http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
So tell me again how Clinton did not leave Bush a Surplus. On Apr 16, 4:04 pm, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > Jan 20 - Bush inaugurated. By March 20 the Democrats were calling the > Bush deficit. Between Jan 20 and March 20 Bush did not change any > spending at all from the Clinton budget nor did he even have his cabinet > in place. The Democrats in the Senate (remember they controlled the > Senate because of Sen Jefford of Vermont) were dragging their heels in > approving the cabinet. How can you go from a surplus to a deficit > without changing the spending defined by the budget unless you really > had a deficit to begin with. Later we found that the recession had > started with the bursting of the IT bubble but the Clinton accountants > had not taken that into account when they did the math. Ergo there was > no surplus to begin with. > > VT VirtualTruth wrote: > > 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." > > ... > > 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
