facts are facts -
will George be able to do that?
2007-06-09 12:10:13 · 18 answers · asked by omnimog 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
it seems some of you can't read the second part of the question-- hello?
' doh! you don't get the "twist" ... do ya ....?
2007-06-12 04:21:35 · update #1
I'm with you all the way on the cold hard fact. I'd just like to know what our current white-collar/war criminal president did with that $2 Trillion Surplus.
2007-06-09 12:43:00 · answer #1 · answered by super682003 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Upforit has it right. The economy was already beginning to slide when the current Bush took office. The fact that the economy is doing well now is a testament to Bush. It is amazing we haven't gone into full blown recession.
2007-06-09 14:13:50 · answer #2 · answered by Cinner 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The reason there was a surplus was because of hate. The Republicans controlled Congress. Clinton the Democrat was President. Give Clinton social Spending he wins, give Republicans defense spending they win. Give nothing they lose which was good enough for each side. The mutual hatred each side had for the other meant neither got what they wanted and therefore the budget was balance and even had a surplus. And people say nothing good came from hate....
2007-06-09 12:17:04 · answer #3 · answered by Tom Sh*t 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋
upforit- I remember correctly. Too bad you don't. Clinton inherited the George H.W. Bush recession. During Clinton's term the economy was at it's best in decades. For the first time since the 1960s we had a surplus. Bush II has had 6+ years - no surplus in sight.
2007-06-09 12:20:02 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
The rich paying all those capital gains taxes gave this country its surplus on a silver platter (you remember that one, right?). Their was no fiscal discipline by Congress or the President, whatsoever. Check the numbers fool.
Billy caught the perfect wave presented to him and all of government by the rich and their huge stream of tax revenues , plus that of the high-tech/Internet industry boom.
You don't know very much, do you?
2007-06-09 12:53:38 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
You say "facts are facts." The 'fact" is, Clinton, like Bush, ran the government. Neither ran the economy! The "fact" that the government had a huge surplus has nothing to do with the economy. Proof? The economy today is as robust as it was when Clinton was president, yet we have a huge deficit. Those are the "facts." Why is this so hard to understand?
2007-06-09 12:24:51 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋
Certainly not! In fact, I think it should be every President's sworn obligation to leave office with a huge surplus. In fact, I think it should be a federal law that there is always a budget surplus, and that our government never goes into debt. -RKO- 06/09/07
2007-06-09 12:16:49 · answer #7 · answered by -RKO- 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
The economy had more to do with Bill Gates than Bill Clinton.
2007-06-09 13:08:30 · answer #8 · answered by BOYS IN THE HOOD 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Please. Take Clinton's last Budget to your CPA, and see if he/she calls it a Surplus...
He used Social Security as part of the General Budget, which no President before or since has done, and called it a surplus...
Do you even know how it is figured? It's not how much you have vs. how much you owe. It is a Formula that dates back to the Ancient Greeks and Romans.
Study a little next time please...Please???
2007-06-09 12:20:28 · answer #9 · answered by Ken C 6 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Ok he only had a surplus in the budget, not in the national debt.
2007-06-09 12:29:33 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋