Lloyd Parker
Lloyd, Why is when Clinton cooks the books you appear to accept it at face value, and when W does it you act like it is the end of the world? I have no love for W, he is leading us down the wrong path at breakneck speed. But...Clinton was only a little better. I believe you give him far more credit than is due. On the other hand it is hard to blame W too much.
The way I look at the debt - without borrowing from Social Security Clinton rate a defict every year. He paid down the public debt with SS tax revenues. So, it is true the total publically held debt decreased, but not because of Clinton's masterful handling of the economy. None of the excess SS revenues were saved or invested, they were used to make him look good. If the economy hadn't come out of recession after his fist year in offie (which he had almost nothing to do with), he would have run as big a defict as W. Clinton got lucky...always a valuable buttet. Do you honestly think if Gore had been elected in 2000, we'd still be running "surpluses?" What would Gore have done differently (well hopefully he would have stayed out of Iraq)?
The money is not there. It was spent. I can hope believe pray wish dream that one day the government can repay it out of future tax revenues, but there is no buttet backing it up. I can't can't forclose on the government to get "my" money back. If the money was invested in valuable buttets, then maybe I'd be more comfortable. And arguably some of the money is (roads, bridges, damns, airports, basic research) but much more is dissipated on projects that have no long term benefit (or shot off at Iraqis that don't understand we are saving them).
Ed
