> If you look at the numbers, the Clinton "surplus" was merely some fancy accounting achieved by borrowing money from government trust funds, like social securi

> If you look at the numbers, the Clinton "surplus" was merely some fancy accounting achieved by borrowing money from government trust funds, like social security. What numbers? Care to cite them? Social Security has always held its surplus in t-bonds. Ergo, the government has always "borrowed" from SS. So I'm having trouble seeing how it was magically different under Clinton. And also why republican presidents don't use the same "fancy accounting" to make their deficits look lower.