Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

The surplus .. if there really was one .. in the 1990's was a result of


b) during the 1990's  a record high level of FICA (social security) tax money was coming into the Federal government's general fund --- this made the federal budget "look" balanced -- when instead they were actually stealing from the future to pay for the present spending.

If they hadn't started raiding SS funds in the 90's we would not have a possible insolvency problem today

The raiding of the Social Security fund started in the 1960's .. to for the Vietnam War and the Great Society.
(btw - I am not making any judgements on either .. just stating a fact).   From the 1930's to the mid 1980's the Social security Fund was separate from the Federal government's general fund .. but starting in the 1960's they started "borrowing" from it (SS) to put into the general fund.

Reagan (GOP) and O'Neil (Dem) made a Social Security deal in the 1980's that pretty much put the Social Security fund directly in the General Fund.

I still believe that Social Security should be taken "off budget" and the funds treated like a trust fund.

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

I still believe that Social Security should be taken "off budget" and the funds treated like a trust fund.

I agree..Especially when we went from retires not collecting in benefits from what they put in, to retirees exceeding the amount they contributed in 5-10 years.

So Bill Clinton owes his success as one of the most successful Presidents ever to Daddy Bush!!!

The total lack of facts that design Conservative argument is an amazing feat of either brainwashing or naivete!

BOX - it is a fact that the "paper surplus" in the 1990's was due to the 2 things that I posted earlier - 1 being the Budget Cap agreement between Pres George HW Bush and the Democratic Congress in either 1990 or 1991  and the other being the huge influx (due to Baby Boomers hitting their peak income years) of FICA Tax $$ (originally called "Social Security Contributions") .

Now -- if Pres George W Bush and the Congresses (both Democratic led and GOP led) of the 2001 to 2009 period had really held the line on spending .. we could have realized a real budget surplus and lower federal debt.

The problem with government in Washington and Albany (or any state capital) is that many  folks (of both parties) run as fiscal conservatives and then govern as if there was no limit to  the money available.  We need them to govern as fiscal conservatives .. not just give lip service to spending less every time they ask for our vote.

Quoted from DemocraticVoiceOfReason

Now -- if Pres George W Bush and the Congresses (both Democratic led and GOP led) of the 2001 to 2009 period had really held the line on spending .. we could have realized a real budget surplus and lower federal debt.

.

George W Bush issued his Tax Cut for the Rich in 2001 with a republican congress.  How could they 'hold the line on spending' when they were already borrowing the money for the Tax Cut?

IF Bush... IF???  
Clinton balanced the budget for 6 of his 8 years as president, over the objections of the Republican congress.

Talk about all the IF'S  with Bush... Clinton DID!

Clinton balanced the budget for 2 or 3 years .. not 6.   AND the budget was only balanced on paper because of the huge increase in Social Security/FICA tax taken in ....   and it was Clinton who fought to break the spending caps  and the GOP Congress (starting in January 1995 ) that fought to keep Clinton's spending within the previoulsy agreed to spending caps.

DVOR, I wouldn't hold your breath waiting while Box digest those facts.  Right now he's checking the archives on the Huffington Post to rebut your statement.  He wil have some clever twisting of facts to turn Clinton into a king or god.  

In Box's world, Republicans must get blame for everything and credit for nothing.

Remember, Democrats controlled congress since 2007 and the White House since 2009.  Yet Box is still blaming Republicans for ALL the failed policies passed by Democrats.  

I think Bush was responsible for the Great Depression too.

There is a REASON the 2007 Congress was controlled by the Democrats... the USA voted AGAINST Bush's economic disaster, and FOR a CHANGE... In 2007 as the new congress was taking their seats, the housing fiasco was already in progress.

Thank God for Barack Obama... can you imagine another year and a half of Bush & the Republicans???

And as far as Bush being responsible for the Great Depression???

For this generation, and the next two generations, George Worst Bush IS responsible for the Great Depression of their time.

Box you have a real short memory remember it was Bush and the Reps that wanted to put some controls on Freddie Mac and Freddie Mae in 2003 but Barney Frank and his cronies killed the bill.      Barney Frank 2003: "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not facing any kind of financial crisis"
Excerpted from NYT article ^ | September 11, 2003
Posted on Sat Sep 20 2008 21:55:06 GMT-0400 (Eastern Daylight Time) by Jim Robinson

September 11, 2003

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae

By STEPHEN LABATON
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

~~ snip ~~

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.                        

Sept11, 2003 the Republicans held the White House, the Senate and the Congress...
They could have passed any kind of legislation they wanted to...
there is no way the Democrats could have stopped their majority.
They held the majority until 2007...

It's Bush's (& The GOP's) fault

Quoted from Box A Rox

Sept11, 2003 the Republicans held the White House, the Senate and the Congress...
They could have passed any kind of legislation they wanted to...

Much like Obama and the Democrats could now - but aren't?

The Wall Street & Finance Reform bill has been passed... by Obama, not Bush.

Like most bills passed in the last 20 months nobody knows what's in them because the Dems won't or can't read them.