English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm
You might notice that it takes a nosedive under the two Bush presidents (especially the second Bush), but when Clinton was in office it was actually a budget surplus.
Also take note of the source at the bottom of the chart : Congressional Budget Office.

2007-11-23 11:41:47 · 11 answers · asked by ? 6 in Politics & Government Politics

LOL We are getting classic examples of neo conservative spin here in response to the chart.

2007-11-23 11:55:02 · update #1

11 answers

Here is some more interesting information.

From the site link

"Only during the last two years of the Reagan administration was the Congress completely controlled by Democrats, and the records show that the growth of the debt slowed during this period. It appears that the frequently referenced Reagan’s Conservative mythology is contrary to the truth, he was an award winning, record setting liberal spender."

Here is another nice quote

"Mr. Clinton took a more progressive approach and, as Roosevelt had done, turned the Hoover model upside down. Instead of making the rich richer in the hope that they would spend that money and thus create demand and therefore jobs, he created a tax environment that encouraged the creation of jobs directly. It was an economic environment where everyone could get rich, not just a few, and it worked. Lots of jobs and lots of new millionaires were created while Clinton was in office. More new millionaires were created during the Clinton administration than at any other time in our history."

2007-11-23 12:13:16 · answer #1 · answered by poet1b 4 · 4 2

It shows that after Bush has cut his spending a little, and important infrastructure budgets, he has almost reduced it to Reagan's Cold War budget.

2007-11-23 11:50:31 · answer #2 · answered by avail_skillz 7 · 1 2

Clinton borrowed to get rid of the deficit, check out the debt under him, you'll see.
A surplus of borrowed debt is not a real surplus.

2007-11-23 12:29:56 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

I can hardly wait for the excuses by the right on this one. The chart tells it all but somehow they will try and twist it around and make up tales, stories and lies to attempt to discredit the data.

2007-11-23 11:51:44 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 6 1

That's just horrible. The American people should be outraged beyond words.

2007-11-23 12:14:10 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

Oh really we had a budget surplus under Clinton? (which simply means he overtaxed and did not spend it appropriately) That is only like the 12millionth time I've heard that. Nice job on digging that little known fact up. Whatta got a team of monkeys working round the clock on this?

2007-11-23 11:49:58 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 7

It shows what everyone knows about neo-cons. Their ability to borrow and spend is unmatched.

2007-11-23 11:45:30 · answer #7 · answered by Chi Guy 5 · 9 1

I think it displays quite clearly that Republican administrations lead towards insolvency.

2007-11-23 11:48:09 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 6 2

since the 2nd Bush inherited a recession from Bill Clinton, plus 9/11 ... you'd kinda expect that, wouldn't you?

***
if you get a job as manager of a large store, and two weeks later the night manager is arrested for thieving merchandise, is that your fault? should you be fired for the actions of someone you didn't even hire?

***
8-)

2007-11-23 11:48:25 · answer #9 · answered by Spock (rhp) 7 · 2 8

Your point. Clinton didn't have to fund a rebuilding of the military, a worldwide growing economy, higher gas prcies, etc.

2007-11-23 11:48:40 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 8

fedest.com, questions and answers