Clinton Surpluses

Real Ways To Reclaim Freedom For America

One of the most effective tactics that creeple use for manipulating sheeple is the use of mass propaganda. Creeple flood the zone with lies to either promote themselves and their positions, or as demagoguery against freepleism. Here is a classic example that even has many freeple resigned to believing it.

Premise: Let’s define a budget deficit, a budget surplus, and government debt.

• ~A deficit refers to the difference between what the government spends each year and government revenues. If annual spending exceeds revenues then a deficit is present. The national debt refers to the accumulation of deficits over time. If there is a deficit, the debt will increase, while a surplus will reduce the debt.~ – University of Colorado at Boulder under Principles of Macroeconomics

• ~The debt is the total amount the government owes at any given time. So the debt goes up in any given year by the amount of the deficit, or it decreases by the amount of any surplus.~ – FactCheck

Question: Can you see any actual surpluses that match the above definitions in the following graph of U.S. national debt?

Clinton Debt

Click to enlarge the following three images. They are screenshots of the official federal government website dealing with the national debt. It is their job to borrow money, manage the federal government’s debt, and tabulate it’s amount. The yellow highlighted text in the second image acknowledges this.

TreasuryDirect 1

TreasuryDirect 3

TreasuryDirect 2

Cinton Surpluses Definitions

Conundrum: You will be told by creeple that other smaller debt numbers show surpluses – ignore them. It is like saying that you can tabulate your own personal debt by adding up your personal loan, your car loan, your student loan and your mortgage, but you don’t have to include your credit card debts. Try that with your bank and you’ll be charged with fraud. These are the only official U.S. national debt numbers for the years 1993 to 2001 that take into account all debt owed by the federal government – don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

According to the definition of a surplus, which, by the way, applies to the budgets of all countries, this condition only exists when total national debt declines. Conversely, an increase of total national debt indicates a deficit. Obviously, by examining the above graph it is readily apparent that NO surpluses occurred during the Clinton presidency of the 1990s, even though creeple have claimed (lied, by not including all of the credit cards) for years that President Clinton produced budget surpluses in the years 1998, 1999 and 2000. However, not once in those years did the total national debt decline. Every year the total national debt increased. Every single year there was a deficit.

[Because you have heard this claim of Clinton surpluses for years, over and over and over again, you are probably having a difficult time not scoffing this off. Don’t do it! The definitions are real and the numbers don’t lie. Creeple lie – over and over and over again.]

Explanation: Creeple want you to believe that even when the total national debt goes up (a deficit), it may also be going down (a surplus). This is nonsense. You can’t have a surplus if you are still going deeper into overall debt – an increasing debt is the very definition of a deficit. I did not find one definition of a surplus that included going deeper into debt.

You don’t need to be an economist to read the definitions and apply them to a simple graph of numbers. There were NO “Clinton surpluses”. Any creeple economist who insists that there were surpluses is misrepresenting the definitions and the total national debt numbers to present them as propaganda. Creeple want you to believe that even though America was still going deeper into debt, that it wasn’t. They lied. What else is new? That’s what creeple do to fool sheeple and attack freeple.

[Important: Creeple manipulate sheeple.]

Conclusion: Want more evidence that the supposed Clinton surpluses were nothing more than propaganda? During the Bush presidency deficits were considered bad – very bad. Creeple proclaimed that the whole national debt should be paid off and Bush was a failure for not doing so.

In 2006 then Senator Barack Obama said of raising the debt ceiling when Bush was President:

~ “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our government’s reckless fiscal policies. […] Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”~

But when Obama became president, all of a sudden deficits were considered good – very good. Debt became irrelevant. The “burden” shifted “onto the backs of our children and grandchildren” also became irrelevant. Deficits are now known as “stimulus” (I’ll deal with this “stimulus” propaganda later). So why weren’t Bush’s deficits considered “stimulus”? Because it is all creeple propaganda molded to fit whatever the current agenda is.

Creeple collaborators are feeding you manure. Will you continue to capitulate to their propaganda pressure?

[This page is from The Paranoid Quiz website. To understand the context take the quiz.]