2007-05-24 06:54:58 · 22 answers · asked by david c 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Because the surplus goes into the republicans pocket!!!!
2007-05-24 06:56:50 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 5⤋
Wow Amazing how many people are giving Credit to Regan and how Clinton inherited the great Economy from Regan. Wake up!!! Bush daddy was after Regan and he lost the election because of the poor economic state. Something that spiral from the Regan Administration!! Something that might have been much worse if Regan hadn't done some cut back. Let's see where were those cut backs giving one right off the top of my head is Military. Yes a Republican President was also responsible military cut backs.
AS for surplus Bush did something much like Clinton just in a different way. Clinton took money for Social security to make it look like we had a huge surplus. He did this legally.
Just as President Bush changed the job title of anyone working in the service industry legally to manufacturing. To make it look like there were huge jobs created in the manufacturing.
If there are jobs created then the economy looks good. If the money is there even if it's from a different place then the economy looks good.
2007-05-24 07:13:24 · answer #2 · answered by wondermom 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because presidents' hands are tied by whether CONGRESS signs bills into law....
Democrat President + Republican Congress = Surplus
Republican President + Democrat Congress = no Surplus
2007-05-24 06:57:49 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
It replaced into somewhat extra the rigidity between the two. Clinton wanted to shrink militia spending and placed all that 'peace dividend' and extra into social classes. Congress could no longer shelter the militia in the wake of the top of the chilly conflict, so as that they settled for obstructing the spending. This replaced into blended with a runnaway bubble financial equipment. the end result replaced right into a surplus for some years. It replaced into in uncomplicated terms a freak twist of fate, somewhat. no you may get credit for it.
2016-11-26 23:30:44 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Surplus of what? Money? We didn't have a war going on during Clinton's time as President is one thing. War is expensive.
2007-05-24 06:58:28 · answer #5 · answered by Dog Lover 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Surplus? The only surplus I saw was the amount of Flames that Janet Reno used to kill all the people in Wako.
2007-05-24 06:57:06 · answer #6 · answered by Relax Guy 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Why can't most Democrats be against a horrible crime such as Abortion?? It is murder anyway you look at it! Why can't they be for putting prayer back into schools?? Why can't they be for protecting "In God We Trust" or the "One Nation Under God"?? I will tell you why, because they are TOO Liberal and all they seem to care about is $$$$$$$...Wake up America, God created this world and He can take it out!
2007-05-24 07:01:17 · answer #7 · answered by heavenboundiwillbe 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush didn't have the benefit of an eight-year Reagon administration prior to his own.
I'm wondering why our republican president doesn't look at democrats who have tried to destroy him and try to do the opposite.
2007-05-24 07:00:01 · answer #8 · answered by Curt 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That's as simplistic an argument I've ever seen. As if surpluses or deficits exist in a vaccuum. Sad, really, that so many people use talking points they haven't the least understanding of.
2007-05-24 07:07:20 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
So, which president has Constitutional responsibility for the establishment of governement spending?
2007-05-24 07:00:18 · answer #10 · answered by ML 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Somehow the surplus was related to Reagan and this economy is really Clinton's. At least according to Republican logic.
2007-05-24 06:57:18 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋