Bush certainly has not helped future generations at all with deficit spending, although I will admit that government spending does tend to bring greater financial prosperity. I think that's what we're seeing now - the effect of government spending has a positive effect on the nation's economy. The difference between Clinton spending and Bush spending is that Clinton spent from money that we had from taxes, while Bush reduces taxes and spends even more than we have. There's a strong short term effect but in the long run we're going to be paying for it in our old age and our children's old age.
I will also say that I think that NAFTA (A Clinton and Republican joint effort) is a miserable failure for those people on the low end of the financial spectrum. Ross Perot got it right when he said: "That loud whooshing noise is coming from Mexico sucking up all of our manufacturing jobs."
- Matt Small
----- Original Message -----
From: Angel Stewart
To: CF-Community
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 11:09 AM
Subject: RE: US Deficit a threat to the world economy IMF
Huh? What Clinton Recession?
"George W. Bush inherited a $127 billion fiscal surplus but ran through
all of that and more in his first year. He has turned a $5.6 trillion 10
year forecast surplus into a $3+ trillion forecast loss-an almost
unimaginable reversal of $9 trillion in only three years. And this, in
an economy that has grown for ten of the last twelve quarters."
-Gel
-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Ousterhout [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Evil, Evil, Evil. Why we in the US would congratulate him, vote him
back into
office if he hadn't been so thoughtless to help get us out of Clinton's
recession.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.544 / Virus Database: 338 - Release Date: 11/25/2003
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
