Again, learn the difference between an ACTUAL surplus and a BUDGET surplus.
A BUDGET surplus can either go to pay down the debt OR it can be spent on other things.
Realizing an ACTUAL surplus occurs ONLY if the DEBT GOES DOWN year over year. If the debt goes UP, you obviously do not have an ACTUAL surplus.
Now... How many times does this have to be explained to you before you get it?
I understand your use of 'actual', now that you framed it in this post. I thought you were claiming Clinton didn't have budget surpluses.
If debt is your hot button, then I find it hard to understand why Reagan would be a hero, or any modern Republican...
------------------------------------------------------------------
White House 2002
‘You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.’
VP Dick Cheney to Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill
George W. Bush: ‘Haven't we already given money to rich people? This second tax cut's gonna do it again’
His advisers: ‘Well Mr. President, the upper class, they're the entrepreneurs. That's the standard response.’
George W. Bush: ‘Well, shouldn't we be giving money to the middle, won't people be able to say, ‘You did it once, and then you did it twice, and what was it good for?’
Karl Rove: ‘Stick to principle. Stick to principle.’ He says it over and over again, 'Don’t waver.'
In the end, the president didn't. And nine days after that meeting in which O'Neill made it clear he could not publicly support another tax cut, the vice president called and asked him to resign.
Bush Sought ‘Way’ To Invade Iraq - 60 Minutes - CBS News
------------------------------------------------------------------
When Ronald Reagan took office, the gross national debt sat at 33.4 percent of the annual GDP. The public debt stood at 26.1 percent. That was the total accumulated national debt — the New Deal, World War II, Vietnam, all of it.
During the cheery Decade of the Gipper, gross debt skyrocketed to 55.9 percent and public debt increased to 42 percent.
Enter Bill Clinton. When he left office in 2000, that 55.9 percent had risen only slightly to 58 percent, and, amazingly, the public debt had actually dropped to 35.1 percent. An increase in the gross debt of only 2.1 percent (in eight years!) combined with a public debt decrease of 6.9 percent.
In comes George W. Bush, and whoosh — so much for the trend line. Eight years later, 55.9 percent had risen to a whopping 86.1 percent, the public debt had risen to 54.6 percent … and then came the meltdown of the summer and fall of 2008.
The spin at the Republican National Committee, when you bring all this up, is “OK, we learned our lesson and won’t make the same mistakes again. This time we mean business.”
You conservatives are calling for smaller government and apparently the idea is winning you votes. So, OK, here’s an idea: How about a statute that limits the amount of federal money going to states to the amount of taxes paid out by residents of those same states? That would have the effect not only of saving money, but making government smaller.
Before you answer, consider: America has its “productive states,” and, well, all the rest. States that aren’t so, er … productive. The bad news for you conservatives is that almost every one of the states on the public dole is a red state — your states, the “Real America” states.
As a result, “Real Americans” are relying for their survival on the godless, socialist, perversion-on-every-block blue states, such as — egads! — California (which receives only 78 cents back for every dollar its residents pay in) and New York (only 79 cents back on the every tax dollar sent to Washington). And all the while, these liberal citizens have to put up with nonstop rants directed at them by your cadre of mindless pundits.
As you might imagine, this arrangement isn’t going down well in Blueland.
You see, the 18 bluest-of-the-godless-blue states receive on average only 87 cents in federal tax dollars for every tax dollar paid. On the other hand, the 18 reddest states average a tidy $1.37 for every dollar mailed off to the IRS. Such a deal!
Let’s get specific: California, which we know is broke, subsidizes that sanctimonious buckeroo state, Alaska ($1.84 on the dollar), and doesn’t get so much as a howdy-doo for their trouble.
My guess? Even should you “conservatives” win back temporary control of the Congress and finally face the reality of governing, when push comes to shove you will resist any cuts to most of the so-called social safety net (and related sources of federal largess). You pretty much have to because if you don’t, what’s going to happen back home?
Indeed, if past is prologue, your new red state members of Congress will use those same arcane Senate rules to keep the “good times” coming, while voting against all social and economic policy proposals that smack of “secular humanism” — you know, godless things, like energy legislation, health care reform, Wall Street reform, regulation of Big Oil, Big Tobacco and Big Agriculture, etc.
Subsidizing the red states
