2006-09-18 11:12:02 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I try to answer questions like this a lot on there because so many ppl come up with the wildest rhetoric concerning this issue.
There is a cut and dry, simple answer = as soon as Clinton came into office, he implemented an economic system called PAY AS YOU GO. This type of system balances, and keeps balanced, the budget.
Republicans would never admit this because they would rather live in denial but Clinton was the most fiscally conservative president we have had since Truman. system that Clinton did.
BTW, Bush immediately stopped using this system as soon as he became president.
2006-09-18 17:49:12 · answer #1 · answered by BeachBum 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Try this. The US Constitution states that laws regarding taxes and spending come from the legislature. Who ran Congress until 1994? That would be the Democrats. Remember the Contract with America? That was the first time since Nixon that the Republicans controlled the House.
The Clinton situation has 2 parts. First, Republicans took the House and forced spending restrictions. Then, we had the tech boom, which busted at the end of Clinton's term.
Then came President Bush and within a year, we had 9-11. The economy was in shambles. It takes years to recover from something like this.
What liberals do not understand is tax reform takes time to come into effect. The problem we have now is Republicans will not get spending under control. Democrats are worse. They have shown over the last 50 years that they believe in spending and more spending.
You need to educate yourself. It is sad that so many Americans do not know history or how their own government works.
2006-09-18 12:08:08 · answer #2 · answered by Chainsaw 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Reagan built up our military so strong so that Russia would work to keep up. We put Russia in the poor house, they still haven't recovered. Clinton didn't do a damn thing in office, except for reduce our Military to dangerously low levels. He knew he couldn't get away with obliterating it all together. He hated our military, but that feel was very mutual. Now due to the terror we are rebuilding to levels where we can protect ourselves, and we are also building security within the nation to protect Americans. We are fighting terror on a world wide basis. We are doing something, and it's not cheap. I guess we could go back to having Americans killed all around the world again and threatening to do something, but not, as was done during the clinton regime.
If you will also recall, we have had a major terror attack, and quite a few major hurricanes and other natural disasters during this administration.
2006-09-18 11:21:34 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because Clinton "streamlined" government. He cut down on government spending. We also have to give credit to Republicans in congress too. Since Clinton was so popular, the Republican Congress had to do something to get some people back on their side, so they passed the budget bill. Now that bush is in office, he is spending BILLIONS on a useless war in Iraq, created more government bureaucracy, and has allowed more big companies to leave this country, go to third world countries to pay workers 20 cents an hour, and bring the merchandise back to this country to sell for more than they are worth. bush is useless.
2006-09-18 11:20:47 · answer #4 · answered by linus_van_pelt68 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Actually, the Clintonian surplus was PROJECTED, just as the federal deficit for the next ten or twelve years is PROJECTED.
Economic booms, based on paper wealth, can easily project a surplus. The boom went poof! just as GWB took office, so there went the Clintonian surplus.
If you really understand government economics, you'll see that the current account deficit hasn't improved, not under Reagon, Bush, Clinton or W. So, please, stick with informed assertions.
2006-09-18 11:17:24 · answer #5 · answered by rohannesian 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Because Clinton had the dotcom boom to bolster taxes even tho in the long run the bust dragged so much down that after 8 years of Bush, it is just finishing a recovery.
2006-09-18 11:17:10 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Nothing to add. Pong Bing said it all. Funny.
Clinton had surplus in his pockets. He cleaned up while president. Made $10,000,000 on a book deal as a do-nothing-president.
2006-09-18 11:18:53 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Maybe, just maybe, supply-side economics is the dumbest most backward idea in the history of fiscal policy.
2006-09-18 11:15:48 · answer #8 · answered by Schmorgen 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Are you serious? You can't be that devoid of an economic education? Wow, thank god the young don't vote, they're all morons.
2006-09-18 11:20:10 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
the deficts started before SonOfBush got into office
2006-09-18 11:14:47 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋