Yes, that is crap, during the Clinton/GOP congress years [congress is, ya know, a little bit involved in making budgets] we ran a 1.9 billion surplus in '99 and 86.4 billion in 2000... we also ran a deficit ever other year, most of those years the deficit exceeded the combined surplus of the last one each... I don't believe 2/8ths is 'almost all'
Ok. Let's see some publications. Quick search in google reveals the following:
1) http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=16683&printerfriendlyvers=1
First, the most important fiscal aspect of the eight years during which Bill Clinton was president will be that it was the time the federal budget went from being perpetually in deficit to constantly in surplus. (For purposes of this series of columns, the Clinton era is defined as fiscal years 1994-2001 and is obviously based on a number of assumptions about the final results for fiscal 2000-2001.) While a surplus has now come to be expected, the fact that it happened not once but for five consecutive years (fiscal years 1998-2002) and is projected to keep on happening after Clinton leaves office makes it exceptionally noteworthy
2) http://articles.cnn.com/2000-09-27/politics/clinton.surplus_1_budget-surplus-national-debt-fiscal-discipline?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS
President Clinton announced Wednesday that the federal budget surplus for fiscal year 2000 amounted to at least $230 billion (Skeeve: not 89 billion as you claim), making it the largest in U.S. history and topping last year's record surplus of $122.7 billion."This represents the largest one-year debt reduction in the history of the United States," Clinton said Wednesday morning. "Like our American athletes in Sydney, we've been breaking records and have come a long way."In June, the administration predicted the surplus would be $211 billion, and would increase by as much as $1 trillion over the next 10 years.Clinton also announced the federal government paid down the national debt by $223 billion this year, and by more than $360 billion since 1998
...
Yes it is <a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/node/68094">from 2007 data</a> but the tax rates are the same, yes? Middle-class households that earned between $34,300 and $141,900 paid 50.5 percent of all federal tax revenues in 2007 (the most recent year analyzed), according to the CBO study released Thursday, and households that earned between $34,300 and $352,900 paid 66.7 percent of all federal taxes.
Why are you arguing about percentage using Bush era numbers and from right wing shills to boot? It's like me arguing about contraceptions using Vatican as a source to back me up.
I would love to see numbers from Clinton era.
This message last edited by Skeeve the Great on 14/04/2011 at 05:44:50 PM
How can anyone seriously support Obama's budget proposals?
14/04/2011 02:49:30 PM
- 1089 Views
I agree with your overall point but I do question one of your facts
14/04/2011 03:25:25 PM
- 577 Views
Using IRS data for 2008: (most recent year for which data is available)
14/04/2011 03:45:20 PM
- 595 Views
You didn't interpret the spreadsheet correctly. I'm positive of that.
14/04/2011 06:08:39 PM
- 460 Views
I'm gonna have to jump on board the wagon with that being a bad figure, got some others
14/04/2011 07:33:14 PM
- 627 Views
Data: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08in31mt.xls *NM*
14/04/2011 08:32:42 PM
- 238 Views
That's a breakdown of who modifies their returns and how it affects revenue.
14/04/2011 09:15:21 PM
- 452 Views
I believe you are questioning one of my definitions, not one of my facts.
14/04/2011 04:36:35 PM
- 510 Views
No matter how you define it I think it would be hard to call the top 5% middle class
14/04/2011 05:03:33 PM
- 522 Views
What a load of crap!
14/04/2011 03:49:29 PM
- 672 Views
Yes, your response is a load of crap.
14/04/2011 04:55:20 PM
- 572 Views
Re: Yes, your response is a load of crap.
14/04/2011 05:13:14 PM
- 654 Views
This is our first war without a tax increase.
14/04/2011 06:05:43 PM
- 574 Views
Er, check facts
14/04/2011 05:04:02 PM
- 701 Views
Yeah, lets fact check
14/04/2011 05:43:34 PM
- 554 Views
You understand you're actually supposed to cite data for a fact check right?
14/04/2011 06:38:22 PM
- 716 Views
I'm not sure thats entirely right
14/04/2011 05:51:18 PM
- 733 Views
What about the farm subsidies and the military?
15/04/2011 04:54:54 PM
- 543 Views
Cutting the military isn't enough
16/04/2011 04:27:11 AM
- 483 Views
Defense is 60% of the discretionary budget as well, so it's more like 26% overall. Just sayin'. *NM*
16/04/2011 04:53:30 AM
- 243 Views