By the way, the Clinton white house reduced the federal deficit by 10%.
2007-11-28 02:36:59 · 11 answers · asked by alphabetsoup2 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Please refer to the government sites for which this information is readily and easily obtained. Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms
2007-11-28 02:42:56 · update #1
Tip, no offecnse, but I love it when Republicans sound so right minded and really have no understanding of the issue at hand.
Clinton had a surplus BUDGET to which he reduced the federal DEFICIT.
The war on terror has little financial impact on the budget, very little.
2007-11-28 02:49:55 · update #2
I like these stats and would like to know more, if you would be so kind as to reveal your source, that'd be great. mmmmk
2007-11-28 02:40:46 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
wait let me get this streight Reagen increased it by 12.6% and Bush Sr. increased it by 15.1% that equals 27.7% Clinton reduced it by 10% that leaves us with a 17.7% deficit.... that means every Dem who says that Clinton left Bush with a surplus is a bold face liar..... Am I missing something or do the Dems have some explaining to do?
Oh and to answer your question Reagen was busy beating the Soviet Union, Bush Sr. Liberated the Kuwati people, and Bush Jr. is fighting a war on terror. Clinton was dragged into the Balkans by Nato and let al-Quida attack us 3 times.
2007-11-28 10:44:35 · answer #2 · answered by Tip 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Clinton did no such thing. Clinton worked with Congress to reduce the annual budget with an actual budgetary surplus (if you include the SSN money) the last couple of years, but the federal deficit still increased every year he was in office.
2007-11-28 10:42:27 · answer #3 · answered by thegubmint 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Well, the Cons started wars, so that's where all the money went. Unnecessary wars, mind you. Clinton was running this country like a successful businessman and everyone was taking advantage.
2007-11-28 10:43:29 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
The last fiscally responsible Republican was Eisenhower. The whole fiscal responsible is only plausible by Republicans line is simply a tagline, not a truth.
2007-11-28 10:40:24 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
Or Why did Regan raise the taxes by 1% for the middle class, but lower it by 40% for the ultra-rich. (those over 3.2 million/year)
2007-11-28 10:41:06 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Never trust a Republican to be responsible with the American people's money.
2007-11-28 10:45:13 · answer #7 · answered by Zardoz 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because of Clinton`s 10 %
2007-11-28 10:40:31 · answer #8 · answered by charlie s 5 · 0⤊ 4⤋
Wasteful military spending.
2007-11-29 08:37:38 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's what the modern day Republican does: it's called borrow and spend.
2007-11-28 10:43:08 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋