That's right. Most Americans have more important things to worry about than a lie in response to a question Ken Starr asked hoping Clinton would lie.

Causing a crime to happen is entrapment. That is what happened to President Clinton.

Moreover, this was all Starr had after an investigation lasting for five years and costing fifty million dollars.

After five years of rummaging through the White House garbage cans and peeping into the windows of the Oval Office the only thing that slimy little degenerate had on the President was a lie about his sex life.

What this demonstrated was that the president most Americans liked, and liked even more after this was revealed, was that all those bizarre charges leveled against the president by the Clinton haters were delusions of sick, twisted minds.

Bill Clinton did not murder Vince Foster. He was not involved in the illegal drug trade. He did not sell military secrets to Communist China.

He had an affair with a woman who took all of the initiative.

Well guess what, Chump. A whole lot of other presidents have done that. Wealth, power, and prestige make a man desirable to women. Many, perhaps most men with those qualities take advantage of this. This includes high ranking and high paid executives in private industry.

Do you seriously think that if Larry Ellison of Oracle was known to have an affair with a twenty something intern that he would be fired? Not a chance.

 

It's not too difficult to end a deficit and get a surplus. Simply cut government spending to a level where tax revenue exceeds the government spending.

To realistically do this you will need to change social security and military spending. As well as privatising the parts of government that shouldn't be forced upon tax payers.

Ending the deficit and ending the debt are two separate matters. The debt will never be recovered.

 

Is it really that easy? I wonder why no one ever thought of that before.

 

Wow!

So opposed to that lets just keep spending money we don't have. Lets blow the bubble a little bigger by printing more money. All bubbles pop! When this one does the housing bubble will look like a blip on the radar! This one will be catastrophic!

 

:excited:

 

It is that easy

It is that easy. It could be done now! The government takes in about $250 billion a month. It would take about 10% of that to service the debt, and another 10 to pay SS, Medicare, Medicaid, paying soldiers etc. Its call a balanced budget. Of course it's hard to do that when Senate Democrats refuse to propose a budget. Lets just keep kicking the can with Continuing Resolutions.

 

The Republicans created the debt crises by cutting taxes, especially for the rich.

There never was supposed to be a deficit. Ronald Reagan said that he could cut taxes, raise defense spending, and balance the budget by 1983. He did not say anything about cutting Social Security, Medicare, and other popular domestic spending programs. He said that all we would need to cut would be "waste, fraud, and abuse."

Also, what happened to the budget surplus that existed when Bill Clinton left office?

 

Correct my arithmetic if you need to. Ten percent of $250 billion is $25 billion. This would require major cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and the military budget. If you think it would be easy to make those cuts, you are delusional. Most Republican voters would oppose them.

 

Wow!

I guess it doesn't have anything to do with rampant spending?

Clinton in no way left a surplus, nor did he balance the budget.
The claim is generally made that Clinton had a surplus of $69 billion in FY1998, $123 billion in FY1999 and $230 billion in FY2000 . In that same link, Clinton claimed that the national debt had been reduced by $360 billion in the last three years, presumably FY1998, FY1999, and FY2000--though, interestingly, $360 billion is not the sum of the alleged surpluses of the three years in question ($69B + $123B + $230B = $422B, not $360B).

While not defending the increase of the federal debt under President Bush, it's curious to see Clinton's record promoted as having generated a surplus. It never happened. There was never a surplus and the facts support that position. In fact, far from a $360 billion reduction in the national debt in FY1998-FY2000, there was an increase of $281 billion.

Verifying this is as simple as accessing the U.S. Treasury (see note about this link below) website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 can be obtained. Considering the government's fiscal year ends on the last day of September each year, and considering Clinton's budget proposal in 1993 took effect in October 1993 and concluded September 1994 (FY1994), here's the national debt at the end of each year of Clinton Budgets:

Fiscal
Year Year
Ending National Debt Deficit
FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion
FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion
FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion
FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion
FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion
FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion
FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion
FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion
FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion


As can clearly be seen, in no year did the national debt go down, nor did Clinton leave President Bush with a surplus that Bush subsequently turned into a deficit. Yes, the deficit was almost eliminated in FY2000 (ending in September 2000 with a deficit of "only" $17.9 billion), but it never reached zero--let alone a positive surplus number. And Clinton's last budget proposal for FY2001, which ended in September 2001, generated a $133.29 billion deficit. The growing deficits started in the year of the last Clinton budget, not in the first year of the Bush administration.

Keep in mind that President Bush took office in January 2001 and his first budget took effect October 1, 2001 for the year ending September 30, 2002 (FY2002). So the $133.29 billion deficit in the year ending September 2001 was Clinton's. Granted, Bush supported a tax refund where taxpayers received checks in 2001. However, the total amount refunded to taxpayers was only $38 billion . So even if we assume that $38 billion of the FY2001 deficit was due to Bush's tax refunds which were not part of Clinton's last budget, that still means that Clinton's last budget produced a deficit of 133.29 - 38 = $95.29 billion.

Clinton clearly did not achieve a surplus and he didn't leave President Bush with a surplus.

So why do they say he had a surplus?

As is usually the case in claims such as this, it has to do with Washington doublespeak and political smoke and mirrors.

Understanding what happened requires understanding two concepts of what makes up the national debt. The national debt is made up of public debt and intragovernmental holdings. The public debt is debt held by the public, normally including things such as treasury bills, savings bonds, and other instruments the public can purchase from the government. Intragovernmental holdings, on the other hand, is when the government borrows money from itself--mostly borrowing money from social security.

Looking at the makeup of the national debt and the claimed surpluses for the last 4 Clinton fiscal years, we have the following table:

Fiscal
Year End
Date Claimed
Surplus Public
Debt Intra-gov
Holdings Total National
Debt
FY1997 09/30/1997 $3.789667T $1.623478T $5.413146T
FY1998 09/30/1998 $69.2B $3.733864T $55.8B $1.792328T $168.9B $5.526193T $113B
FY1999 09/30/1999 $122.7B $3.636104T $97.8B $2.020166T $227.8B $5.656270T $130.1B
FY2000 09/29/2000 $230.0B $3.405303T $2p30.8B $2.268874T $248.7B $5.674178T $17.9B
FY2001 09/28/2001 $3.339310T $66.0B $2.468153T $199.3B $5.807463T $133.3B


Notice that while the public debt went down in each of those four years, the intragovernmental holdings went up each year by a far greater amount--and, in turn, the total national debt (which is public debt + intragovernmental holdings) went up. Therein lies the discrepancy.

When it is claimed that Clinton paid down the national debt, that is patently false--as can be seen, the national debt went up every single year. What Clinton did do was pay down the public debt--notice that the claimed surplus is relatively close to the decrease in the public debt for those years. But he paid down the public debt by borrowing far more money in the form of intragovernmental holdings (mostly Social Security).

http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16

 

Show me any husband that has went on national TV, pointed his finger at millions of viewers and lied about it. Show me one who has lied under oath.
The bad thing is there are people who are willing to let that go.
Just think, the president of the U.S. lied under oath.
It was proven he lied. Think what would have happened to the president of even a small company that did the same thing.
It wouldn't even have to be the president of the company. How many men have been fored from their job when it was found out they did the same thing.
It just goes to show many people have no morals.
You seem to be one of those people. Don't worry, they are millions more who have morals just as low as you do.

 

Who caused the crime to happen? Was there some other person who forced Clinton to stick his dick in a woman's mouth?
Was there some other person who lied under oath?

 

Millions of people do that same thing every day.
I can even do that.
One difference is I use my own money. I can't force people to give me their money. It makes quite a bit of difference if you have to work for the money you spend.

 

It is really that simple. It's not rocket science. I promise you as far mathematics goes, balancing a budget is child's play.

People talk about spending cuts but never go through with the austerity measures they claim to support. Republicans are guilty of saying they want small government and low taxes, which would be great, but they don't seem to know what small government really means. Democrats on the other hand want a super inflated government and they think they can pay for it without it costing the middle class.

Frankly, I think you are all deluded.

 

First of all, you claim that it is simple. Then you explain why it is not politically possible. In other words, it is not simple, and you are deluded.

From the presidencies of Harry Truman to that of Jimmy Carter the national debt as a percentage of gross domestic product was paid down. It was paid down absolutely during Bill Clinton's second term.

George W. Bush turned the Clinton surplus into a yearly deficit by cutting taxes while starting two unnecessary and expensive wars he could not win.

Vice President Dick Cheney famously said, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." To the Republicans they only matter when a Democrat is president.

 

Wow!

I just took information from the Treasury Department and showed you Clinton didn't leave a surplus. You overlooked that!

 

No. You are wrong, it is simple. Don't spend more tax dollars than you receive.
Examples of difficult problems would be clearing up Chernobyl, putting a man on the moon, or crashing two opposing beams of protons travelling at 99.9999991% the speed of light and observing each collision. You are the deluded one for not realising just how simple the problem, and how simple the solution is.

The reason you find it a difficult problem to tackle is not because it is a complex problem, it is because no one enjoys austerity measures and people don't want to face up to the reality of the problem. Ignorance is bliss.

 

Lol

$250*.20=$50
$250-$50=$200

It's simple buddy!

 

If you still believe the debt was paid down a single penny by Clinton you have a very limited education.

 

Lol

$250*.20=$50
$250-$50=$200

It's pretty simple buddy!

 

Yep

I found sources from the US Treasury to prove him wrong. Lets see what king of jibberish he comes back with!