In article >,
"C. E. White" > wrote:
>
>
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> In article >,
>> DTJ > wrote:
>> >On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 19:42:15 -0500, "Vendicar Decarian" >
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>"DTJ" > wrote in message
>> >>> You liberals sure like to throw around make believe terms about
>> >>> government.
>> >>
>> >>By now it's well known how Bush turned the $127 billion surplus he
>> >>inherited in 2001 into a historic $413 billion deficit by 2004. It's
>> >
>> >Hey retard, there was no surplus. Your "lockbox" for SS was a fraud,
>> >and your favorite Ken Lay supporter, slick willy klinton, used all the
>> >SS money to make it appear, to low life incompetent fools like
>> >yourself, that he had a surplus.
>> >
>> >
>> 1. SS has a surplus, a trust fund, that is invested in gov't bonds.
>> 2. For 2 years under Clinton, the gov't had a surplus, not counting SS.
>
>Item 2 is not true.
>They did include the SS revenue when
>declaring a surplus.

The last 2 years under Clinton, there was a surplus even w/o counting the
SS surplus. If you look at the data, you see those 2 years, revenues
exceeded expenditures and the debt held by the public declined.


>As for "1" while technically true, the
>money is spent and the "investment" is little more than a
>bookkeeping fiction.
>

No, the money is no more fiction than when you buy a savings bond.

>
>Ed