From the response below comment on the conclusion pertaining to the multiplier effect? Why do you disagree and provide constructive critique, supporting your opinion by researching a source to back it up.

I chose the 10-year span of 1990-2000. A government policy that was implemented in that decade, was the Budget Deficit. President Clinton managed to creates a surplus, by taxing the upper-income taxpayers more. As they had the most income, so it was more accurate to tax them, as they would be able to help pay off the deficit. As it kind of makes sense, lower income is taxed based on income, so all individuals should be based on income. According to factheck.org, "...there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000." Another thing to mention, as a surplus, while a country is in debt is rather confusing. The debt that the government owes can go up, by however much the deficit is, but it can also go down, by the amount of the surplus. President Clinton did not get rid of all of the debt, but the amount of money that was owed to the public, had gone down.