Yes. So basically $100 billion, to keep the math simple, got borrowed here, and 277 versus 164, again a difference of about $100 billion that was borrowed in 1995. In 1996, $261 was what we borrowed, and 107, a little more than that. We could round it out to be in the neighborhood of $100 billion. Then going back to the number that the gentleman just talked about, which I think is interesting, because this is this $70 billion surplus, and yet we borrow over $100 billion. So the gentleman is exactly right, common sense and regular language and regular accounting back home would say what we are running right now is not exactly what the rest of America would call a surplus.
Marshall Sanford: “Yes. So basically $100 billion, to keep the math simple, got borrowed here, and 277 versus 164, again a difference of…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing federal borrowing and budget surpluses during a floor speech.
Share
More from Marshall Sanford
I, humbly, 100 percent totally disagree with you on that one. I mean, if you look at the baseline over the next ten years, we're talking about $86 trillion of spending, right?
It shows the danger of Donald Trump in my mind, because what it says is somebody as highly elected as Kevin McCarthy will twist himself in knots to stay relevant with the Trump base.
No. One, it's not believable given the degree to which the Trump administration last go round, over which I overlapped a couple of years, incessantly talked about the market and what it was doing next.
We now have a Republican Party that is muted and silent on the issue of a bailout package which is what is being proposed in consequence to the tariffs that the administration itself imposed.





