Originally posted by lazs2
skyrock... you are not reading it correctly... even with gutting the military... under klinton our share of debt was slightly higher than second bush... less than first bush... the real large amounts were under democrats... but... they all do it.
lazs
First off the amount of the debit is illrelavent. It doesn't matter if it was 5 trillion under Bush one and 500 trillion under Clinton. I didn't even bother reading the numbers so I can't say if they are accurate or not. Simply because that number doesn't matter if you can pay it off.
The only thing that matters, is if you can pay off the debit. That is what balancing the budget means. The amount of spending, means nothing as long as the money is there to pay for what you spent.
That is what Clinton did, which you seem to miss in your typical have to bash a liberal idealism. Clintion "balanced" the budget. That means the govt had "surplus" money to pay off that debit at the end of the fiscal year.
Clinton did not pay off the debit and make it zero. He put govt spending in check and balanced the budget just like you do with your checkbook, hopefully.
Had we stayed on Clinton's plan the national debit "would" have been paid off. However Bush came in and threw away everything Clinton admin did, then went on to double the national debit in less than 6 years.
That's what your so called "conservative small govt" Republicans do best. See you Republicans want to always whine about taxes and all this BS but at the end of the day, they always overspend and cause this kind of issue.