. He *almost* balanced the budget, missed by $20 billion.
Of course, those numbers for Reagan and the Bushes are far too low.
The published surplus number is bogus, and it pisses me off, because calculating the real number is easy. Look at total public debt at the start of the fiscal year, and subtract the pubic debt at the end of the year. If that number is positive, then you had a surplus.
ORLY? There's a difference between a budget surplus and a reduction in debt. Regardless, even the level of debt shows the fallacy of "fiscal conservative".
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2008-08-08 02:44 pm (UTC)Of course, those numbers for Reagan and the Bushes are far too low.
The published surplus number is bogus, and it pisses me off, because calculating the real number is easy. Look at total public debt at the start of the fiscal year, and subtract the pubic debt at the end of the year. If that number is positive, then you had a surplus.
no subject
Date: 2008-08-08 05:02 pm (UTC)