Newt Gingrich: Whopper Machine

[Oddball]

I heard that douchebag on the radio today claiming that he was responsible for four years of balanced budgets, surpluses and spending cuts.

1) C'mon 'pubs how many times have you had to drum it into heads of the Clintoon zombies that there never was a balanced budget IRL, and that it was only projected to come into balance in 2002, based upon the 1998 agreement?...Now this is supposed to count as "four years of balanced budgets"?

2) No balanced budgets, no surpluses...Equally mythical...Total lie.

3) How many times during the 1995 budget battle did we hear the Wizard of Whoppers go around mewling, sniveling, whinin'-n-cryin' about how the democratics and the media were lying about calling reductions in baseline increases in the budget "spending cuts"?....The budget in '95 was bigger than '94...The budget in '95 was bigger than '96....the budget in '97 was bigger than '96....Now he's responsible for four years of spending cuts?

 

[Toro]

I don't know about the spending cuts, but we did have balanced budgets and surpluses for four years. And Newt deserves some credit for it.

 

[Oddball]

We did not....The balance was only projected to occur in 2002.

http://www.ehow.com/info_8040528_balanced-budget-act-1997.html

 

[Toro]

Page 21.

www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/pdf/hist.pdf

We ran surpluses in fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001.

Fiscal years start in October of the prior calendar year.

 

[g5000]

Newt Gingrich is claiming credit for balancing the budget in the 1990s. But a surplus occurred mostly because of the end of the Cold War (which allowed for big defense reductions) and the tax increases of 1990 and 1993. One area where the House could have had an impact was nondefense discretionary spending. And indeed, the Gingrich-led Republicans made cuts in this area for the fiscal 1996 budget. But in his last year as speaker, Gingrich negotiated a fiscal 1999 budget that gave up all these cuts and left nondefense discretionary spending higher than it was when he came in.

Outlays for nondefense discretionary spending (billions of constant 2005 dollars):

1994-350.6
1995-351.8
1996-335.9
1997-340.5
1998-348.0
1999-359.0

On October 20, 1998, he gave a remarkable floor speech that criticized Republicans who opposed the deal.

Bessette Pitney Text: Gingrich, Spending, and the "Perfectionist Caucus"

 

[Psychoblues]

Saturday night as the SC primary results were coming in my county Democratic Party Executive Committee as well as the committees from 2 surrounding counties called an impromptu party and the whiskey flowed till early AM!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I can taste the victory in November!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I don't know about the spending cuts, but we did have balanced budgets and surpluses for four years. And Newt deserves some credit for it.

No, no we didn't Beavis.

 

[Oddball]

Page 21.

www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/pdf/hist.pdf

We ran surpluses in fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001.

Fiscal years start in October of the prior calendar year.

Fraudulent shell game accounting....Not surprising, coming from two of the biggest frauds on Earth trying to take the credit for it.

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

 

[g5000]

This essay appears in the Nov. 13, 2000, issue of Forbes magazine:

Consider: Over the past three years the Republican-controlled Congress has approved discretionary spending that exceeded Bill Clinton's requests by more than $30 billion. The party that in 1994 would abolish the Department of Education now brags in response to Clinton's 2000 State of the Union Address that it is outspending the White House when it comes to education. My colleagues Stephen Moore and Stephen Slivinski found that the combined budgets of the 95 major programs that the Contract with America promised to eliminate have increased by 13%. Republican congressional candidates are frightened to be associated with George W. Bush's sensible proposal to allow Americans to invest a portion of their Social Security taxes in real assets.

What's going on? Clearly, a large part of the problem is leadership. Following the GOP victory in 1994, Newt Gingrich resembled no one more than Robert Redford in The Candidate. What do we do now? For all of his talent in generating the "revolution," Newt was never the conservative ideologue the media painted him to be.

On My Mind: GOP Pussycats | Edward H. Crane | Cato Institute: Daily Commentary

 

[Avatar4321]

This essay appears in the Nov. 13, 2000, issue of Forbes magazine:

Consider: Over the past three years the Republican-controlled Congress has approved discretionary spending that exceeded Bill Clinton's requests by more than $30 billion. The party that in 1994 would abolish the Department of Education now brags in response to Clinton's 2000 State of the Union Address that it is outspending the White House when it comes to education. My colleagues Stephen Moore and Stephen Slivinski found that the combined budgets of the 95 major programs that the Contract with America promised to eliminate have increased by 13%. Republican congressional candidates are frightened to be associated with George W. Bush's sensible proposal to allow Americans to invest a portion of their Social Security taxes in real assets.

What's going on? Clearly, a large part of the problem is leadership. Following the GOP victory in 1994, Newt Gingrich resembled no one more than Robert Redford in The Candidate. What do we do now? For all of his talent in generating the "revolution," Newt was never the conservative ideologue the media painted him to be.

On My Mind: GOP Pussycats | Edward H. Crane | Cato Institute: Daily Commentary

The problem is that the progressive cancer can kill a man's soul very quickly.

 

[EriktheRed]

This essay appears in the Nov. 13, 2000, issue of Forbes magazine:

Consider: Over the past three years the Republican-controlled Congress has approved discretionary spending that exceeded Bill Clinton's requests by more than $30 billion. The party that in 1994 would abolish the Department of Education now brags in response to Clinton's 2000 State of the Union Address that it is outspending the White House when it comes to education. My colleagues Stephen Moore and Stephen Slivinski found that the combined budgets of the 95 major programs that the Contract with America promised to eliminate have increased by 13%. Republican congressional candidates are frightened to be associated with George W. Bush's sensible proposal to allow Americans to invest a portion of their Social Security taxes in real assets.

What's going on? Clearly, a large part of the problem is leadership. Following the GOP victory in 1994, Newt Gingrich resembled no one more than Robert Redford in The Candidate. What do we do now? For all of his talent in generating the "revolution," Newt was never the conservative ideologue the media painted him to be.

On My Mind: GOP Pussycats | Edward H. Crane | Cato Institute: Daily Commentary

The problem is that the progressive cancer can kill a man's soul very quickly.

Gingrich had a soul to begin with???

 

[Luddly Neddite]

To be fair, Mittens lies just about every time he opens his mouth. And Santorum told a whopper today.

 

[Avatar4321]

This essay appears in the Nov. 13, 2000, issue of Forbes magazine:


On My Mind: GOP Pussycats | Edward H. Crane | Cato Institute: Daily Commentary

The problem is that the progressive cancer can kill a man's soul very quickly.

Gingrich had a soul to begin with???

Everyone has a soul to begin with.

 

[Avatar4321]

To be fair, Mittens lies just about every time he opens his mouth. And Santorum told a whopper today.

Opposing progressives doesnt make one a liar.

 

[Psychoblues]

To be fair, Mittens lies just about every time he opens his mouth. And Santorum told a whopper today.

Opposing progressives doesnt make one a liar.

But opposition for the sake of opposition does make one a rather disgruntled fool. And most of the time, yes it does make one a liar.

 

[Chris]

I thought this thread was about Newt eating at Burger King.

 

[Synthaholic]

I thought this thread was about Newt eating at Burger King.

And I am completely shocked that Oddball isn't a huge Newt fan.

 

[edthecynic]

I heard that douchebag on the radio today claiming that he was responsible for four years of balanced budgets, surpluses and spending cuts.

1) C'mon 'pubs how many times have you had to drum it into heads of the Clintoon zombies that there never was a balanced budget IRL, and that it was only projected to come into balance in 2002, based upon the 1998 agreement?...Now this is supposed to count as "four years of balanced budgets"?

2) No balanced budgets, no surpluses...Equally mythical...Total lie.

3) How many times during the 1995 budget battle did we hear the Wizard of Whoppers go around mewling, sniveling, whinin'-n-cryin' about how the democratics and the media were lying about calling reductions in baseline increases in the budget "spending cuts"?....The budget in '95 was bigger than '94...The budget in '95 was bigger than '96....the budget in '97 was bigger than '96....Now he's responsible for four years of spending cuts?

Snooty Newtie's super PAC, Winning Our Future, goes even farther claiming he paid down the national debt by $400 billion!!

 

[candycorn]

When I saw the words "Whopper Machine", I got excited. Now that I read the thread, not so much. Thanks for nothing.

W. J. Clinton

 

[Toro]

Page 21.

www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/pdf/hist.pdf

We ran surpluses in fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001.

Fiscal years start in October of the prior calendar year.

Fraudulent shell game accounting....Not surprising, coming from two of the biggest frauds on Earth trying to take the credit for it.

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

This blog post about accounting written by a software engineer has already been debunked.

Maybe we should ask an accountant his opinion on Google's software code. It would be about as valid.