The record of the 105th Congress, Republican controlled in both houses, is an abomination. Spending is up. No major program or agency has been significantly cut, much less eliminated. The tax code is more complex than ever, loaded down with new conservative social engineering initiatives. The balanced-budget agreement is an excuse not to cut taxes and, with the ‘surplus’ an excuse to increase spending. The GOP has seemed intent on federalizing every crime on the books, indifferent to the Constitution’s clear direction that crime is a state and local responsibility….The federal government is a machine designed to increase its control over the lives of average Americans. It is constantly probing here, pushing there, and generally increasing its control. Without a philosophically sound, constitutionally based political party opposing that process, it is going to continue to do so with impunity. The philosophical leadership vacuum at the top of the GOP should be a source of major concern to all freedom-loving Americans. -- Edward H. Crane
At 03:13 PM 4/16/2009, you 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]> 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?