What point does this make? That Clinton was a Tax & Spend Democrat, wherein a Republican Congress and their "Contract With America" held his feet to the fire?
Nothing in this audio report disputes the facts that I submitted earlier. You have Newt Gingrich, and a Republican controlled Congress that was responsible for a budgetary surplus, period. Clinton had literally nothing to do with the surplus, and if it were not for a Republican controlled fiscally conservative Congress, who Clinton successfully fought over and vetoed their balanced budget Amendments, we would have had deficit spending!! On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 3:08 PM, VT VirtualTruth <[email protected]>wrote: > > I will let the actual news reports of November 11, 1995 > make my point. > > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6KRnWkh45U&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fcrooksandliars.com%2Ftags%2F1995-government-shutdown&feature=player_embedded > > Clinton invested in the future US economy and the result was > robust GDP growth that grew the economy out of deficits. > Republicans consider this incorrectly as wasted money. > > Bush decided to give the surplus away as tax cuts to > the rich with the ridiculous idea that the money would > bleed down to others. The result was Bush starved the > country of much needed future investments. > > Obama now must maintain the normal amout of forward > investment in the country's future AND make up for the > 8 years Bush starved the economy of stimulus investment > capital. > > > On Apr 16, 2:01 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello Sean!! > > > > Good to see ya!! > > > > Thank you for sharing your homoerotic far left extremist talking points > with > > the group! I know that members such as Fritzie, Biffie, Cosmo-ie and > other > > far left extremists are proud of you for picking up on and mimicking the > > likes of that gal who is the husband and splashes diesel behind her ears > for > > perfume....Whuz-Her-Name....Rachael Maddow, and the other crazed, > demented > > Moonbat, Keithie Olberman, but I digress. > > > > Let's review your premise, and I quote: > > > > "That the Republican Congress was NOT the reason for this balanced > > budget (during > > the Clinton Administration). That Clinton stood up to the Rhino's (Rhino > > being a derogatory term for Republican)" > > > > ===== > > > > Sean, let us actually review the facts, and not revisionist history. Of > > course, all of the data I have attached here can be documented. Please > feel > > free to ask questions if there is anything that you get confused on or > are > > frustrated over not comprehending: > > > > It is true, that the federal budget deficit tumbled from $255 billion in > > 1993 to approximately $117 billion in 1996, and that by 1999, there was > an > > actual surplus versus a deficit in our national budget. > > > > In February 1993 President Clinton announced his new Administration's > first > > economic program: a $16-billion "fiscal stimulus." The spending package > is > > later abandoned by the Democratic Congress as too fiscally irresponsible. > > > > In February 1993 President Clinton wins passage of his $250-billion tax > > hike; which New York Senator Pat Moynihan accurately describes as "the > > largest tax increase in world history." > > > > http://www.archive.org/stream/proposedconstitu00unit/proposedconstitu... > > > > Nevertheless, President Clinton's "Tax and Spend" policy passes the > Democrat > > Controlled Congress, without a single Republican vote. The package > contains > > approximately $2 of new spending for every $1 of new taxes. > > > > In September 1993 the Clinton White House lobbies to defeat the > bi-partisan > > Penny - Kasich deficit-reduction bill, which would have cut federal > spending > > and the deficit by $90 billion over five years. The Clinton White House > and > > the Democrat controlled Congress prevailed, and the Penny-Kasich Deficit > > Reduction Bill was defeated. > > > > http://www.archive.org/details/pennykasichamend00unit > > > > In January 1994 Bill and Hillary Clinton unveil "ClintonCare." The > proposed > > hostile federal takeover of one-seventh of the U.S. economy would add at > > least $700 billion to the deficit over the next six years, according to > the > > Congressional Budget Office (CBO). > > > > http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/bg1276.cfm > > > > In September 1994 the President furiously lobbies liberal Democrats in > > Congress to oppose a Balanced Budget Amendment -- a measure supported by > 75 > > per cent of the American public. Labor Secretary Robert Reich is a little > > too honest when he confirms most Americans' suspicions about this > > Administration: "The President is against simply balancing the budget." > > > > http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+red-ink+blues.(budget)-a017863046 > > > > http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/7416/tales.html > > > > In October 1994 President Clinton signs into law his $30-billion "crime > > bill." The Los Angeles Times describes the legislation as a > > "once-in-a-lifetime federal spending bonanza" containing "a vast array of > > new social programs" including federally funded exotic-dance classes, > > sensitivity-training courses, and midnight-basketball leagues. The cost > of > > the Clinton bill has to be shaved after the Democratic House of > > Representatives rejects the original version as too expensive. > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/1994/10/18/us/the-1994-campaign-the-president-... > > > > In January 1995 Bill Clinton submits a 1996 budget plan that calls for > $12 > > trillion of spending over the next seven years and $200-billion deficits > for > > as far as the eye can see. Even Washington Post reporter David Broder > blasts > > the document as a "symbol of Clinton's failed leadership." Because of the > > debt Clinton is adding, writes Broder, "the annual net interest is > projected > > to climb from $198 billion in 1993 to $270 billion in 1997 -- when it > will, > > for the first time, be larger than the projected defense budget." > > > > http://www.reason.com/news/show/30153.html > > > > -- In March 1995 Clinton again helps torpedo the Balanced Budget > Amendment > > -- this time by strong-arming five Democratic senators, who had > campaigned > > as champions of the amendment -- to flip-flop and vote no. > > > > -- In June 1995, under pressure from the newly elected GOP Congress, > Bill > > Clinton submits a new, revised budget proposal. It still doesn't balance > the > > budget by 2002. > > -- In July 1995 the Clinton White House begins its successful > "Medi-scare" > > strategy to undermine public support for a GOP plan to rein in stampeding > > Medicare costs. Even the Washington Post editorializes that the Clinton > > Administration has become a gang of "medagogues." On Medicare and > Medicaid, > > the White House is "engaged in an irresponsible campaign based on > distortion > > and fear." > > > > http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-850297.html > > > > http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/bg1442.cfm > > > > In October 1995 Bill Clinton confirms what most of the public is already > > painfully aware of: "I raised your taxes too much." > > > > http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/clinton.php > > > > http://www.urbin.net/EWW/sigs/clintonsigs.html > > > > In December 1995 Bill Clinton vetoes the historic balanced-budget > > legislation enacted by the Republican Congress --listing 82 reasons why > it > > cuts too much spending. He complains of cuts in everything from foreign > aid > > to corporate welfare. > > > > http://web.clas.ufl.edu/users/rconley/Clintonvetoespaper.pdf > > > > Later that month, (December, 2005) President Clinton releases his > > unprecedented third and then fourth budget proposals of the year. But > they > > still don't balance the budget. > > > > http://www.cnn.com/US/9512/budget/budget_battle/index.html > > > > In February 1996 Bill Clinton releases a $1.65-trillion 1997 budget that > > calls for $360 billion in added spending, or $3,100 per American > household, > > over the next seven years. Then with a straight face he tells the nation > > that "the era of big government is over." Oh, and the proposal still > doesn't > > balance the budget by 2002. > > > > http://www.cnn.com/US/9512/budget/budget_battle/index.html > > > > In April 1996 Clinton signs the GOP budget after the Republicans > capitulate > > to his demands and add back some $10 billion of deficit spending. > > > > http://www.cnn.com/US/9512/budget/budget_battle/index.html > > > > WHEW! This really is a pillar of fiscal integrity we have in the White > > House. The point of this demoralizing three-and-a-half-year budget > odyssey > > is this: The Clinton Administration cannot credibly claim credit for the > > reduction in the deficit unless the nation is suffering from a severe > case > > of fiscal amnesia. > > On at least three separate occasions in 1993 and 1994 -- the > fiscal-stimulus > > package, ClintonCare, and the crime bill -- the Administration attempted > to > > make the deficit situation worse, but amazingly was constrained by a > > Democratic Congress. On four other instances, bipartisan > deficit-reduction > > initiatives were rebuked by Clinton. > > > > ================== > > > > *Deficit delusions - Pres Clinton's economic performance* > > ** > > National Review , Sept 2, 1996 by Stephen Moore > > > > http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n16_v48/ai_18614099/pg... > > > > Since the Republicans took control of Congress in November of 1994, > > Clinton's fiscal obstructionism and demagoguery has been elevated to > Olympic > > levels. The Republicans' budget-balancing plan was thrashed almost daily > by > > the White House as "mean-spirited," "radical," "harmful to children, the > > poor, and the environment," and "just plain wrong for America." Yet in > > typical Clinton fashion, one day the budget is denounced as "wrong for > > America," the next day the White House is staging a Rose Garden press > > conference claiming credit for the impressive first-year deficit > reduction > > that the "mean-spirited" Republican budget produced. > > > > So how much of the credit for the impressive drop in the deficit this > year > > does the Administration deserve? The standard spin from the White House > > these days is that the "enormous progress" on the deficit vindicates the > > Clinton "$500-billion deficit-reduction" package of 1993. It turns out we > > can roughly calculate how much of the deficit decline is attributable to > > Clinton, and how much to Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress. Back > in > > April 1995, just before the Republicans released their seven-year > > balanced-budget plan, the CBO announced that Clinton's deficit-reduction > > plan would produce $211 billion of red ink in 1996. > > > > Instead, the deficit will fall to $117 billion. That's a $94-billion > > improvement -- almost entirely attributable to the GOP budget. Over the > > entire seven-year budget window, the Gingrich plan chops a shade over $1 > > trillion ($1,000,000,000,000) of deficit spending from the Clintonomics > > baseline. > > > > The budget deficit would be lower still had it not been for Bill > Clinton's > > vetoes of Republican Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, and appropriations > bills. > > Those vetoes canceled an estimated $10 to $15 billion in budget cuts for > > 1996 -- savings that would have been magnified in future years. > > > > GOP partisans can hardly exult in the deficit story of the past five > years, > > however. Despite this Administration's sorry record of fiscal > > obstructionism, there is still the unarguable underlying fact that Bill > > Clinton's overall fiscal performance has been far superior to that of his > > predecessor, George Bush. > > > > All the deficit reduction of the last three years is simply recovering > the > > lost ground of the early 1990s -- Richard Darman's reign of fiscal > terror. > > It is a popular myth that George Bush inherited a budget crisis "baked in > > the cake" from Ronald Reagan. When Reagan left the White House in January > > 1989, the deficit was $150 billion and forecast to decline gradually till > it > > reached $110 billion in 1995. The CBO concluded that continued deficit > > reduction would occur if Bush (and Darman) simply left fiscal policy on > > automatic pilot. > > > > Instead, we got Bush's infamous reversal on "no new taxes" and a 1990 > budget > > package that dealt a body blow to an already ailing economy and sent the > > deficit into the stratosphere. From 1990 to 1995 the national debt soared > > $622 billion above the levels anticipated in 1989. Richard Darman's > enduring > > legacy to the nation is this: 1990 - 94 was the worst five-year deficit > > performance since World War II. Now really, how hard has it been for > Clinton > > to improve on that rotten fiscal record? > > > > The Left is now again busy trying to rewrite history to suggest that the > > Bush 1990 and the Clinton 1993 tax hikes contributed mightily to the > decline > > in the deficit. The top marginal income-tax rate has risen by 50 per cent > -- > > from 28 per cent in 1989 to 42 per cent this year. Yet federal revenues > grew > > faster in the 1980s with Reagan's substantial across-the-board tax cut > than > > during the 1990s with these two giant tax hikes. > > > > Overall real federal revenues (1982 to 1989) grew by 24 per cent during > the > > seven-year period after the Reagan tax cuts took full effect. But (as > > currently forecast by the Congressional Budget Office) overall federal > > revenue growth from 1990 through 1997 will be only 18.5 per cent. If > federal > > revenues had grown in the 1990s at only the pace they did after the > Reagan > > tax cuts, federal receipts in 1996 would be almost $50 billion greater > and > > the deficit would be one-third smaller. > > > > Income-tax receipts after adjusting for inflation rose by 16.3 per cent > in > > the seven years after the full Reagan tax cut. Income-tax receipts will > have > > climbed by 16.1 per cent in real terms in the seven years since 1990. > > > > So where is the evidence that these tax increases actually raised > revenues? > > > > If tax hikes don't account for the lowering of the deficit, what does? > > America's victory in the Cold War. (The extent of Bill Clinton's > > contribution to that effort was in obtaining draft deferments.) In the > 1980s > > the nation invested $2 trillion on the Reagan military build-up to > vanquish > > the Evil Empire -- perhaps the only truly successful government program > of > > the last half-century. Now we are rapidly demilitarizing, creating a vast > > budget windfall. Over the past eight years the Pentagon's budget has > fallen > > by almost $110 billion in real terms. How's this for a coincidence: > that's > > almost precisely how much the real budget deficit has fallen over that > > period. > > > > Normally in post-war years the United States Government not only moves > > immediately back to a balanced-budget regime, but cuts taxes and then > runs > > budget surpluses to begin paying off the wartime debt. In the post - Cold > > War 1990s none of those things have happened. No tax cut. No balanced > > budget. No liquidation of the debt. Instead defense cutbacks have helped > > camouflage a sustained non-defense spending build-up. Between 1989 and > 1995, > > real defense outlays have fallen by one-third, while everything else we > > spend money on -- from peanut subsidies to the Mark Hatfield Memorial > > Courthouse in Portland -- has climbed by $300 billion, or 30 per cent. > Last > > year federal spending on non-defense programs consumed 18 per cent of > > national output, a larger share than at any previous time in American > > history. The nanny state is alive and well in America. > > > > So much so that we can now add the most recent and depressing entry to > the > > Clinton fiscal chronology: > > > > -- In July 1996 the CBO announces that the Clinton deficit-reduction > > honeymoon is over. After 1997, the Clinton baseline outlook steadily > > deteriorates in every year for the next decade. Then the government's > > finances implode. Runaway entitlement expenditures -- particularly for > > Medicare and Medicaid -- ravage the budget. The CBO predicts that unless > > transfer payments are curtailed the nation faces a future of > "unsustainably > > high levels of federal borrowing," with the national debt ascending > > relentlessly from 60 per cent of national output today, to 150 per cent > by > > 2025. > > > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 12:54 PM, VT Sean Lewis > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > I actually heard members praising Clinton because under > > > Clinton's leadership the Budget WAS balanced! > > > > > They also pointed out that the Republican Congress was NOT > > > the reason for this balanced budget. That Clinton stood up to the > > > Rhino's > > > and shut down the Government because the Rhino Congress wanted > > > to increase spending and Clinton would not! > > > > > I think we are seeing the death knell of the Bush Republicans > > > (Rhino's) > > > and seeing the rise of another political party that is centered on > > > a different view about conservatism lead by the Ron Paul Devotees! > > > > > FYI!!!! > > > > > TeaBagger the definition > > > > > a man that squats on top of a womens face and lowers his genitals into > > > her mouth during sex, known as "teabagging" > > > > > one who has a job or talent that is low in social status > > > > > a person who is unaware that they have said or done something foolish, > > > childlike, noobish, lame, or inconvenient. > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
