Again prove me wrong. On Apr 16, 4:40 pm, dick thompson <[email protected]> wrote: > Already told you but you don't understand evidently. Calling something > a surplus does not make it a surplus. I could say that Bush left Obama > a surplus and keep saying it but that does not make it so. The same > with Clinton. > > VT VirtualTruth wrote: > > Opinion, how about? a rebuttal based on fact > > and truth > > > Clinton left Bush a surplus. Bush left Obama > > a record Deficit. > > > On Apr 16, 4:22 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> It was false.Like everything else Clinton. > > >> On Apr 16, 3:12 pm, VT VirtualTruth <[email protected]> > >> wrote:>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 > > ... > > 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
