Dick for the record explain how Bush did not inherit a surplus? Also dick could you explain the three other recessions of the Bush Administration? Each worst than the one before it as reflected by ever lower DJIA lows hit by each recession.
Also Dick The minor Recession Bush inherited was limited to the NASDAQ economy and NOT the DJIA economy as noted by the fact the DJIA barely fell. The announcement from the National Bureau of Economic Research's Business Cycle Dating Committee confirmed what many economists have believed: that the economy has resumed growing, albeit slowly. "At its meeting, the committee determined that a trough in business activity occurred in the U.S. economy in November 2001," the committee said in a statement Thursday. The committee, which consists of top academic economists, met in Cambridge, Mass., to discuss the issue. The 2001 recession began in March that year, so today's announcement makes it an eight-month downturn. The committee said the length of the downturn was "slightly less than average for recessions" in the post World War II period. On Apr 16, 3:42 pm, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > Gotta love the leftist clowns. They keep talking about the Clinton > surplus but they blamed Bush for the recession in 2 months when he had > not changed any Clinton budgetary spending at all. The fact is that the > surplus never existed except in the minds of the Enron-like accountants > who worked for Clinton. Bush was given a deficit and a recession to > start with and the recession had been going on for 3 quarters. > > Keith In Tampa wrote: > > Except for the current Administration who within less than 90 days, > > has expanded the federal bureauacracy ten fold, and increased the size > > of the budget larger than all budgets combined in our entire 230 year > > history. President Obama makes George Bush look like a fiscal > > conservative, and we all know that he wasn't. The point being, is > > that your comparison is moot. America made a mistake, and it is time > > to limit the damage now Sean!!! > > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 3:26 PM, VT VirtualTruth > > <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > Sounds great but we all have seen what REALLY happens when Republicans > > have no one to challenge their fiscal actions or policies. They > > doubled the Debt > > took a budget surplus and turned it into a record deficit and grew > > government > > faster than any other Administration in history. > > > On Apr 16, 3:13 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > 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] <mailto:[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%2Fcrooksan. > > > > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6KRnWkh45U&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fcrooksan.>.. > > > > > 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] > > <mailto:[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.thefreelibrary.com/The+red-ink+blues.%28budget%29-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" > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
