Remember the surplus Clinton left us?

[Cleita]

You know the one Bush pissed away by giving multi-millionaires and billionaires tax cuts that they still enjoy today? Imagine if that surplus had been divided up into savings accounts for everyone who didn't have an estate to begin with but basically is surviving from pay day to pay day. It could have been a nest egg and security safety net for everyone. It would have helped people over rough spots from natural disasters, unemployment and any number of ills we are suffering from today. It could have helped solve the problem of homelessness.

Or, we could have used it to invest in renewable energy for everyone by subsidizing roof top solar panels on everyone's house and helping people to buy electric cars. Or we could have used it to repair our crumbling infrastructure and the jobs it would create. There is so much that could have been done and I hate Bush and his minions for this almost as much as I hate them for the unnecessary wars and global warming that is occurring because of their short sighted policies pampering the oil industry.

[Fumesucker]

1. Hell, I'm so old I remember the Peace Dividend

By that time I think I was starting to wise up and took it all with a truckload or two of salt.

[KansDem]

2. I remember the "Peace Dividend!"

It came about after the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, didn't it? I remember the US wouldn't have to keep a squadron of B-52s, loaded with nuclear weapons, in the air 24-hours-a-day, 365 days-a-year. That and the end of the Cold War meant a "Peace Dividend!"

Then, some "politicians" began shouting "No!...No!...No "Peace Dividend!!!" I don't know why, but that's what happened...

[warrprayer]

3. ah yes, pre 911 America

it seems so far away....

[Wilms]

4. Clinton didn't leave us a surplus.

No siree. It was a down payment for the wars. Maintaining the no-fly zone in Iraq was just for softening the target. They're all in this. And we ain't.

[Safetykitten]

5. He left an open door to the republicans because he sucked.

[Cleita]

6. I do kind of blame him for Bush's selection.

He never backed Al Gore in his campaign and I believe he could have done something about the Supreme Court decision to hand the Presidency to Bush. This was a really unConstitutional maneuver and I do believe the POTUS could have intervened and reminded the SCOTUS that they had no jurisdiction in this matter. He did none of that.

[Jim Lane]

13. I'm no big Clinton fan but I disagree with you here.

My understanding of the 2000 campaign is that Gore made the tactical decision to minimize Clinton's role, because he wanted to distance himself from the Lewinsky stuff. In fact, I thought I read that, after the election, there was a somewhat angry conversation between the two -- Clinton told Gore that Gore had made a mistake and that, if he'd had Clinton out there campaigning for him, he would've won.

As for the litigation, the Supreme Court did have jurisdiction. There was a federal constitutional claim raised as a challenge to the decision of the Florida Supreme Court. There was no further appeal possible within the state court system, but state courts are not given ultimate authority over federal constitutional questions, so it went to SCOTUS.

I don't see what Clinton could have done. Under the Constitution, the counting of the electoral votes is committed to Congress. Congress could have chosen not to count the votes of the Florida electors, but the President has no role in the process.

[HiPointDem]

7. there never was any such surplus. it was a fiction justified by counting social security

income as part of general government revenues.

[Cleita]

8. It was a projection of future revenues. It never existed like in cash in the bank,

but I believe it was real enough.

[HiPointDem]

9. no, for two reasons.

1. predicated on the IT/stock boom, which was a bubble.

2. 'balancing' the budget = starting the crash (pulling money out of the economy)

plus all the neoliberalizations that clinton performed during his admin, his 'projections' were nothing more than manufactured PR -- which he got away with so long as the bubble lasted, and *because* of the bubble.

[Recursion]

11. It included FICA revenues but not future SS outlays

Basically, if we are going to say that was a real "surplus", then we have to say that going forward Social Security spending creates a real "deficit".

[NoGOPZone]

12. There was a surplus for two years even if FICA revenues are not included

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

[Recursion]

10. If we call that a "surplus" then we have to stop saying Social Security doesn't affect the deficit

Either that money is separately accounted or it isn't.